NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote now

I have to say that this is the best thing that I've seen all day...

I have to say that this is the best thing that I've seen all day...

I whole-heartedly agree. Yay!

Hail to the bitch oh my god she is a baron, hail to the fucker may she burn in hell all day YOU BASTARD!

theres been alot worse then thatcher trust me, and she did do a lot for the country at least

Is it Troll or I Can't Believe It's Not Troll?

I just can't tell the difference

theres been alot worse then thatcher trust me, and she did do a lot for the country at least

YEs she did.

I know... i'll fuck up the lower classes :D

No. Just because she did a LOT doesnt mean its good.

YEs she did.

I know... i'll fuck up the lower classes :D

No. Just because she did a LOT doesnt mean its good.

THAT's what I say in every debate I have with my Business Studies teacher :p

she saved the UK from their corrupt, inefficient, unionism.


weren't for here they'd be Bangladesh

*prepares to dance on thatcher's grave*

she saved the UK from their corrupt, inefficient, unionism.


weren't for here they'd be Bangladesh

Good sir, because you are a NOob i wont eat your liver for such a stupid comment.

*prepares to dance on thatcher's grave*
*rubs his hands together*
It can't be too long now...
*Manical laughter*
Seriously though, if Thatcher did do anything good, it was heavily outweighed by the things she did to really screw up most people in the UK

The worst British PM ever? No contest: Neville Chamberlain.

Bit harsh. You should at least allow some choice...

The fact that New Labour has adopted, or at least accepted and not reversed, most of Thatcher's policies is evidence she wasn't all bad. She changed the rules by which the game is now played.

Her many failings count against her. However she was not the worst.

If I could vote I'd say...hmmm. Possibly Lord North. Cos I don't know what he did.

The worst British PM ever? No contest: Neville Chamberlain.

I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, what could compare with Munich?

Hold on, Blair's the current PM, right? Where's he on the poll?

The worst British PM ever? No contest: Neville Chamberlain.


Absolutly that moron let Hitler and the Nazis take over Germany and if Britain had him in office during WWII we'd probably all be speaking german right now

Bit harsh. You should at least allow some choice...

The fact that New Labour has adopted, or at least accepted and not reversed, most of Thatcher's policies is evidence she wasn't all bad. She changed the rules by which the game is now played.

Her many failings count against her. However she was not the worst.

If I could vote I'd say...hmmm. Possibly Lord North. Cos I don't know what he did.
Great logic. Because Thatcher fucked up and Labour repeats the fuck-ups it must have been good?:confused:

Wouldn't been better if you'd made all the Thatcher entries a different nickname.

Perhaps the following: Blair
Atlee
Major (contrived to ruin the Tory party for the best part of a decade)

Wouldn't been better if you'd made all the Thatcher entries a different nickname.
That would involve most of the profanities in the English language though...also it would have blinded small children.

I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, what could compare with Munich?

The Falklands.

Apparently.

im going to go with chamberlin as well on this one. The real question is who is the best

The Falklands.

Apparently.

What was so bad about the Falklands?

Chamberlain hands down.

Effing Idiot.

*rubs his hands together*
It can't be too long now...
*Manical laughter*
Seriously though, if Thatcher did do anything good, it was heavily outweighed by the things she did to really screw up most people in the UK
well she did do some good, you have to admit that... but yes, the weight of her actions points toward the evil end of the scale...

Great logic. Because Thatcher fucked up and Labour repeats the fuck-ups it must have been good?

That's not what I said. The fact that, in the eyes of the people, to become electable, Labour had to accept Thatcherite reforms, means that most people considered in the mid-90's that major parts of Thatcherism had been a success.

In the same way, most people now evidently consider much of New Labour's policy to have been a success, and so the Tories are having to adopt it to finally become a credible opposition. Same process. Proves Thatcher did a lot of good, proves Blair has done a lot right; in the eyes of the people. And this being a democracy, their opinion is what matters.

That's not what I said. The fact that, in the eyes of the people, to become electable, Labour had to accept Thatcherite reforms, means that most people considered in the mid-90's that major parts of Thatcherism had been a success.

In the same way, most people now evidently consider much of New Labour's policy to have been a success, and so the Tories are having to adopt it to finally become a credible opposition. Same process. Proves Thatcher did a lot of good, proves Blair has done a lot right; in the eyes of the people. And this being a democracy, their opinion is what matters.

No. It engenders demagoguery, not democracy.

Absolutly that moron let Hitler and the Nazis take over Germany and if Britain had him in office during WWII we'd probably all be speaking german right now

Urr...Chamberlain wasn't PM when Hitler was democratically elected in 1933. The PM's before Chamberlain (Ramsey MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin) should have done something to stop Hitler, like tell him to get the heck outta the Rhineland.

However, in critisism of Chamberlain, he should have damned well sent troops to Czechoslovakia, and got the French to support us, instead of let Hitler take it.

If I could vote I'd say...hmmm. Possibly Lord North. Cos I don't know what he did.

Oh, not much. He only presided over the loss of most of Britain's North American colonies.

Even the official 10 Downing Street web site's hard pressed to say anything good about his 12 years in office - he only seems to have lasted that long because George III liked him. And that was before George went insane.

That official Downing Street description in full:

Disastrous PM

Best known as the man who lost Britain's American colonies, Lord North served for a disastrous twelve years as prime minister.

A hard-working and sound administrator, North had served in the governments of Newcastle and Chatham, rising to the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer.

He was fiercely loyal to King George III, who liked his moderate policies and used him to lead the party of royal allies he had nurtured in the Commons.

Against North's own inclinations, the King persuaded him to form a government in 1770.

North's time as prime minister was dominated by ongoing problems in the American colonies, now reaching boiling point.

He appreciated that the real issue at stake was not just taxation but power, and led Britain into the War of Independence, with the full approval of King George III.

Tactical errors

The war turned out to be a disaster. North made tactical errors that led to heavy British losses, including the defeats at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781.

He pleaded in vain with George III to allow him to resign, but he was not allowed this escape route until the war was over, allowing the blame to rest firmly with him.

Things went from bad to worse at home as well as abroad. In 1780 anti-Catholic unrest known as the Gordon Riots broke out in London, with rioters agitating for the repeal of the Catholic Relief Act. North watched the riots from his home at 10 Downing Street.

He resigned in 1782 after a vote of no confidence.


But I like this:

Did you know?
Ironically, North's family home is now a school for Americans in England.

The worst British PM ever? No contest: Neville Chamberlain.
Why though?

War was going to happen whoever was in charge, he knew that, but he gave us enough time to prepare for it. Even if he was a bit naive, to do anything other than he did would have been silly, Britain simply wouldn't have been able to fight.

Not to mention that he was hugely important in beating the path for the post-war welfare state.

Come now, what's making you go this rant? There are plenty of British Prime Ministers that can be critised. Perhaps the only two who have a rather clean sheet since Chamberlain are Macmillian and Wilson. Chamberlain was an apologist. Churchill was a racist, sexist warmonger. Attlee was deluded about Britains post-WWII status and refused to participate in the European Project. Heath presided over Bloody Sunday (perhaps I'm being a little too harsh on Heath). Callaghan - Winter of Discontent. Thatcher - I don't think I need to explain her faults here. Major was weak and got us booted out of the ERM on Black Wednesday. And Blair has engaged in two unilateral wars, persisted in PPP and PPI and introduced top-up fees.

Would you still like to see the vast majority of population still working in factories and mines? Would you like to see astronomical asthma rates due to the UK never switching away from coal? Would you like to have seen more winters of discontent? Would you like to see the UK paying through the nose for its membership of the EU? Thatcher got a lot of things wrong, but there were certainly positive aspects to her time in office.

someone's a liberal

thatcher = good

thatcher = the very reason why the British economy started up again

Blair...need I say more

someone's a liberal

thatcher = good

thatcher = the very reason why the British economy started up againOr the fact that oil prices were beginning to come down again after they had increased 8-fold in the last decade from $5 a barrel to $40.

A liberal would be supporting Thatcher. An economic liberal that is. Or were you using the American form of liberal = generic left wing, mildly insulting?

Nice to know I made a good pick with Lord North. Whatever you think about the result of losing the American War, it wasn't good for Britain in the (then) foreseeable future.

Churchill was a racist, sexist warmonger.

Color me uninformed, how was he a warmonger?

Attlee was deluded about Britains post-WWII status and refused to participate in the European Project.

Some would argue that's a good thing.

What was so bad about the Falklands?

my point exactly

Nah. If Britain had been in on the ground in Europe, rather than being caught in nostalgia for empire, Europe could have been far more to our taste...

YEs she did.

I know... i'll fuck up the lower classes :D

No. Just because she did a LOT doesnt mean its good.

Well it depends on your perspective

The trade unions did need breaking. The welfare state was becoming a massive burden. Britian had now seen what it was like at both ends of the spectrum. Which lead to the new deal iniative of the Labour party.

Whoever said Chaimberlain, please note that if he hadn't got us that extra year, we would have lost the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire would barely have been present at all, the Hurricane in too few numbers, we'd have been fighting Me 109's with Gladiators.

The term 'massacre' comes to mind.

Yes, Hitler took the Rhineland with a collossal bluff. Unfortunately, by the nature of his gamble we couldn't know the situation so we chose to sit it out. In hindsight a poor choice, then it was prudent, precipitating war then (which then looked like an option) would have been to set out at a disadvantage.

I'd have to say the worst British PM, would be Neville Chamberlain, with Lord Chatham coming in second.

Well, as the conversation moves away from an anti-Thatcher rant, I choose this time to go with plan B - Sleep.
Later people.

she saved the UK from their corrupt, inefficient, unionism.


weren't for here they'd be Bangladesh

Yes.

The most articulate justification of Thatcher so far.

Moniterism ruined the economy, even with the bonus of oil money. Things only improved marginally when she gave up on it. Blaming the unions only happened after her economic reforms failed and high levels of unemployment left the unions vulnerable. She could choose a weakened target to pick a fight with, having the benefit of a sycophantic press.

"The worst British PM ever? No contest: Neville Chamberlain."
It is a contest. He built up Britains armed forces. He was overly reluctant to go to war, but let us not forget that the desicion was almost suicidal. It was teh right thing to do, but let us not forget that good judgement would have erred against. Stay out and hope things work out in the future or fight mow and fall under Nazi oppression: Britain to it's credit chose the latter, but do not condemn a man who did not find it an easy choice. It was he who declared war on Germany.

One view. Better supported than the one you just demolished. But then again, that was so poorly put that using it as an opponent is almost straw-man esque.

Chamberlain had a very difficult position. True. I happen to think it could have been better handled, but I recognise that is personal opinion. I certainly don't revile the man. I wouldn't want to be in his position.

Color me uninformed, how was he a warmonger?"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat" As witnessed by his second term in office and use of direct military action.

I couldn't find the quote where Churchill voiced his own doubts about leading the country in a time of peace.Some would argue that's a good thing.Not me. If the UK had gotten involved earlier then the CAP would have been radically different or may not have even come to be.

One view. Better supported than the one you just demolished. But then again, that was so poorly put that using it as an opponent is almost straw-man esque.

Chamberlain had a very difficult position. True. I happen to think it could have been better handled, but I recognise that is personal opinion. I certainly don't revile the man. I wouldn't want to be in his position.

Yes, that is a fair point. It was the first proponent of that view I came across which is why I picked on it. I am aware it is the view of some people more intellegent than me.

Ah, don't let that get in the way! There are intelligent people on both sides of every argument. Well....most, at least.
Kudos for the self deprecation. I happen to disagree with you over Thatcher, but a lot of people I respect would agree with you there.

Churchill wasn't a warmonger. He was a warrior. Hence he was not the right man to lead the country in time of peace; and he had spent his entire life, or nearly, involved with war in one capacity or another. But I think he would have preferred to be wrong about Germany, and there to have been no war, than to have had to lead Britain in a fight for survival. JMHO.
And sorry "use of direct military action". Call it what it is, we're not politicians here (I hope :p). And I assume you mean the Korean War. The U.N. mandated protection of a nation from conquest.

Whoever said Chaimberlain, please note that if he hadn't got us that extra year, we would have lost the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire would barely have been present at all, the Hurricane in too few numbers, we'd have been fighting Me 109's with Gladiators.

The term 'massacre' comes to mind.

Yes, Hitler took the Rhineland with a collossal bluff. Unfortunately, by the nature of his gamble we couldn't know the situation so we chose to sit it out. In hindsight a poor choice, then it was prudent, precipitating war then (which then looked like an option) would have been to set out at a disadvantage.Neither sides were particularly ready. Why do you think Hitler signed a non-agression pact with Stalin before invading Poland?

The Soviets could have possibly been encouraged to participate in a war with Germany over the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Besides, one more year of building the British army, was one more year of the Nazis building their army.

And sorry "use of direct military action". Call it what it is, we're not politicians here (I hope :p). And I assume you mean the Korean War. The U.N. mandated protection of a nation from conquest.I was refering to the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya in 1951 and thee Malayan Emergency which Churchill inherited. And then there's operation Ajax in which the US and UK toppled Iran's democratically elected government.

I believe that Neville Chamberlin was the worst to date. Of course, no leader is perfect, especially no national leader. He crossed the line, however, when he simply allowed World War II to happen. Appeasement was the cause of a lot of innocent lives being lost. He was a coward and should be remembered as such. I feel that any good he did domestically will forever be tainted by his weak foreign policy.

Sincerely,

The Red Shinobi
of The Democratic Union

He crossed the line, however, when he simply allowed World War II to happen.
It would have happened whoever was in charge after 1937.

The time to nip WW2 in the bud was Versailles or, failing that, 1933-35.

Neville Chamberlain, quite admittingly, could not have prevented World War II.

However, had they confronted Germany BEFORE he had conquered France, put up an actual FIGHT, there would have been no Battle of Britain to lose.

Though, admittingly, he could not have prevented war, could not have done much. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I place the blame for the war on Woodrow Wilson and the others at Versailles.

Woodrow Wilson - because he wanted a bunch of republics throughout Europe in nations where majority wished for constitutional monarchy (in Germany, would have possibly prevented Nazi takeover, with Wilhelm II still in as Emperor, he would never have appointed that common Austrian paper-hanging upstart to be Chancellor)

Everyone else - for punishing Germany so much.[/rant]

But still - Chamberlain. North comes in a close second.

I believe that Neville Chamberlin was the worst to date. Of course, no leader is perfect, especially no national leader. He crossed the line, however, when he simply allowed World War II to happen. Appeasement was the cause of a lot of innocent lives being lost. He was a coward and should be remembered as such. I feel that any good he did domestically will forever be tainted by his weak foreign policy.

Sincerely,

The Red Shinobi
of The Democratic Union

Chamberlains mistake was being too desperate to avoid war. Loving peace does not make you a coward, and failing to prevent a lunatic from starting a war doesnt make him the worst leader ever. Hes like poor old Jimmy Carter, Historys greatest monster.

Actually you can Blame Vesilles for WW2, somehow they managed to create the exact blance between tough enough to make the Gemrans hate it as a evil Dictat and not strong enough to prevent Germany doing anything about it.

as Churchill said ther war might of been averted if they had left the Hohenzollern and Hapsburgs in charge or could of been a misquote i heard

could always blame the French and Belgians they wanted more reprerations then the the rest of the Allies , and also if they had ordered Trops in Rhineland Ocuppied Zone ot fire uon the German forces as they entered then it might of made Hitler call his bluff .

I suppose the Worst PM is toss up between Lord North or Lord Bute

Thatcher single handedly created punk rock - so I thank her for that.

Cheers!

Thats bollocks

Punk started way before Thatcher

Churchill was a racist, sexist warmonger.


You say it like its a bad thing. Seriously though, Thatcher = PURE EVIL.

Chamberlain is still getting a raw deal, I see. Sixty years after the event, Chamberlain still gets 'The Guilty Men' treatment. The man truly and faithfully believed that appeasement was the correct thing to do, to save lives and prevent a war like the Great War, only one in which millions more died. There is the famous story of his plane going over London and of Chamberlain imagining the bombs falling on it. He tried to defend his country - perhaps not in the best way, but he did what he believed was right.

To those who slated Chamberlain - did you know that when it became apparant that Hitler could not be appeased, it was Chamberlain's actions that rallied the bulk of the Conservative Party behind Churchill's National Government - that without his selfless actions said government never would have been formed? The man saw the error of his misguided but hopeful ways and tried to rectify them as best he could.

Harold Wilson and Tony Blair, insipid little men....

Chamberlin was just PM thirty years too late. Maggie T isn't very nice, but at least she has balls!

I think the main problem is that no matter how bad/good you think she did, you have to admit there are few other PMs that inspire so much hate in people. Chamberlain is seen as weak, stupid or niave etc, but not hated. Personally can think of anyone that matches in that way with Mrs T. I hate her and everyone I knew hated her (except my conservative voting grandfather).

Vote now


If you hate Thatcher so much, why have you allowed her to split her vote?

Predicatably, 'other' is out in front - if you'd given us 10 different PMs, Thatcher would probably have still been voted the worst.

Churchill was a racist, sexist warmonger.

Pertinent to racism and sexism, I sincerely doubt he was any more so than his political contemporaries, and one cannot apply modern morals to a now distinctly absent moral and social presupposition.

Moreover, warmonger is a tad vehement. He was a nationalist, willing to endure any conflict for Britain, and accordingly willing to advocate such conflicts. Indeed, who has heindsight proved to be correct, Churchill or Chamberlain?

Thatcher

-strong longterm leadership
-Got in close with America
-She came into power with a shattered economy and quickly took inflation down from 21% (in 1979) to 4% by 1983.
-She held strong against the miner’s strikes in 1983/84 and by having coal reserves before hand she crushed the strikes and halted pretty much future strikes that halted progress when labour were in
- Her policy to privatise many industries and encouraging investors with low taxes and lassie faire economics created the perfect atmosphere for the stock market to boom in the 80’s and modernised the British economy.
-Falkland crisis showed the world Britain would defend its empire even on the world
-tough negotiations gained us 800 million a year off the rebate undoing as much of the rubbish deal we got when joining the EEC

Labour period

-stagnant growth, high inflation and industry falling behind competitors in a global scale.
-Businesses became bankrupt while unemployment rose over a million.
-“strikes became the British disease”.
- Abrab oil price tax, Rebate and EEC fund was hidiously nasty to Britain yet after relations with the US were bad Britain joined the EEC for whatever deal it could get.


yeah suuuuuure Thatcher messed up Britain :(

You had problems if you died in the winter of 1978-9. You could not be buried because the Council undertakers were on strike. You could not be left in the hospital mortuaries because they were overflowing. You could not be left in a freezer cos the utility workers were on strike. You could not be left in the street cos the binmen were on strike.

Callaghan had the worst record as PM in the 20th century. But he was dealt a bum hand by successive ineffective governments. Heath was a lot worse - he u-turned on most crucial policies and when going to the country on the basis of "who governs Britain?" the main choice was "er, not you".

Wouldn't that poll be great in Tate Modern?

I was refering to the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya in 1951 and thee Malayan Emergency which Churchill inherited. And then there's operation Ajax in which the US and UK toppled Iran's democratically elected government.

Oh, ok. Fair shout. Mau Mau was dirty, and possibly unecessary (I've never really studied it).
The Malayan emergency was something very different though, and for the long term good of Malaysia. ISTR it was protecting an independent government against a Communist insurgency, and in that it was succesful.
Operation Ajax I admit ignorance.

Blair.

Thatcher rules! Kill those greasy Argies! ;)

And....ummm.. yeah - what Bsbs said.

Oh, ok. Fair shout. Mau Mau was dirty, and possibly unecessary (I've never really studied it).
The Malayan emergency was something very different though, and for the long term good of Malaysia. ISTR it was protecting an independent government against a Communist insurgency, and in that it was succesful.
Operation Ajax I admit ignorance.My basic point was that Churchill tended to quickly resort to diplomacy at the end of a point. Perhaps warmonger is too strong a word, but I'm still a little peeved that Churchill was voted the Greatest Britain on the BBC show. Churchill did a good things for Britain, but he certainly wasn't the greatest. Stupid British public.

One rule for Churchill, and another for Saddam.

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." - Churchill

My basic point was that Churchill tended to quickly resort to diplomacy at the end of a point. Perhaps warmonger is too strong a word, but I'm still a little peeved that Churchill was voted the Greatest Britain on the BBC show. Churchill did a good things for Britain, but he certainly wasn't the greatest. Stupid British public.

One rule for Churchill, and another for Saddam.

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." - Churchill

Churchill is the most famous British political figure, and he did a lot for Britain in the war. Even now the majority of the public see him as the one brave man who stood up to Hitler and led Britain to victory, and that myth, one that has yet to dim or even be broken in any significant way, clouds over his other less savoury aspects. He's a public hero, and I don't think that'll ever change.

Are you arguing for, or against Churchill? :confused:

Who was the greatest then? In your view? Just out of interest...

Yes, because Thatcher is the seed of all evil :rolleyes:

...hardly. :)

Blair, in my view.

I would have voted for Thatcher, but I couldn´t find her

Thatcher

-strong longterm leadership
-Got in close with America
-She came into power with a shattered economy and quickly took inflation down from 21% (in 1979) to 4% by 1983.
-She held strong against the miner’s strikes in 1983/84 and by having coal reserves before hand she crushed the strikes and halted pretty much future strikes that halted progress when labour were in
- Her policy to privatise many industries and encouraging investors with low taxes and lassie faire economics created the perfect atmosphere for the stock market to boom in the 80’s and modernised the British economy.
-Falkland crisis showed the world Britain would defend its empire even on the world
-tough negotiations gained us 800 million a year off the rebate undoing as much of the rubbish deal we got when joining the EEC


Strong leadership? Great, if it was also good. Unfortunately it was not good.

Got in with America? It amazes me that people who claim to be patriotic and fear giving up pwers to Brussells will give up independence to the USA. It is not anti-USA, I am pleased to say I hope the USA would have more balls in our situation.


Inflation: Would you be so kind as to take the point at which she took control, and consider the way it was going? Possibly also consider the end of the oil crisis or the high point under the Thatcher period.

"She held strong against the miner’s strikes in 1983/84 and by having coal reserves before hand she crushed the strikes and halted pretty much future strikes": Brill, she destroyed the mining industry in a petulent show of force, with only utterly ilegal measures, illegal siezing of property, appalling levels of abusive policing that embitter police relations to this day, and relying on a sycophantic press narrowly won a conflict she herself provoked. Hooray!

"Her policy to privatise many industries and encouraging investors with low taxes and lassie faire economics created the perfect atmosphere for the stock market to boom in the 80’s and modernised the British economy." Yes; "in the 80's", which saw widepread depravation through much of the country and even in the good bits it ended in tears. The two worst recessions in post-war British history, first wiping out the manufacturing base in the North of England, Scotland and Wales and the second hitting the affluent south.

"Falkland crisis showed the world Britain would defend its empire even on the world"; Here was me thinking to was a politicial arrangement that peace suited neither the unpopular Thatcher or Galtieri. She wanted a war and she got it, with the same high handed arrogance of Galtieri.

"tough negotiations gained us 800 million a year off the rebate undoing as much of the rubbish deal we got when joining the EEC"; That would be about the cost of entering the ERM at an inflated price for the sake of pride above economics.


Labour period

-stagnant growth, high inflation and industry falling behind competitors in a global scale.
-Businesses became bankrupt while unemployment rose over a million.
-“strikes became the British disease”.
- Abrab oil price tax, Rebate and EEC fund was hidiously nasty to Britain yet after relations with the US were bad Britain joined the EEC for whatever deal it could get.


yeah suuuuuure Thatcher messed up Britain :(

Unemplyment over a million? As opposed to over four million under Thatcher, even allowing her her blatant fiddling of the figures? We entered further into the EU under Thatcher and the economy was in chaos with booms (for some) and busts (eventually for all). Her legacy is still coloured by the press who would not tolorate critisism of her Goverment.

Labour were in a state, tearing themselves apart with the SDP and splinters. Their mess is also to blame for what happened to Britain. Thankfully things are getting better. The NHS and schools are still recovering after the infastructure was allowed to slowly crumble.

We are also having to import coal.

Who was the greatest then? In your view? Just out of interest...Mine? I don't know really. I don't really know anything about PMs predating Chamberlain, expect for Lord Chatham and Pitt the younger. I've not really found anything to be critical of Pitt the Younger, but then I've never really looked.

I guess I don't really have a favourite. They all have they're strengths and weaknesses. Besides, they all presided over different periodsin Britain's history, making them even harder to compare.

Attlee brought about the welfare state, but failed to engage in Europe. Heath presided over bloody Sunday, but brought the UK into Europe. Thatcher broke the UK's reliance on coal which has done wonders for air quality and reduced our dependence on the manufacturing industry which we were becoming uncompetitive in, but I don't like the way in which she did these things. Wilson founded the Open University; liberalised laws affecting homosexuals and obscene publications; and ended capital punishment. But he was unable to do many other things and the pound had to be devalued.

Doin;t forget to say about the 'brilliant' privitsation that still ruin Britian today. it was a great idea to privatise the railways wasn't it? And hospital cleaning ( Policy her own partys against!).

And the 4 million unemployed, and ehr massive curbs on civil libertys and dessent and her evil acts against the miners. Oh and she made us import coal by killing off the miners for no good reasen except she felt like it.

Lloyd George and his Welfare State. Need I say anymore?

Thatcher wasn't a bad prime minister - and I'm not even a Tory.

Lloyd George and his Welfare State. Need I say anymore?

Thatcher wasn't a bad prime minister - and I'm not even a Tory.
To me Brityians two greatest PM's where Llyod George (The peoples buget, got us through WW1 ect. And Artille (Welfare state.)

To me Brityians two greatest PM's where Llyod George (The peoples buget, got us through WW1 ect. And Artille (Welfare state.)

Okay, that last post reflects little more than ignorance on my part - whoever the Prime Minister was (or is) that allowed the welfare state to reach its current state - where certain people can live off of it for no good reason at all. (I know it's a really broad generalization - but a lot Council Estate folk really don't need all the money they recieve.......)

Okay, that last post reflects little more than ignorance on my part - whoever the Prime Minister was (or is) that allowed the welfare state to reach its current state - where certain people can live off of it for no good reason at all. (I know it's a really broad generalization - but a lot Council Estate folk really don't need all the money they recieve.......)
But it also does a lot of good. Do we want a state like America with all it's stupidity and insurence. Yes there are some scroungers, but then you have the other side of the equation with rich people who do the sameto try and gain money. it's not just council estate people that cheat the system. Yes some people don't deserve the money, but far, far mroe do.

Are you arguing for, or against Churchill? :confused:

Hmmm? Oh, I'm an ardent pro-Churchillite, but your point about the gassing was a fair one I couldn't counter. So I tried to explain why Churchill gained that position and remains there to this day in the public perception. Now that I've been doing History at Uni for a while, the unbiased thing when doing esays and debates is creeping into my posts - I try and debate both sides and look at the evidence...yadda yadda.

The Welfare State was an excellent idea, and many of the British public wanted it. Unfortunately for Labour and more specifically Atlee, it was entirely the wrong time to try and enact such a radical plan. Post-war economic trpubles, combined with the Winter of '47 really put a dampner on anything the Welfare State could do. It did a lot of good things, but unfortunately for Atlee it was just the wrong time.

Hmmm? Oh, I'm an ardent pro-Churchillite, but your point about the gassing was a fair one I couldn't counter. So I tried to explain why Churchill gained that position and remains there to this day in the public perception. Now that I've been doing History at Uni for a while, the unbiased thing when doing esays and debates is creeping into my posts - I try and debate both sides and look at the evidence...yadda yadda.And reference your posts of course... *nods*

I've been writing some odd essays for my first year on PolSci. I wrote a research proposal on the effects of Green Eggs and Ham on some variable in UK society. I've argued that maybe Thatcher was a Keynesian and that Adam Smith was by no means a vanguard of the economic right (which was by far the easiest). He argued for state granted monopolies under certain situations and he voiced concerns about the mental mutilation that capitalism might bring about.

And reference your posts of course... *nods*

I've been writing some odd essays for my first year on PolSci. I wrote a research proposal on the effects of Green Eggs and Ham on some variable in UK society. I've argued that maybe Thatcher was a Keynesian and that Adam Smith was by no means a vanguard of the economic right (which was by far the easiest). He argued for state granted monopolies under certain situations and he voiced concerns about the mental mutilation that capitalism might bring about.

Heh, you think thats weird? Second Sci-Fi Essay. 'Write a Military History of the Star Wars Universe'


Got 70%...

Heh, you think thats weird? Second Sci-Fi Essay. 'Write a Military History of the Star Wars Universe'


Got 70%...

What kind of course lets you write essays on the military history of the Star Wars Universe? And what possible purpose does it serve(not slagging, just really seems odd)?

What kind of course lets you write essays on the military history of the Star Wars Universe? And what possible purpose does it serve(not slagging, just really seems odd)?

History of Science Fiction. Yeah...don't ask me why it's a History Course either. Still, it's fun and I learnt a lot about how Sci-Fi affected and was affected by history. I do do normal courses though:

Crusades
French Revolution
Britain and the Homefront
US History Since 1880

Sci-Fi one is just an oddity really.

History of Science Fiction. Yeah...don't ask me why it's a History Course either. Still, it's fun and I learnt a lot about how Sci-Fi affected and was affected by history. I do do normal courses though:

Crusades
French Revolution
Britain and the Homefront
US History Since 1880

Sci-Fi one is just an oddity really.
To be honest that's quite fun. I would love doing one on Middle Earth as an optional course. I suppose that would fit more under English Lit though.

I still think quoting Dr. Seuss is pretty damn cool.

Intially society has seen much resistance to green eggs and ham. A member of the public is explicit in his distaste for green eggs and ham and that they seem to provoke a negative response said member of the publicI could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not eat them in the rain.
I will not eat them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I will not eat them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them ANYWHERE!
I got marked down because my bibliography was too small. :(

To be honest that's quite fun. I would love doing one on Middle Earth as an optional course. I suppose that would fit more under English Lit though.

Yeah, guess so. Can't wait for tomorrow, I get to pick my modules for next year - hell yeah!

Britain and the Falklands Conflict
The American Revolution 1750-1800
Churchill's Army: The British Army 1939-1945
Blitzkrieg to Baghdad: A study of armoured warfare

Yeah, guess so. Can't wait for tomorrow, I get to pick my modules for next year - hell yeah!

Britain and the Falklands Conflict
The American Revolution 1750-1800
Churchill's Army: The British Army 1939-1945
Blitzkrieg to Baghdad: A study of armoured warfare

So I'll take it your into the military history side of history then?

Wish my history course included stuff like the history of science fiction. Ah well, just have to do without. Not exactly like I do badly anyway.

Hahaha, great thread Aust, the poll certainly gave me a chuckle.:D

Neville Chamberlain