New Debate/Challenge

daviesee

In light of plenty heated political debates..............

Name a Prime Minister who has done more good than harm.

I am struggling.............

notsoblue

Seems that you think that Prime Ministers rarely do any good?

PresumingEd

Easy - Clement Attlee

Clarion

Attlee's closest, but he did oversee the introduction of the atom bomb and involvement in Korea.

He did do an awful lot of very very good things, mind

Wallace1492

Churchill. Simples..... yes did plenty of harm, but the role he played in winning WWII and standing up to the Nazi's surely far outweighs this.

Clarion

That'll be pretty much Attlee too, then, as Deputy PM, standing in for when Winnie was too pissed to cope.

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

Seems that you think that Prime Ministers rarely do any good?

Correct. I would extend it further to MPs in general. Lining their pockets most of them.

Looks like we are going back 70 years as I anticipated. Not very heartening.

jds_1981

daviesee wrote:

Looks like we are going back 70 years as I anticipated. Not very heartening.

More likely due to that being about the time required for history to take a more favourable view?

Alternatively, maybe people don't want to just type "Cameron" and have this immediately turn into /another/ political debate.

notsoblue

daviesee wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Seems that you think that Prime Ministers rarely do any good?

Correct. I would extend it further to MPs in general. Lining their pockets most of them.

Looks like we are going back 70 years as I anticipated. Not very heartening.

Well politicians only get away with what we let them get away with. They're our representatives, and we vote for them. As a society we only get the representation we deserve.

rjsterry

I'd say you can put something significant in the Good column for most PMs. Whether that outweighs the achievements in the Bad column is a pretty subjective judgement. It's too easy to just write all politicians off as self-interested money grabbers, and I've never understood why MPs are expected to behave like saints when the rest of us would grab most advantages we could.

The Rookie

Flameproof suite on
Maggie

Yes, she did some bad things, but the country was in an even bigger mess in 1979 than Ireland is now (26% plus inflation for starters), 11 years later we were in a much much better state.

(Only because I was beaten to Churchill as my No1 choice)

I would also add Chamberlain, even if he was stupid to believe 'peace in our time' had we gone to war in 1937 we would have lost, simple, the 2 years he bought may have made the resulting war worse, but at least we had a chance of winning. Maybe he didn't really believe in the Munich treaty, maybe it was the act he knew that was required at the time?

Simon

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

daviesee wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Seems that you think that Prime Ministers rarely do any good?

Correct. I would extend it further to MPs in general. Lining their pockets most of them.

Looks like we are going back 70 years as I anticipated. Not very heartening.

Well politicians only get away with what we let them get away with. They're our representatives, and we vote for them. As a society we only get the representation we deserve.

True. i also believe that history lets us look back with rose tinted glasses as back in the day the mass populace pretty much did what it was told without question.

If we want to divert onto MPs, I give you one John Prescott. Went into power as a socialist and came out a multi-millionaire Lord. Principles, pah. Good of the people, pah.

Zachariah

Pitt the Younger.

spasypaddy

Maggie

tailwindhome

jds_1981 wrote:

Alternatively, maybe people don't want to just type "Cameron" and have this immediately turn into /another/ political debate.

Or he hasn't done anything yet?

You have to remember that for most PMs their time in office ends when the country has decided they no longer want their party to be in power. In other words, eventually the perceived bad outweighs the perceived good.

"Everything ends badly, or else it wouldn't end"

Bonus point if you can (or rather are willing to) name the film.

wgwarburton

Hi,
Sorry "the Beginner" & "spasypaddy" but claiming Maggie did more good than harm invites the invocation of Godwin's law...

I suspect that analysing some of the decisions that Chamberlain made less than twenty years after the end of the first world war from our perspective may do him injustice... The past is another country and all that...

In answer to the original question I think you could make a pretty good case for John Major. The harm done under his administration was largely not his doing... though his critics would no doubt argue that the good wasn't either!
His government was a disaster, but his influence was largely benign..

Cheers,
W.

Headhuunter

The Beginner wrote:

Flameproof suite on
Maggie

Yes, she did some bad things, but the country was in an even bigger mess in 1979 than Ireland is now (26% plus inflation for starters), 11 years later we were in a much much better state.

(Only because I was beaten to Churchill as my No1 choice)

I would also add Chamberlain, even if he was stupid to believe 'peace in our time' had we gone to war in 1937 we would have lost, simple, the 2 years he bought may have made the resulting war worse, but at least we had a chance of winning. Maybe he didn't really believe in the Munich treaty, maybe it was the act he knew that was required at the time?

Simon

Exactly. Maggie brought Britain's economy out of the unionised, subsidised, hopelessly inefficient mess it had become. In the late 70s Britain had to go begging, cap in hand to the IMF, strikes saw rubbish blowing through the streets and power cuts. it was like the 3rd world. On the other hand she did oversee a recession which saw interest rates in double figures and negative equity and she embarked on the biggest road building schemes ever in support of the private motor car, at the expense of public transport...

shouldbeinbed

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

notsoblue

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

Butterd2

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

-1, I don't get why we are so proud of our NHS, the French, Germans in fact the rest of Europe all have universal healthcare yet if I were to get ill I would much rather it be in one of these countries rather than the UK. Look at the facts, outcomes are far better in most other systems. The NHS was a great socialist idea but is fundamentally flawed and does not provide a good service (let alone value for money).
We have somehow managed to convince ourselves that the NHS is something brilliant that is the envy of the rest of the world but it isn't. If it were someone else would have copied us by now.
(PS my wife is an NHS consultant)

Headhuunter

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

I'm not sure the NHS is all it's cracked up to be. At the end of WW2 it was needed but now we could do much better. The NHS is an enormous bureaucratic mess and the largest public sector body outside communist China, yet healthcare in this country is faaaaar from perfect. In Germany there is a private health system and insurance is paid for by employers and the system works quickly and efficiently at less cost per individual than the NHS. The NHS has a place in this country's heart and like a mother's apron strings we cling to it, but it's time to cut those strings and reform.

notsoblue

Butterd2 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

-1, I don't get why we are so proud of our NHS, the French, Germans in fact the rest of Europe all have universal healthcare yet if I were to get ill I would much rather it be in one of these countries rather than the UK. Look at the facts, outcomes are far better in most other systems. The NHS was a great socialist idea but is fundamentally flawed and does not provide a good service (let alone value for money).
We have somehow managed to convince ourselves that the NHS is something brilliant that is the envy of the rest of the world but it isn't. If it were someone else would have copied us by now.
(PS my wife is an NHS consultant)

My opinion of the NHS is based entirely on my own experience with it. Its not perfect, but my contact with it has been nothing but positive.

Just out of interest, how do you feel the NHS is "fundamentally flawed" ?

Wallace1492

Headhuunter wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

I'm not sure the NHS is all it's cracked up to be. At the end of WW2 it was needed but now we could do much better. The NHS is an enormous bureaucratic mess and the largest public sector body outside communist China, yet healthcare in this country is faaaaar from perfect. In Germany there is a private health system and insurance is paid for by employers and the system works quickly and efficiently at less cost per individual than the NHS. The NHS has a place in this country's heart and like a mother's apron strings we cling to it, but it's time to cut those strings and reform.

I give you Indian Railways..... 1.8 million employees think that tops the NHS...
Anyway war PM's do count..... Winnie wins.

sketchley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom

--
Chris

Butterd2

notsoblue wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

-1, I don't get why we are so proud of our NHS, the French, Germans in fact the rest of Europe all have universal healthcare yet if I were to get ill I would much rather it be in one of these countries rather than the UK. Look at the facts, outcomes are far better in most other systems. The NHS was a great socialist idea but is fundamentally flawed and does not provide a good service (let alone value for money).
We have somehow managed to convince ourselves that the NHS is something brilliant that is the envy of the rest of the world but it isn't. If it were someone else would have copied us by now.
(PS my wife is an NHS consultant)

My opinion of the NHS is based entirely on my own experience with it. Its not perfect, but my contact with it has been nothing but positive.

Just out of interest, how do you feel the NHS is "fundamentally flawed" ?

The lack of competition.

The government set up the M&M commission because they recognise that monopolies are a bad thing and then they run the nations health service as a monopoly....

Butterd2

Headhuunter wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

I'm not sure the NHS is all it's cracked up to be. At the end of WW2 it was needed but now we could do much better. The NHS is an enormous bureaucratic mess and the largest public sector body outside communist China, yet healthcare in this country is faaaaar from perfect. In Germany there is a private health system and insurance is paid for by employers and the system works quickly and efficiently at less cost per individual than the NHS. The NHS has a place in this country's heart and like a mother's apron strings we cling to it, but it's time to cut those strings and reform.

Wow, what are the chances of the only 2 people in the country willing to question the NHS being on the same cycling forum?

notsoblue

Butterd2 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

-1, I don't get why we are so proud of our NHS, the French, Germans in fact the rest of Europe all have universal healthcare yet if I were to get ill I would much rather it be in one of these countries rather than the UK. Look at the facts, outcomes are far better in most other systems. The NHS was a great socialist idea but is fundamentally flawed and does not provide a good service (let alone value for money).
We have somehow managed to convince ourselves that the NHS is something brilliant that is the envy of the rest of the world but it isn't. If it were someone else would have copied us by now.
(PS my wife is an NHS consultant)

My opinion of the NHS is based entirely on my own experience with it. Its not perfect, but my contact with it has been nothing but positive.

Just out of interest, how do you feel the NHS is "fundamentally flawed" ?

The lack of competition.

The government set up the M&M commission because they recognise that monopolies are a bad thing and then they run the nations health service as a monopoly....

Er, but there are so many areas within the NHS that could never be profitable. What possible benefit could competition in this sector have for say the elderly poor?

jamesco

Butterd2 wrote:

The government set up the M&M commission because they recognise that monopolies are a bad thing and then they run the nations health service as a monopoly....

Nope, exploitation of a monopoly is generally a bad thing, but some monopolies are natural and can actually be the best option.

If we want a greater proportion of health funds spent on advertising & administration and less on actual health care, with worse outcomes for all, introducing competitive health providers would be an excellent way of doing it.

Headhuunter

notsoblue wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

-1, I don't get why we are so proud of our NHS, the French, Germans in fact the rest of Europe all have universal healthcare yet if I were to get ill I would much rather it be in one of these countries rather than the UK. Look at the facts, outcomes are far better in most other systems. The NHS was a great socialist idea but is fundamentally flawed and does not provide a good service (let alone value for money).
We have somehow managed to convince ourselves that the NHS is something brilliant that is the envy of the rest of the world but it isn't. If it were someone else would have copied us by now.
(PS my wife is an NHS consultant)

My opinion of the NHS is based entirely on my own experience with it. Its not perfect, but my contact with it has been nothing but positive.

Just out of interest, how do you feel the NHS is "fundamentally flawed" ?

Certainly frontline workers in the NHS do their best, nurses, doctors etc work hard and my experience in hospitals has been positive (although I have also spent time in a private hospital which was like comparing a 5* hotel with a 2* one) but the overall system is flawed. It's hugely expensive, bureaucratic and outdated and only exists because we can't quite bring ourselves to cut the apron strings and go private like they have in France, Germany etc where health systems work much more efficiently

Headhuunter

Butterd2 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Attlee: NHS creaking badly now and mullered by capitalist principles in the ultimate socialist environment (as in was free at the point of care whether you're a billionare or on the street - not intended as political daggers, hopefully you get what I mean) but a magnificent thing to have aspired to and overseen the inception of.

+1, actually, I can't think of anything a PM has done for this country that could top the NHS. War PMs don't count.

I'm not sure the NHS is all it's cracked up to be. At the end of WW2 it was needed but now we could do much better. The NHS is an enormous bureaucratic mess and the largest public sector body outside communist China, yet healthcare in this country is faaaaar from perfect. In Germany there is a private health system and insurance is paid for by employers and the system works quickly and efficiently at less cost per individual than the NHS. The NHS has a place in this country's heart and like a mother's apron strings we cling to it, but it's time to cut those strings and reform.

Wow, what are the chances of the only 2 people in the country willing to question the NHS being on the same cycling forum?

I'm genuinely interested on what basis you believe that the NHS is the best and most efficient way to run health services in the UK?

notsoblue

jamesco wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

The government set up the M&M commission because they recognise that monopolies are a bad thing and then they run the nations health service as a monopoly....

Nope, exploitation of a monopoly is generally a bad thing, but some monopolies are natural and can actually be the best option.

If we want a greater proportion of health funds spent on advertising & administration and less on actual health care, with worse outcomes for all, introducing competitive health providers would be an excellent way of doing it.

regardez