Best PM

robert88

The economic success of the UK in the 80s were mainly down to:

1: the new markets opened up thanks to our membership of the EC

2: North Sea oil coming ashore

Whoever was in power would have been able to capitalise on these events.

In the 90's there was the so-called Peace Dividend whereby defence spending could be cut back, the loosening up of financial regulation (Big Bang) allowing what turned out to be excessive leveraging and dotcom, the bubble that burst.

Since in the UK, the armed forces took many recruits from depressed areas and the Big Bang benefitted only SE England neither had potential for balancing prosperity in the UK without govt intervention or excessive migration north to south. The government did little and there was a lot of migration.

It's not surprising that the Brexit campaigners found it so easy to enlist support in many areas of the country even though they could only dishonestly set up the EU as the scapegoat and offer a protest vote.

rick_chasey

So we’re all agreed it’s Atlee then?

tangled_metal

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

slowmart

Does anyone remember the power and reach of unions,strikes making the news every week?

Lowered tax on individuals, faced a Cabinet revolt over it.

Privatisation, bought share ownership to the general population and at the same time reduce the need of the state tit nourishing overbloated and inefficient organisations , BR , BA , utility companies

Recognised a transformation was needed in the labour markets as we needed to shift from manufacturing to service economy. Attracted foreign investment for setting up manufacturing bases in the UK, partly by legislation around unions.

Let’s not forget, she was the first female PM, elected three times by the electorate

Above everything she led from the front, risked her political capital , projected strength and capability and was dubbed the Iron Lady by the Russian media, was she perfect? no, but she led the country on a path of economic and social modernisation.

Wayne Plunger

Slowmart wrote:

Does anyone remember the power and reach of unions,strikes making the news every week?

Lowered tax on individuals, faced a Cabinet revolt over it.

Privatisation, bought share ownership to the general population and at the same time reduce the need of the state tit nourishing overbloated and inefficient organisations , BR , BA , utility companies

Recognised a transformation was needed in the labour markets as we needed to shift from manufacturing to service economy. Attracted foreign investment for setting up manufacturing bases in the UK, partly by legislation around unions.

Let’s not forget, she was the first female PM, elected three times by the electorate

Above everything she led from the front, risked her political capital , projected strength and capability and was dubbed the Iron Lady by the Russian media, was she perfect? no, but she led the country on a path of economic and social modernisation.

I'm with you mate.

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

Blair is as evil as Thatcher. Him and his wife - hideous creatures. He's a war criminal and should be prosecuted as such.

#hideous

tangled_metal

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

There isn't one that I can see. It was a joke but with the potential for raising a comment from Stevo I thought.

Callaghan was the first pm I was aware of. Only of primary school age at the time but awareness of inflation under his government was what made me aware of news programmes and politics. His policies meant my pocket money wasn't enough to afford a mars bar for awhile.

A good example of what can go wrong under labour! I'm sure there's been more.

greasedscotsman

Matthewfalle wrote:

Blair is as evil as Thatcher. Him and his wife - hideous creatures. He's a war criminal and should be prosecuted as such.

#hideous

Who's best then?

chris_bass

I have favero assioma DUOs and they seem pretty good to me

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

I think that illustrates just how arbitrary it is to try to calculate some kind of net value for Prime Ministers. People single out Blair over Iraq, but ignore the Falklands, Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, Korea, Suez, etc. Should the bloody partition of India or the mess that we left Israel and the Palestinian territories in count against Attlee?

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

I think that illustrates just how arbitrary it is to try to calculate some kind of net value for Prime Ministers. People single out Blair over Iraq, but ignore the Falklands, Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, Korea, Suez, etc. Should the bloody partition of India or the mess that we left Israel and the Palestinian territories in count against Attlee?

people don't ignore the Falklands - the vicious witch caused a war and broke the Geneva Convention to further her own gains.

B Liar started an illegal war to further his own gains.

both are hideous creatures.

#vile

robert88

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

The usual positive for Wilson is that he would not ally the UK with the USA in Viet Nam.

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

I think that illustrates just how arbitrary it is to try to calculate some kind of net value for Prime Ministers. People single out Blair over Iraq, but ignore the Falklands, Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, Korea, Suez, etc. Should the bloody partition of India or the mess that we left Israel and the Palestinian territories in count against Attlee?

people don't ignore the Falklands - the vicious witch caused a war and broke the Geneva Convention to further her own gains.

B Liar started an illegal war to further his own gains.

both are hideous creatures.

#vile

Name a prime minister not involved in some war or other, which people claimed was unjustified or illegitimate.

rick_chasey

Well I’ll help; Atlee helped partition India.... not good.

kingstongraham

John Major, didn't do much. My kind of PM.

john80

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

I think that illustrates just how arbitrary it is to try to calculate some kind of net value for Prime Ministers. People single out Blair over Iraq, but ignore the Falklands, Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, Korea, Suez, etc. Should the bloody partition of India or the mess that we left Israel and the Palestinian territories in count against Attlee?

people don't ignore the Falklands - the vicious witch caused a war and broke the Geneva Convention to further her own gains.

B Liar started an illegal war to further his own gains.

both are hideous creatures.

#vile

It is obviously alternative facts day. Are you claiming that Argentina did not invade the Falklands and then South Georgia or somehow the UK put them up to it. Maybe the 649 Argentinians that lost their lives did not exist or maybe you should make the case that we should have left the people of the Falkland islands to fend for themselves with the Argentinians who I am sure would have had their best interests at heart. Maybe the people of the Falklands when they keep responding that they would like to remain British are all on crack and Maggie is reaching out from her grave. Maybe the United Nations Security Council were so scared of old Maggie that all those other nations requested immediate withdrawal.

Matthewfalle

john80 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

I think that illustrates just how arbitrary it is to try to calculate some kind of net value for Prime Ministers. People single out Blair over Iraq, but ignore the Falklands, Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, Korea, Suez, etc. Should the bloody partition of India or the mess that we left Israel and the Palestinian territories in count against Attlee?

people don't ignore the Falklands - the vicious witch caused a war and broke the Geneva Convention to further her own gains.

B Liar started an illegal war to further his own gains.

both are hideous creatures.

#vile

It is obviously alternative facts day. Are you claiming that Argentina did not invade the Falklands and then South Georgia or somehow the UK put them up to it. Maybe the 649 Argentinians that lost their lives did not exist or maybe you should make the case that we should have left the people of the Falkland islands to fend for themselves with the Argentinians who I am sure would have had their best interests at heart. Maybe the people of the Falklands when they keep responding that they would like to remain British are all on crack and Maggie is reaching out from her grave. Maybe the United Nations Security Council were so scared of old Maggie that all those other nations requested immediate withdrawal.

one word: Belgrano.

unwarranted and unnecessary from a military point of view, blatant breach of the Geneva Convention, war crime.

she was a hideous awful creature.

lets not discuss her domestic policies as that will cause you to explode with Daily Heil rage.

#vilecreature

tangled_metal

However, settling the controversy in 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone, and had orders to sink "any British ship he could find". Further, Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war.[84]

Wikipedia entry states that the captain of the Belgrano was not sailing back to base but manoeuvring in order to carry out it's orders to n engage and sink any RN vessel it could contact. In the Argentinian captain's own words it was clearly a threat. The captain apparently said the submarine was carrying out it's duty under accepted rules of war.

I guess military men like the captain don't understand the spin of politics, diplomacy, government and the ambiguities of international law. They work on orders, duties and actions to the benefit of their side in any war. Indeed it sounds black and white to him. Honorable man like I bet a lot of the veterans on his side were too.

Two sides to everything but would you expect an Argentinian commander of a sunk vessel to oppose your view of things MFs?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well I’ll help; Atlee helped partition India.... not good.

And the British Mandate in Palestine - still dealing with the fallout from that one.

pblakeney

Tangled Metal wrote:

However, settling the controversy in 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone, and had orders to sink "any British ship he could find". Further, Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war.[84]

Wikipedia entry states that the captain of the Belgrano was not sailing back to base but manoeuvring in order to carry out it's orders to n engage and sink any RN vessel it could contact. In the Argentinian captain's own words it was clearly a threat. The captain apparently said the submarine was carrying out it's duty under accepted rules of war.

I guess military men like the captain don't understand the spin of politics, diplomacy, government and the ambiguities of international law. They work on orders, duties and actions to the benefit of their side in any war. Indeed it sounds black and white to him. Honorable man like I bet a lot of the veterans on his side were too.

Two sides to everything but would you expect an Argentinian commander of a sunk vessel to oppose your view of things MFs?

People who were there have told me the opposite.

slowmart

While I see many defending Thatcher’s authorisation of the sinking of the Belgrano, no doubt she had military and political advisors with their input.

Again she came though with the right decision, both politically as we were dealing with a military junta who kidnapped, tortured and murdered their own citizens and their only language is force but also militarily.

What I don’t see is any defence of Blair and the Iraq war? I still have trouble he’s walking around making money rather than sitting in a cell for war crimes

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

However, settling the controversy in 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone, and had orders to sink "any British ship he could find". Further, Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war.[84]

Wikipedia entry states that the captain of the Belgrano was not sailing back to base but manoeuvring in order to carry out it's orders to n engage and sink any RN vessel it could contact. In the Argentinian captain's own words it was clearly a threat. The captain apparently said the submarine was carrying out it's duty under accepted rules of war.

I guess military men like the captain don't understand the spin of politics, diplomacy, government and the ambiguities of international law. They work on orders, duties and actions to the benefit of their side in any war. Indeed it sounds black and white to him. Honorable man like I bet a lot of the veterans on his side were too.

Two sides to everything but would you expect an Argentinian commander of a sunk vessel to oppose your view of things MFs?

People who were there have told me the opposite.

I’d file that under interesting if true and go with the comments from the Captain of the ship concerned and his undisputed orders to attack the British Navy the following day.

tangled_metal

PBlakeney wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

However, settling the controversy in 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone, and had orders to sink "any British ship he could find". Further, Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war.[84]

Wikipedia entry states that the captain of the Belgrano was not sailing back to base but manoeuvring in order to carry out it's orders to n engage and sink any RN vessel it could contact. In the Argentinian captain's own words it was clearly a threat. The captain apparently said the submarine was carrying out it's duty under accepted rules of war.

I guess military men like the captain don't understand the spin of politics, diplomacy, government and the ambiguities of international law. They work on orders, duties and actions to the benefit of their side in any war. Indeed it sounds black and white to him. Honorable man like I bet a lot of the veterans on his side were too.

Two sides to everything but would you expect an Argentinian commander of a sunk vessel to oppose your view of things MFs?

People who were there have told me the opposite.

People there? As there as the captain of the Belgrano?

He stated some time afterwards (post junta) that he'd had orders to attack UK vessels in a big push and that his vessel's movements were about enacting his orders. He also gave his opinion that the commander of the submarine carried out his orders and acted acted as exoected within the principles of war. Or words to that effect.

Who told you the opposite? What were their role in the sinking of the Belgrano or on the Belgrano? Are they better informed? I recall a lot of hot air about it being a war crime at the time. Mostly from political pov. I was only about 11 at the time so I've no more knowledge of the matter than other people who have read up a bit on the matter or of interest in the subject. I claim no precise knowledge personally but can only take what I read from people who might know first hand. People like the captain of the sunk vessel saying in an interview that his vessel was active and a threat plus his opinion was the submarine captain was justified in attacking his vessel strike me as good information source.

rjsterry

Slowmart wrote:

While I see many defending Thatcher’s authorisation of the sinking of the Belgrano, no doubt she had military and political advisors with their input.

Again she came though with the right decision, both politically as we were dealing with a military junta who kidnapped, tortured and murdered their own citizens and their only language is force but also militarily.

What I don’t see is any defence of Blair and the Iraq war? I still have trouble he’s walking around making money rather than sitting in a cell for war crimes

Many? Where?

Pretty sure Saddam Hussein fits that description. That's not a justification in itself, but there are always questions on the legitimacy of military action.

john80

Matthewfalle wrote:

john80 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

So no votes for Callaghan or Wilson then?

What’s the argument for either?

Curious one with Blair.

Unbelievably popular during his time (if you judge him by his electoral victories), most people seemed to do well then.

Downside; arguably sowed the seeds for a much more painful GFC, and Iraq...!

I think that illustrates just how arbitrary it is to try to calculate some kind of net value for Prime Ministers. People single out Blair over Iraq, but ignore the Falklands, Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, Korea, Suez, etc. Should the bloody partition of India or the mess that we left Israel and the Palestinian territories in count against Attlee?

people don't ignore the Falklands - the vicious witch caused a war and broke the Geneva Convention to further her own gains.

B Liar started an illegal war to further his own gains.

both are hideous creatures.

#vile

It is obviously alternative facts day. Are you claiming that Argentina did not invade the Falklands and then South Georgia or somehow the UK put them up to it. Maybe the 649 Argentinians that lost their lives did not exist or maybe you should make the case that we should have left the people of the Falkland islands to fend for themselves with the Argentinians who I am sure would have had their best interests at heart. Maybe the people of the Falklands when they keep responding that they would like to remain British are all on crack and Maggie is reaching out from her grave. Maybe the United Nations Security Council were so scared of old Maggie that all those other nations requested immediate withdrawal.

one word: Belgrano.

unwarranted and unnecessary from a military point of view, blatant breach of the Geneva Convention, war crime.

she was a hideous awful creature.

lets not discuss her domestic policies as that will cause you to explode with Daily Heil rage.

#vilecreature

As others have ridiculed your version of events quite categorically I don't have to go back to #alternativefacts. I would point out that it is likely that it is your head that would explode if we were to discuss her domestic policies and I am guessing that all ills in this era were the direct cause of Thatcher in your tiny mind whereas I am likely to take a more balanced view. The only defence was from PBlakeney who seems to have either a lot of Argentinian mates that know better than the captain of the Belgrano or is full of bull.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well I’ll help; Atlee helped partition India.... not good.

And the British Mandate in Palestine - still dealing with the fallout from that one.

Yes. At home he was and is rated as the most capable politician and governor.

Shaped post war Britain more than any other since.

Capable, knew his limits, knew who to appoint where and how to manage them.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

While I see many defending Thatcher’s authorisation of the sinking of the Belgrano, no doubt she had military and political advisors with their input.

Again she came though with the right decision, both politically as we were dealing with a military junta who kidnapped, tortured and murdered their own citizens and their only language is force but also militarily.

What I don’t see is any defence of Blair and the Iraq war? I still have trouble he’s walking around making money rather than sitting in a cell for war crimes

Many? Where?

Pretty sure Saddam Hussein fits that description. That's not a justification in itself, but there are always questions on the legitimacy of military action.

She didn't care in the slightest about the Argentine human rights record. She was a good friend of the Chilean tyrant Pinochet who mounted a joint operation with Argentina and the USA over a long period of time. Its objective was to eliminate opponents of neoliberalism by kidnap, torture and murder.

Her concern over the Falklands was simply because there was a good chance there was oil in the area as indeed it proved.

mr_goo

John Major. How he scooped up those peas with a fork! Class.

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

Does anyone remember the power and reach of unions,strikes making the news every week?

Lowered tax on individuals, faced a Cabinet revolt over it.

Privatisation, bought share ownership to the general population and at the same time reduce the need of the state tit nourishing overbloated and inefficient organisations , BR , BA , utility companies

Recognised a transformation was needed in the labour markets as we needed to shift from manufacturing to service economy. Attracted foreign investment for setting up manufacturing bases in the UK, partly by legislation around unions.

Let’s not forget, she was the first female PM, elected three times by the electorate

Above everything she led from the front, risked her political capital , projected strength and capability and was dubbed the Iron Lady by the Russian media, was she perfect? no, but she led the country on a path of economic and social modernisation.

A lot of people clearly don't remember.