So who is the worst Prime Minister ever?

[marshlad]

I think Thatcher was the best prime minister this counrty has had after Churchill. She modernised this country, we can't ever go back to the days when the government ran railways & airlines, built cars and controlled most industry in the country it was just madness. It is ludicrous to think that just over 30 years ago civil servants decided what type of cars could be made.

[tonkatoy]

we can't ever go back to the days when the government ran railways & airlines, built cars and controlled most industry in the country it was just madness. It is ludicrous to think that just over 30 years ago civil servants decided what type of cars could be made.

 

And called them Allegros.

[RonJeremy]

if there are still so many people unemployed against their will in Sheffield, why have we had to import so many people to fill jobs. This was the justification given by the pro-immigration loonies at the time, that we needed these people to keep the NHS afloat.

[LordChaverly]

And called them Allegros.

 

And gave them square steering wheels.....

 

(the Allegro was voted the worst British car ever in a well-publicised poll in 2008). Allegros were badly designed, badly engineered, badly assembled boxes of rust and rattling parts (that is when they were produced at all, which courtesy of Red Robbo and his acolytes, was not all that often).

[callippo]

just be thankful for what might have been, but thank the stars, wasn't. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, and Howard spring to mind.

 

most countries would be bloody grateful to look back at a list like that. The first thing to consider is how many of them there's been. Despite two of them having held the job for over a decade, one for eight, and another one for seven, there's loads of them. A lot of places have had at least one dictator that's been impossible to shift for 20 odd years.

[Stoatwobbler]

just be thankful for what might have been, but thank the stars, wasn't. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, and Howard spring to mind.

 

most countries would be bloody grateful to look back at a list like that. The first thing to consider is how many of them there's been. Despite two of them having held the job for over a decade, one for eight, and another one for seven, there's loads of them. A lot of places have had at least one dictator that's been impossible to shift for 20 odd years.

 

Never mind overseas, just look at some of the characters who ruled this country prior to 1830.

 

I'm also suprised by how few people on here are naming Ted Heath as a bad PM but that's another matter.

[RonJeremy]

Never mind overseas, just look at some of the characters who ruled this country prior to 1830.

 

I'm also suprised by how few people on here are naming Ted Heath as a bad PM but that's another matter.

 

You are quite right. Ted Heath was absolutely shocking as PM. But in the context of Callaghan, Wilson and the Union Domination of the political agenda he was "not as bad as the others".

[LordChaverly]

 

I'm also suprised by how few people on here are naming Ted Heath as a bad PM but that's another matter.

 

Well, I did my best to explain why Heath was not only a disaster as PM, but also a dreadful man (see the post below).

 

I had difficulty in deciding whether to opt for Blair or Heath, as I have a visceral detestation of both. Heath undoubtedly did less harm to humanity than did the warmonger Blair (whom I hold responsible for death and suffering of many, many thousands of people). However, if we judge it on the criterion of overall prime ministerial incompetence, then Heath must in my view take the crown. I therefore ended up voting for Heath in this poll.

 

Indeed, the only thing we can learn about Heath's disastrous period in office (1970-74) is how not to run a country. Remember the three day week? Mercifully, the country had had enough of him after one term and his party soon got rid of him as well. He never possessed enough personal insight to acknowledge his faults and weaknesses, or the grace to admit he was wrong about anything, still less to have the grace to say anything positive about his successor. He was a boorish, utterly self-centred, mean, spiteful oaf of a man with an exaggerated opinion of his own (severely limited) abilities. I have no respect for him at all.

 

If we take his management of the economy and of industrial relations during his premiership, it was a catalogue of bad decisions and bungling, resulting in not a single positive outcome as far as I am aware (if judged on economic or industrial indicators, such as inflation or employment levels, growth or industrial relations). His attempt to tackle industrial relations for example led to the worst industrial relations we have ever had, culminating in the three day week, regular power cuts, enormous inconvenience for ordinary people due to loss of heating, light and public transport, massive loss of output and worsening balance of payments. He had no understanding of how modern economies work. Indeed, his grasp of Economics seem to consist of half-understood pseudo Keynesian nostrums that were already seriously out of date at the time and totally inappropriate to the conditions with which he was dealing. Indeed, prior to becoming PM, he did toy with other ideas (i.e. the Selsdon formulae), but in a very half-hearted way, either because he didn’t believe in them or (more probably) because he didn’t understand them. He also soon abandoned any pretence of implementing these formulae when in office. Mrs. Thatcher’s famous phrase ‘no U turns’ derives from her determination not to repeat the mistakes of Heath in this regard.

 

Moreover, it is rather ironic that his style of 'consensus politics' led to the worst industrial unrest the UK had experienced in the post-war era and to the nadir of the three day week and to regular power blackouts. For a 'consensus politician' he was remarkably lacking in any ability to achieve consensus. He was no monetarist. But nor was he a Keynesian. Quite simply, I think he lacked the intellectual ability or curiosity to understand either school of thought, particularly the need to adapt ideas to suit prevailing circumstances. In addition to his dislike (fear?) of women and of being contradicted, he also appeared to have an aversion for people obviously much brighter than himself. Whereas Mrs. Thatcher had a coherent ideological vision (deriving from Joseph, Powell, Hayek and other gurus of the so-called new Right), Heath seemed to have lacked intellectual curiosity and receptivity to new ideas. An amusing irony is that at the time he was ousted, many people in the Tory party did not have high expectations of Thatcher. Moreover, many media pundits. had no idea of her mettle either. She was in fact described by someone at the time (can't remember who) as simply another 'Heath with tits on'. How wrong they all were!

 

If we take Heath’s supposed greatest achievement, i.e. taking the UK into the EEC in 1973, well, he badly bungled this as he did so much else. He was so keen to take us in that he did so on terms which were very largely unfavourable to us – meaning that even though the UK was one of the poorest members at the time, we were paying enormous sums into the EEC budget and getting relatively little in return. Many people think that the 1975 referendum was about whether to stay in or to leave the EEC. It was really about renegotiating the awful terms Heath had agreed to in 1972. (probably because he wanted to go down in history as the person who took us into the EEC). The result of Heath’s bungling was that the UK’s relations with our European partners were to be poisoned for many years and were dominated by the ‘BBQ’ (i.e. the British budget question). It must have been particularly galling to Heath that the person who did the most to rectify this intolerable situation was Margaret Thatcher, who negotiated the substantial annual rebate for the UK in 1984. Far from ‘reconciling us to Europe’, Heath actually did the very opposite..

 

As for Heath the man, well, there are many recorded instances of his boorish, self-obsessed, petulant, misogynistic and spiteful behaviour (and not only towards Thatcher) We can’t say ‘nothing became in his (political) life like the leaving on it’. Indeed, he never reconciled himself to the fact that he was ousted by a mere woman who turned out to be a much for effective and capable Conservative Prime Minister than he ever was, and moreover a political leader with a much firmer place in history than he ever achieved. Thatcher was magnanimous towards him on hearing of his death. I think it’s the measure of the man that had she died first, the response from him would probably have been very different – i.e. either stony silence or an outpouring of self-justification, laden with verbal nastiness of one kind or another. As a useful corrective to the misty eyed memorials to Heath which followed his death, I suggest people dig out the 1970s Grocer cartoon series about Heath in Private Eye. He was portrayed as a self-obsessed, utterly obnoxious, boorish, petulant, oafish and utterly incompetent buffoon. This series captured perfectly a not uncommon view of Heath at the time.

 

In short, Heath was a classic example of the Peter principle – i.e. someone promoted way beyond the level of his own competence. He had neither the judgment, the sagacity nor the political and personal skills required to make even a half decent Prime Minister. Mercifully, the British electorate had the wisdom to boot him out of office after one catastrophic term (and the Conservative party followed suit soon afterwards).

[RonJeremy]

Well, I did my best to explain why Heath was not only a disaster as PM, but also a dreadful man (see the post below).

 

I had difficulty in deciding whether to opt for Blair or Heath, as I have a visceral detestation of both. Heath undoubtedly did less harm to humanity than did the warmonger Blair (whom I hold responsible for death and suffering of many, many thousands of people). However, if we judge it on the criterion of overall prime ministerial incompetence, then Heath must in my view take the crown. I therefore ended up voting for Heath in this poll.

 

Indeed, the only thing we can learn about Heath's disastrous period in office (1970-74) is how not to run a country. Remember the three day week? Mercifully, the country had had enough of him after one term and his party soon got rid of him as well. He never possessed enough personal insight to acknowledge his faults and weaknesses, or the grace to admit he was wrong about anything, still less to have the grace to say anything positive about his successor. He was a boorish, utterly self-centred, mean, spiteful oaf of a man with an exaggerated opinion of his own (severely limited) abilities. I have no respect for him at all.

 

If we take his management of the economy and of industrial relations during his premiership, it was a catalogue of bad decisions and bungling, resulting in not a single positive outcome as far as I am aware (if judged on economic or industrial indicators, such as inflation or employment levels, growth or industrial relations). His attempt to tackle industrial relations for example led to the worst industrial relations we have ever had, culminating in the three day week, regular power cuts, enormous inconvenience for ordinary people due to loss of heating, light and public transport, massive loss of output and worsening balance of payments. He had no understanding of how modern economies work. Indeed, his grasp of Economics seem to consist of half-understood pseudo Keynesian nostrums that were already seriously out of date at the time and totally inappropriate to the conditions with which he was dealing. Indeed, prior to becoming PM, he did toy with other ideas (i.e. the Selsdon formulae), but in a very half-hearted way, either because he didn’t believe in them or (more probably) because he didn’t understand them. He also soon abandoned any pretence of implementing these formulae when in office. Mrs. Thatcher’s famous phrase ‘no U turns’ derives from her determination not to repeat the mistakes of Heath in this regard.

 

Moreover, it is rather ironic that his style of 'consensus politics' led to the worst industrial unrest the UK had experienced in the post-war era and to the nadir of the three day week and to regular power blackouts. For a 'consensus politician' he was remarkably lacking in any ability to achieve consensus. He was no monetarist. But nor was he a Keynesian. Quite simply, I think he lacked the intellectual ability or curiosity to understand either school of thought, particularly the need to adapt ideas to suit prevailing circumstances. In addition to his dislike (fear?) of women and of being contradicted, he also appeared to have an aversion for people obviously much brighter than himself. Whereas Mrs. Thatcher had a coherent ideological vision (deriving from Joseph, Powell, Hayek and other gurus of the so-called new Right), Heath seemed to have lacked intellectual curiosity and receptivity to new ideas. An amusing irony is that at the time he was ousted, many people in the Tory party did not have high expectations of Thatcher. Moreover, many media pundits. had no idea of her mettle either. She was in fact described by someone at the time (can't remember who) as simply another 'Heath with tits on'. How wrong they all were!

 

If we take Heath’s supposed greatest achievement, i.e. taking the UK into the EEC in 1973, well, he badly bungled this as he did so much else. He was so keen to take us in that he did so on terms which were very largely unfavourable to us – meaning that even though the UK was one of the poorest members at the time, we were paying enormous sums into the EEC budget and getting relatively little in return. Many people think that the 1975 referendum was about whether to stay in or to leave the EEC. It was really about renegotiating the awful terms Heath had agreed to in 1972. (probably because he wanted to go down in history as the person who took us into the EEC). The result of Heath’s bungling was that the UK’s relations with our European partners were to be poisoned for many years and were dominated by the ‘BBQ’ (i.e. the British budget question). It must have been particularly galling to Heath that the person who did the most to rectify this intolerable situation was Margaret Thatcher, who negotiated the substantial annual rebate for the UK in 1984. Far from ‘reconciling us to Europe’, Heath actually did the very opposite..

 

As for Heath the man, well, there are many recorded instances of his boorish, self-obsessed, petulant, misogynistic and spiteful behaviour (and not only towards Thatcher) We can’t say ‘nothing became in his (political) life like the leaving on it’. Indeed, he never reconciled himself to the fact that he was ousted by a mere woman who turned out to be a much for effective and capable Conservative Prime Minister than he ever was, and moreover a political leader with a much firmer place in history than he ever achieved. Thatcher was magnanimous towards him on hearing of his death. I think it’s the measure of the man that had she died first, the response from him would probably have been very different – i.e. either stony silence or an outpouring of self-justification, laden with verbal nastiness of one kind or another. As a useful corrective to the misty eyed memorials to Heath which followed his death, I suggest people dig out the 1970s Grocer cartoon series about Heath in Private Eye. He was portrayed as a self-obsessed, utterly obnoxious, boorish, petulant, oafish and utterly incompetent buffoon. This series captured perfectly a not uncommon view of Heath at the time.

 

In short, Heath was a classic example of the Peter principle – i.e. someone promoted way beyond the level of his own competence. He had neither the judgment, the sagacity nor the political and personal skills required to make even a half decent Prime Minister. Mercifully, the British electorate had the wisdom to boot him out of office after one catastrophic term (and the Conservative party followed suit soon afterwards).

 

Come on Lordchaverly you need to get off the fence and say what you really mean. try elaborating a little more

[muchtoofair]

just be thankful for what might have been, but thank the stars, wasn't. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, and Howard spring to mind.

 

I detested Hague back in the day,in mitigation,I was in my twenties and fresh from a bout of punk rock vs mrs Thatcher,I forget the Major years,probably having too much fun.

 

Looking back on his debates with Blair when Hague was leader of the opposition and new Labour were at the zenith of their credibility and freshly in power,I have to say how much I admire Hagues wholly witty and comparitively mature admonishments of Blair.

 

Did Hague nick the speech patterns from Harold Wilson,or am I imagining things?

 

I'd like to see him do well,he looks like the sort of Tory that just wants a few quid in his back pocket,he'll lie a bit but I don't find him sinister or anything,only 5 out of 10 in the t**t stakes from me.