Churchill was greatest PM - no I don't think so. Attlee was.

I do not doubt the NHS was a great achievement, but could it not be said that if Churchill had not been our wartime leader, Attlee would never have had the chance to implement his vision? I think it is a bit harsh to judge one over the other.

John Major was the greatest peacetime PM.

using an aeroplane is the least safe form of transport.  Black is white.

Of course Major was also a successful wartime leader.

zorro

Churchill saved us in our darkest hour but it was understandable that the people wanted to go in another direction after the war. If Attlee was such a good PM why did they get rid of him?

We saved ourselves, Churchill was just a figure-head, the next best leader would have done just as good a job, maybe even better.

^ Exactly.

He made a few nice speeches but that was it.

All this greatest Briton of all time bollox is way over the top.

Atlee oversaw the break-up of the British Empire and the greatest civilizing influence in history.

@The Leopard -- the next best leader wanted to make peace with the Nazis.

Atlee -- NHS (although that was based on the wartime Beveridge report so maybe anyone would have done it).

Probably Atlee lost because rationing continued after the war.

nice one lfc, good point.  and driving is safer than flying and life expectancy is dropping and pigs can fly.

My mother's answer to the question of why Churchill was voted out of the office for which, remember, he hadn't actually been voted in: "People remembered what it was like before the War."

dreadful to be asked to leave the office.

Thatcher was probably the best PM of the 20th century (hard to really have an objective overall poll, as we know comparatively little about PMs of the 19th century backwards). Churchill the most interesting and able man; again hard to be objective about him as he was essentially Prime Minister during a period of marshal law.

I despise the NHS so Atlee doesn't feature highly in my rankings.

Atlee got 250,000 more votes than Churchill in 1951 - So it could be argued he should have been re-elected.

Churchill was a bit right place, right time, as far as the war was concerned. Whether any other leader could have had the same result, we can never know.
He definitely messed up a bit over Gallipoli in WW1 and by all accounts wasn't a particularly nice bloke.

My granddad was an ARP warden in the east end during the war and I remember him telling me the story of how the exhausted fire-fighters were busy putting out fires for days on end after bombing raids. As he worked with them all tired and exhausted and pretty fed-up, a big car (he said a Rolls Royce, but I don't know) pulled up and the back window rolled down, Churchill, cigar in mouth, said to them "Just like the old days, eh boys?" and they turned the hoses on him.

As for Thatcher being the best PM of the 20th (or any other) century....

Never voted Tory in my life, nor did I like Thatcher. Just think she got more right than the other PM's of the 20th century.

Atlee got 250,000 more votes than Churchill in 1951 - So it could be argued he should have been re-elected.

You can't keep a good socialist down. Who cares about the rules. We'll just make up our own.

^^^^
Silly post - arguing where there's no argument.

I beg to differ !

On the contrary. There are two arguments.

One is the issue of the left consistently seeking to bend facts and rules to suit themselves. "The truth is optional".

The second is that the British people have specifically rejected the issue of moving to what Studyform suggests and there were several times during the 20th century where the Tories were inconvenienced by having the most overall votes but seeing another party forming the government. Too bad. Had Attlee proved to have been a great leader then he should have had unassailable victories due to the sheer scale of the working class which his party was formed to represent. He didn't because like all Labour government's he presided over calamity.

Thatcher way ahead as the best ,she broke the back of the cancerous unions that lead to the winter of discontent and the strike action that left us the sick man of europe.

Falklands victory was brilliant as well,Thatcher was the PM for all issues.

Thatcher took us into a near Police state.

Thatcher was the PM for all issues

she was also the PM for all tissues, Bito used to love having a tug over her.

Falklands victory was brilliant as well,Thatcher was the PM for all issues.

Thatcher was the PM whose defence cuts, and especially the withdrawal of HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic, led the Argentinians to invade.

What a bit like rope a dope? Ali v  Foreman? Brilliant.

She gave that mug Galtieri a bloody good hiding. God bless yer Maggie. Labour would have had us crawling on our bellies in front of the fascists.

The Leopard 02 Feb 15 15:24 
We saved ourselves, Churchill was just a figure-head, the next best leader would have done just as good a job, maybe even better.
-------
So you guys have read extensively on Churchill's actions and decisions and diplomacy etc througout the war?
No, of course you haven't.

The Leopard 02 Feb 15 15:24 
We saved ourselves, Churchill was just a figure-head, the next best leader would have done just as good a job, maybe even better.
-------
So you guys have read extensively on Churchill's actions and decisions and diplomacy etc througout the war?
No, of course you haven't.

Thatcher, Churchhill and Atlee in that order

Tony Blair a shocking omission: three-time winner, including two unprecedented Labour landslides and retired undefeated. By far the most popular Prime Minister this country has ever had.

Tony Blair is a total coont who has unified the nation in hatred.  People either didn't vote for him, or they did vote for him and feel let down.  Thatcher may have divided opinion but those that voted for her by and large got what it said on the tin.  People who voted for him in 2005 need to take a look at themselves.  We knew then he had taken us to war on a false premise - that does not deserve re election imo and those that voted for him have blood on the hands.  Don't give me all this "it was them or the tories" nonsense, you can vote for anyone.

I remember seeing him in 1994 on tv with shiny white teeth and a dishonest smile and I am proud to say that as a 16 year old I said he is a fkin turd who looks and walks like a total wrongun.  I was of course right, needless to say I had the last laugh, etc etc

Popularity isn't any measure of greatness. If it were then people would be watching something useful on TV instead of programmes like Celebrity Big X Factor In Weatherfield. Blair was a con man. A very good one who managed to con a lot of people but he was little more than a Terry Thomas character with few redeeming features.

Although widely considered a failure, Ted Heath gave us decimal money and EU membership, so he has done more than most to shape the country as it is today.

Search :  Edward Heath Paedophile ......on t'internet.

Irrespective of his personal life Heath was another unprincipled rogue and we are still working our way through his dishonesty. The British people were sold on an idea of a community of trading nations whereas Heath always knew that the European project was about building a country.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8

Heath blackmailed by German secret service to take us in to Europe.

Shocking stuff.

After listening to more of  to what he was saying i think this guy Micheal Shrimpton is off his head Leopard.

^ Have you had a phonecall?

Absolute facking nutter to be frank!!

He is a QC.

Re T Blair:

rob_dylan: People either didn't vote for him, or they did vote for him and feel let down.

No. They did vote for him and they didn't feel let down. They voted him back into office again and again.

Eeternaloptimist: Popularity isn't any measure of greatness.

In a democracy it is. It's the only objective measure of greatness in a democracy.

Horseshiit. At least 60% of the population are blithering idiots. Popularity is usually a sign of mediocrity. One Direction versus Elgar? No contest. One Direction by first round KO according to popularity. I rest my case.

One Direction and Elgar aren't contesting elections. A Prime minister is.

A potential Prime Minister has just one initial task: to be popular and get elected. After that he has to perform well enough under 5 years of public scrutiny to retain that popularity. If you manage to retain that popularity over two 5-year terms and get re-elected with landslides, then, as a Prime Minister in a democracy, you are one of the all-time greats.

I’ve often said that to make stuff popular it has to be sh1t.  One Direction, Take That, McDonalds, Coronation Street, X Factor, Hollywood Action Films, The Daily Mail etc

I have to respectfully disagree screaming.  Winning 3 elections doesn't make him a great PM, it makes him a long running PM.  He was an awful PM who didn't have to change the Labour Party to get in as they were bound to get in anyway.  "New Labour" was such a farce it was straight out of Animal Farm.  And the vast majority of them all went along for the ride?  What is the point of fighting for a Labour victory if you are not really Labour?

Rob, I don't think you were old enough to vote in 1992. If there was ever a time that Labour "were bound to get in anyway", that was the one. And they didn't. And the reason was Kinnock: the man, the policies and that bloody wife of his. Opinion polls showed Kinnock clear right up until balloting took place. I still have a Ladbrokes voucher for my bet of a monkey on Labour to win that one.

It really wasn't as straightforward as it may seem to take a Labour Party to victory at that time. Yet Blair did it by recurring landslides. You and about 99% of the population now reckon you're too clever ever to have voted for him. But that's not the reality. We kept voting for him in our millions because life felt good and safe under him. What else could we demand of a politician?

Not taking us into an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands? Not claiming to have ended boom and bust while presiding over the biggest boom followed by the biggest bust in nearly a century? Not enacting a Human Rights Act whilst simultaneously and surrepticiously eroding civil liberties for starters.

What price did you get on Labour to win in 1992? 

1992 I would guess Labour were favourites but not nailed on.  1997 they were absolutely nailed on, the tories were in total disarray.  I have never known a PM be less popular than Major was in the mid nineties.  It was a chance to have a Labour government but instead we got a New labour government.

We could have had a government that wasn't in cahoots with Murdoch too, Blair didn't need to get into bed with Murdoch, he would have got in anyway.

Evens, rob. But that was months beforehand. I will never forgive Kinnock.

We'll never know for sure whether Blair could have won without Murdoch onside. If he had, I think he'd have been the only one to do so in the last 40 years.

But that's a policy matter, and so a matter of personal opinion with the benefit of hindsight. I don't think you can judge a democratic PM's greatness on whether you think his policies look right or wrong decades later. It's a matter of whether he plays the hand he's dealt at the time in a way that satisfies the voters at the time.