±«Óãtv

I object to having to vote for all 12. There are only three worth voting for: Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan. The rest are Bilderberg stooges (all), incompetents (Eden, Douglas-Hume, Major, Callaghan) or out and out crooks (Heath, Blair, Brown). Wouldn't employ most of them as street sweepers.

There have been 3 'stars' - Atlee, Thatcher, Blair: 2 'nearly greats' - Macmillan and Wilson: 4 'adequates' - Heath, Churchill, Callaghan, Major: and 3 'disasters' - Brown, Douglas-±«Óãtv and Eden.

Eden left in January 1957 for a Carribean holiday: Brown should do the same. The general election will be in June 2009.

WHERE DO PRIME MINISTERS COME FROM MUMMY?

Well dear: first a political party chooses someone who will put the party first above all else, as a candidate carrying a rosette in an election. When they get elected, they apply themselves to gaining high office at the expense of their duties as an MP. On gaining a cabinet seat, they suck up to the party leader, while planning to replace him. Finally they choose their moment, and use every trick in the book to get other MPs, just like themselves, to elevate them to party leader, displacing the one they had previously supported. Should the party gain power, the leader becomes PM. Thus we are guaranteed a succession of PMs who are obsessive, narrow and blinkered; in short: unsuited for power over anyone.

That doesn't sound like a good system Mummy! Hmmmmm.

Gordon |Brown
(Nominated by someone just getting on with his job)

In my view, John Major's premiership was by some distance the most competent. Left with an economic chaos, social disorder, splits on Europe, poll tax riots and a party split, Major kept the party together and consistently stood firm on policy. His position on many issues was taken by New Labour to great success, and his European policy proven right.

The ±«Óãtv's comments that historians have treated him unfavourably is nonsense. His biographer, Seldon, rated him in the second quartile of Prime Ministers ability wise, and no serious academic has published a critical book on his Premiership.

The worst Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The boom and bust Prime Minister.

John Major's government led the country through a depression and Kenneth Clarke left a war chest of money for the labour party to inherit. Gordon Brown has spent this, taxed everyone to the hilt, borrowed so much money and bankrupted the country and sold off all the family jewels! I'm glad he's reaping the seeds he has sowed. Far from being the best chancellor as he claims, he's the worst this country has ever seen. He has made decisions that this country will still be trying to get over in 20 years time! Who voted for Gordon, I for one did not and I think it's about time we had our say! Call an election - lets see who votes for Gordon then!

In answer to you question: it was Thatcher and only because she was surrounded by an intelligent and worldly council of great minds, unlike the shower of hacks that walks the corridors of power today; Jack Straw been a good example of a hack.

I was only 14 yrs old when Thatch came to power but from the history books written about the pre Maggie period, Heath had no back bone, a bachelor boy with blatant signs of arrested development and the paranoid pipe smoking Wilson... well he was a socialist...so thats him disqualified from the list, although in his prime, Wilson was good at the dispatch-box and to his credit stayed out of the Vietnam war.

A 'hack' by the way, can be someone of below average ability/ intelligence....or a journalist.

Clem Atlee's towering achievement of the welfare state has withstood 60 years.
Harold Wilson's greatest unsung success was keeping Britain out of the Viet Nam conflict at the height of the cold war.

Thatcher was too devisive and caused misery for too many people to be considered as great.
Whilst successful as a wartime leader, I can't think of anything that Churchill did of note as a post-war PM.

3. At 8:23pm on 16 Sep 2008, barriesingleton

LOL.

I keep getting told it may not be perfect, but it's the best system we have got.

I am now in the process of going back to see who says that, and what their vested interests might have been/are.

We owe it to our kids.

Just went to the poll.

Couldn't fill it in meaningfully, so didn't. So despite caring (a bit) and trying, I don't count I guess.

A useful metaphor for our 'all or nothing, black or white, for or against us, box-ticker's wet dream' society.

I think I am fairly well informed, partly though interest in history; partly through experience.

I could have managed 3 'worst' and 3 'best', though without context (other than 'post-war' as a defining factor, I would still have preferred 'for what?'... economy, social justice, security, etc, as opposed to what I guess you mean, namely 'for the country').

But, without knowing about how polls work, I would have though you would still have derived meaningful data on this basis. Possibly better by the current requirement excluding such as me and including those who, I suspect, might make up a large central chunk of it all, the results of which I am sure will be anyway be chewed over with much furrowing of brows by the chatterati without meaning very much at all.

Oh, another metaphor!

For me it was Margaret Thatcher ( I was 3 years old when she came to power in 1979), she'd turned the country around and made it a success again. No more "winter of discontent."

Mistress76uk (#11) But how much of that so called 'discontent' (many hardly noticed it at the time, just ask people who weren't 3 in 1979, and many politicians since have confessed that it was largely politics to nobble Labour) was created by Trotskyites and others USA) sympathetic to big business, precisely so that someone like Thatcher could come along and sell off the family silver (publicly owned means of production) to make money and thus create the illusion of boom whilst proclaiming it was all for the benefit of 'enterprising' individuals? Who ended up with the gas, electricty, rail, telephone etc infrastructure? People still don't see how bad things are demographically largely because they're so easily misled by media PR, but the cracks are beginning to show.... for some.

This poll was too difficult to complete honestly as most of the PMs were inferior. So I just filled in Atlee and Heath a the top and Blair next to last followed by Lady T. As for the middle rankers I used a pin to pick out the names.

10. At 08:50am on 17 Sep 2008, JunkkMale wrote:

'...and including those who, I suspect, might make up a large central chunk of it all,..'

13. At 9:38pm on 17 Sep 2008, NETTKNUT wrote:

'As for the middle rankers I used a pin to pick out the names.'

QED?

Best Prime Minister

Mrs Thatcher has to be the greatest Prime minister despite her faults.
What was wrong with a household with 10 children some over 18 years old paying more for dustbin collection than a young couple?
Even though she was breaking ground as a woman amongst men; the worlds leaders listened when she spoke...
Look at the pathetic figure of new contender Mr Microband and his clone Mr Microband, heck are there any more of them tucked away? Reminds me of 'Boys from Brazil... Sorry I digress: Was an embarrassment in his confrontation of Russia.
To date Brown is the worst PM ever...
He hasn't a clue. As a chancellor, he simply surfed on the crest of a worldwide financial wave. See how the surfers policies sink with the passing of the wave, looking at all the personal tax he raised and public assets squandered he's no better than a professional dip.

How can anyone equate Minor Major with anything, other than the grey man who liked to say yes [to everyone]
Brightest of post Mrs T bunch was the little bald one; alas his name has vanished from my grey matter. Shame his accent has done this to my brain... Can I sue for assault?

So did I mention Mrs T? Alas my brain; I knew it well...

Has to be Atlee, he is the best post war prime minister, building on his success of running the home front during the war, He rebuilt Britain after the devastation. No post war PM comes close to his ministry achievements. NHS, ±«Óãtvs for Heroes, and dismantling the Empire into a family of democracies.

I am glad you have now corrected your Churchill reference. Now perhaps you can do something about Attlee. Yor description begins "Although the 1945-1951 Government is revered by the Labour Party, and along with Thatcher's Government did more to shape modern Britain than any other (the welfare state, social housing, the NHS etc)" but the note doesn't have a main verb in the sentence. Something like "Although X, he did Y" would be more conventional. Does anyone who knows anything about history or grammar check these things? Or do you just turn the monkeys loose on the typewriters?

I find it a disgrace that Thatcher is even mentioned in this blog. Thatcher almost brought Scotland to its knees and the Tory party is still paying the (relatively small) price of almost no votes in Scotland.

In the long term, she may inadvertantly give independance to Scotland. Cameron may well get voted in at the General Election without winning a seat in Scotland.

The SNP will then win us independance by a landslide as we realise our votes don't count. So even though she will continue to be the most hated leader that Scotland has ever been subjected to, we'll prosper eventually in a backwards kind of way. The years of abuse that she put this country under will then be worth it!

Hasn't this sort of thing been done to death now? It's a bit demeaning for Newsnight, I feel - best left to late night C5. It wouldn't be so bad if we were spoilt for choice. Now, if the question was "Which Prime Minister is responsible for the greatest number of violent deaths?" we really would have a contest.

My guess is that Blair (given that we are talking about Churchill's post-war years) would win by a mile, followed by Thatcher. Wilson would win a special commendation for keeping us out of Vietnam.

I fear there will be too much subjective voting, based on sheer bias or recent experience. I hope Churchill will be assessed as a POST War PM, which is completely different to his wartime achievements.

I don't think there should be any debate about who was the worst; Eden must be ranked last because ill health and obsession over Suez made him totally ineffective. ±«Óãtv didn't have enough time to make an impact, and Brown took over when Blair had lost his lustre, and after some initial success he seems to have no control over his party, never mind events.

The three who made the most significant changes were Attlee, Macmillan and Thatcher. Whereas the first two left the country feeling good about itself, the changes under Thatcher were somewhat divisive, and in her dotage is as much reviled as admired. "Supermac" was admired by supporters of all parties, not least for criticising Thatcher's policies of privatisation. It was his misfortune to lose all control of his Government over Profumo.

At the end of the day there are the "wreckers", the "ineffectuals", and the "builders". Only the latter should be considered great whatever the particular circumstances they found themselves in. By this criterion it is easy to place Thatcher at the bottom and Blair and Attlee at the top. Churchill was great for entirely different reasons and the electorate generally knew it. Very few of the list seem to have been truly in charge for any length of time, and a number of them seemed to take it too lightly or be confused about how to lead in a democracy in changing times.

In terms of the worst prime-ministers I would probably go with Brown, Major and Eden.

Eden's reign was short lived and most notably remembered for a disastrous military campaign in Egypt and the Suez Canal, which saw us meekly walk away, tail between our legs, and confirming the U.S.A's power over our country and government.

Some could say that Major was unlucky, and was just a weak prime-minister sandwiched in between two strong ones in Thatcher and Blair. Divides within the party didn't help him but his weakness at controlling his government and the economy, along with the numerous scandals meant he was an extremely poor prime-minister. His victory in the 1992 election was more down to the ineptitude of the Labour party to gain the trust of the voting public.

Brown is more or less just a joke now. His inability to control the country in a current state of economic despair, coupled with his weakness in contrast to Cameron (especially when backing out of a decision to make a snap election) makes his reign as prime-minister seem laughable.

It's a highly subjective question.

Some of the posts here say "I put so-and-so at the top, and so-and-so at the bottom". From those comments you can tell which way they vote, and what their political priorities are.

In voting I tried to look at both the positive and negative contribution each made, their personalities (statemanship), the global situation at the time they were PM, and their respective government strengths.

For example, Blair enjoyed a sizable majority whilst in power, giving him the ability to push through policies which were unpopular. Compare him to some of the other candidates who had much smaller majorities, and you see they could not afford to be so radical.

Being 38, many of the candidates were in No 10 before my time, so I have to rely on someone elses thoughts of their tenure to guide me, rather than my own experiences.

PMs today are much more closely scrutinized than their predecessors, which though I feel is a good thing, probably works against them in a poll like this.

No doubt Brown will do poorly in the poll; he is publically unpopular, and if most of his own party activists want him gone...

I found Thatcher the trickiest one. I was no fan of hers at the time she was in office, but there is no doubt she had a powerful personality on the world stage. She also completely changed the country during her time in office. Whether for better or worse depends on your own views. However, weighted against that is the poll tax - rights and wrongs of that policy aside - it was hugely unpopular and had people out on the streets rioting. Even Brown hasn't managed to do that. Well, not yet anyway.

Everything else aside, I decided that she only got the chance to change the country because of the actions of an external party (Argentina), as without the Falklands War in all likelihood she may have left office with a much shorter list of political accomplishments.

Wilson ended up my number one. He was before my time, but he avoided taking the UK into the Vietnam War despite immense pressure from the US, with whom he simultaneously managed to maintain good relations. He won four of five contested elections, holding office twice as a minority government, and also as a majority (one of which was very slim).

Though his tenure had its problems (particularly economically) I felt they were outweighed by his achievements. Also, in setting up the Open University he has given the opportunity for millions of people to access higher education. And that's a legacy that anyone seeking to improve the lives of ordinary people could be proud of.

Margaret Thatcher MUST come top of the poll. She made mistakes (as all of us do) but putting the unions back in their boxes saved Britain from grinding to a complete halt or doing things the Red Robbo and Arthur Scargill way. If only we had her back to her best and back in No10 now.

The choice of one blogger for Harold Wilson is surprising. Wasn't he the "pound in your pocket" man and didn't he run away from union reform when Barbara Castle produced "In Place of Strife"? Wilson represented much that was wrong with Britain in these days and he ended his premeirship by handing a poisoned chalice to his successor, Jim Callaghan. Wilson deserved to be at the low end of the poll.

I agree with the very first comment, and others like it. It is too difficult to create the middle order. I'm a left-wing voter, and I'd put Attlee at the top and Eden at the bottom, Wilson pretty high, ±«Óãtv pretty low, and I don't know what to do about Thatcher: lowish, I think, because this isn't a contest about who had the strongest personality, but about who achieved lasting things we approve of. I might have put Blair high earllier in his premiership, but Iraq finished that. Brown hasn't had enough time yet, and it isn't quite fair to judge him by his shaky start in a world whose economy is beginning to fall apart Churchill was a wonderful war leader, but couldn't produce the same inspiration in peace time. So he goes low - although when the ±«Óãtv did Who Was the Greatest Briton, I voted for him and was pleased he won.

#24 Roncim

I hear what you say, but the one thing that I think is indisputable about Thatcher is that she polarised the nation. You're either a big fan or a big opponent; there aren't many who simply think she was 'alright'. I'm not Scottish myself, but I doubt she'll rate too highly with those north of the border.

As for Wilson, I freely admit that his economic stewardship wasn't cause for adulation. As you said of Thatcher, he made mistakes, but everyone does. However the chap did win four elections; a feat that is unmatched by either Thatcher or Blair.

In his way he also kept the unions in the box. Of course he used a different approach to Thatcher.

And handing a poisoned chalice to Callaghan? Well, Callaghan remains the only person to have held all four great offices of state. He was no Johnny-come-lately, and it's doubtful there was anyone else better qualified at the time to take the baton.

As I said, this poll is highly subjective and probably can't help being coloured by your own political views.

I'm traditionally left of centre (though the current incumbant has made it very likely I'm going to vote Tory next time), and that may well have influenced my choice.

I must rally to Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon's defence. He has been much maligned both by posters here and the 'historians' the ±«Óãtv got to comment on each PM.

What Eden tried to do was to maintain the UK as a 1st class power, by retaining the Suez Canal. The UK actually had a stake in the Suez Canal (thanks to another great Tory, Disraeli), and he went to defend our interests, along with the other stake holders, the French.

He was scuppered by the American President who, like many other holders of the office, wanted to see the fall of the British Empire once and for all. Eden's perceived failure was hence not his or the French's, but due to the Americans.

It is completely unfair therefore to lambast him for the failure of his intervention; without U.S. intervention his intervention would have succeeded.

His decision to act was entirely correct. He was the last British PM to actively try and prevent Britain's slip to a 2nd rate nation. Yes, he failed, but only due to the Americans. In principle he was right, and the likes of Isiah Berlin concurred contemporaneously. Others settled for this position. I deplore them.

Eden's health was the cause for his downfall, and I am confident had the doctors delivered the correct prognosis, meaning Eden could continue, he would have been a celebrated PM.

Based on the criteria used to acclaim Eden, I also champion Baroness Thatcher, as a Premier who tried to prevent Britain slipping down another league. She, evidently, succeeded. I acknowledge this came at a cost, one felt bitterly by some, but was and is anyone foolish enough to think such an achievement was going to be free, or made without sacrifices?

Clearly Thatcher has more plaudits than Eden so I focused on him though.

Whatever Eden's motive, he set about achieving it by getting us into a shameful conspiracy with France and Israel. When we were found out, this harmed our standing as a great power far more than the loss of the Suez Canal. As to his ill health, it might be charitable to assume that this caused him not to think straight.

Sudanim

I still find it hard to see Harold Wilson at the top of the pile. He struck me as a slippery customer and he may have won four elections but he was up against Alec Douglas-±«Óãtv who, although a perfect gentleman, was mocked for his background and then Edward Heath who I rated as second worst PM after Gordon Brown. I also think Wilson could see what was coming when he resigned to leave Jim Callaghan to face the consequences.

As for Mrs T, I accept that she divided opinion but I believe that, but for her, Britain would have sunk without trace after the Winter of Discontent etc.

I am on the right of politics but I give credit where it is due and Atlee was high on my list. Given what he faced after the war, he was the right man at that time as Churchill was tired.

Placing the others was difficult as most of them were nonentities by comparison with the best and the worst.

#29 Roncim

Though we disagree with who was number 1, I see we at least agreed on the placing of the bottom two!

Well the last time the ±«Óãtv did this Maggie came top, Atlee a strong second, Blair coming up the rear, and then the rest all got 1% - occasionally in polls churchill will come up if the pollsters neglect to emphasise "post-war" enough

also funny how many people rank thatcher/blair as the best/worst thing ever, clearly a real debate needs to be looked at when people put their own memories behind them - hence why it's a lot easier to judge atlee and churchill objectively now - and i think most people can appreciate what atlee did after the war, although much of the credit for me goes to david lloyd george as well

also to 18.Paisley - the tory party were getting no votes in scotland in 1880 as well - almost completely liberal (ie. gladstone, the real best ever chancellor, mr brown) - meanwhile we currently put up with a government that goes to extreme lengths to ensure scottish jobs are not lost, while the same company's english counterparts are offered no such protection

Winston Churchill: definately not Thatcher.

It might be more interesting to vote fir the most USELESS PM. It would be a tough choice but I'd put a fiver on Gordon.

Our greatest post-war prime minister will be Nick Griffin.

Of the post-war PM's I'd say Attlee was the best, Brown the worst and Thatcher the most hated.

I voted For Thatcher then Blair for top

Putting aside the troubles with them - they where strong prime ministers.

I put brown down at the bottom where he belongs.

Thatcher definately top no one changed anything as much as she did.

Blair, Brown and Atllee bottom no one ruined anything as much as they. Blair and Brown for doing as much as they could to destroy the country, ruined the constitution, weakend democracy gave in to the EU, ruined the economy, ruined pensions, failed to reform the welfare state, invaded Iraq and opened the doors to unlimited immigration.

Attlee created the whole edifice of the welfare state that went beyond a health service and safety net and introduced the start of the something for nothing society in which you can contribute nothing and get paid for it. This has ruined communities and the concept of families up and down the country, this is why he is my bottom choice.

The only one of the 12 that has had England's and thus Britains interests in mind, in recent years, was Maggie Thatcher. From Harald wilson till today all except her have been either in the pay of Brussels of uncaring of the effect of the Brussels dictatorship on the UK.

Before 1970 we had polititians who wanted to be part of the gravy train but were stopped by our best ally in Europe DeGaulle. It is sad to think that we will not have any say about the destruction of our country if the dictators in Brussels strong arm the Irish into ratifying the Lisbon (so called) Treaty before we get rid of Brown and his imcompetants.

Tony Blair was the best politician since the War, but one of the worst Priministers. In that he didn't love the country that he was ment to serve but rather his own image and legacy and win at all cost mentally and together with Alister Cambell achieved an apathy with the British electorate where so few people bothered to vote, and today politicians are viewed with more distain than ever. Legitamate debated has suffered during his time.
The conservatives were disapontingly poor and unable to nail him.
Also he had the worst Prime Ministers wife, in Cherie.
The only people who have gained from the Blair years are the Royals in that they have seen to be less self obsessed, which nobody could predict.
Iraq War...................................

Mrs T is by far the best in my life-time experience and from all i have read. I was born in 1980 and experienced her rule first hand, and she truly led the nation with strong leadership with no hint of weakness. What a contrast with the current shower and their grey Scottish leader. The chap from Scotland, you're welcome to your independence. Just because your country seemed to dislike Thatcher, don't expect everybody to think this way.

Mrs Thatcher put the unions in their place and was a leader which most of Britain was proud of-she stood for no nonsense and a return to common sense. The poll tax riots prove both that she didn't heed her history lessons and also the tenacity of those on benefits and the poor, who seem to treat having children as a hobby, to hold onto their free money taken from the hard working people of this nation.

1. Thatcher
2. Churchill
3. Macmillan
4. Douglas-±«Óãtv
5. Major
6. Eden
7. Attlee
8. Wilson
9. Heath
10. Callaghan
11. Blair
12. Brown

Atlee's creation of the welfare state, and by extension what constitutes modern Britain, puts him at the top of the pile.

Churchill was a great war-time leader, but an embarrassment as a post-war PM.

Thatcher tried to destroy this country and very nearly succeeded. The only pity is that she can't remember her own evil, and reflect upon it.

THatcher was the worst. With her purposely induced slump in the early 1980's she presided over the demise not only of debt ridden manufacturers but also of the good medium sized firms, which were the backbone of manufacturing industry in this country. It was her who srted derugulation of the banks and started the notion that we could live largely off of financial services, which have turned out to be a paper based delusion based largely on fresh air. In the course of doing so she destroyed so many people's lives.(Heartfelt offensive comment omitted).
Even Cameron now realises the disaster that the demise of manufacturing industry has been