UK Prime Minister: David Lloyd George. Like his domestic policies; love his image. I'm taken to understand he was a scoundrel in his prosecution of World War I, but no one really comes out of that looking too good anyway.
For UK Prime Minister, my vote would be for Clement Attlee - giving us the NHS and other welfare support, free secondary education for all, investment in council housing; nationalisation of 20% of the UK economy so that major industries and vital services were run to support national reconstruction and policies such as full employment and ending poverty rather than just to create profit for investors. Though his desire to end colonialism was great, the implementation was sometimes disastrous - the partition of India and the dissolution of the Palestinian mandate leading to ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the worst.
US President, FDR. Yes he made a few bad mistakes, but in the main he was awesome and we need him again.
A less racist version thereof but yes. LBJ too. It's been a long time since the Democrats had a presidential nominee with that sort of force of will.
For the UK we have not been well served by PMs for the most part. Attlee, obviously, but I'd pick Asquith over the wantonly corrupt Lloyd-George. Asquith laid the foundations on which Beveridge and ultimately Attlee built, and at which governments over the last 45 years have been hacking away.
Churchill.. He made mistakes but he made sure that the UK did not lose WW2
The immediate strategic goal the U.K. was pursuing in the Second World War was the independence of Poland. The large scale "grand strategic" goal was the preservation of the British Empire. Given that at the end of the war Poland was not independent and the stage was set for the dissolution of the British Empire (largely because of the war), in the sense of accomplishing its war goals the U.K. did lose WW2.
You can add Dieppe, to Canadians, to the list. And look at what winning WW2 did to his electability in 1945.
In fairness the war was run by a national government which featured many of Labour's big beasts, who acquitted themselves admirably. People may have been grateful for Churchill's leadership but they didn't confuse that with being solely responsible for victory.
Yes to Clement Attlee (I was born in 1951, just a couple of months before the GE which Labour lost!), and another Yes to Gordon Brown.
Happily, Mr Brown is still active, in charitable works rather than politics, but occasionally makes typically trenchant comments about the misdoings of the current lot at Westminster.
Neither he nor Attlee are or were perfect, but we could still do with their like in power now.
In my lifetime, I would list every US Democratic President as favorite. Only one Republican has come close, Eisenhower, mainly because he inaugurated the National Highway System, though that was the start of the failure of the passenger rail lines in the US.
I should say, no President in my lifetime is without their faults, though.
Brown certainly steered the UK on a prudent financial course inherited from his predecessor's Chancellor (yes, I am aware that they are the same person). His great misfortune was to be at the helm when the economy crashed, and as such an easy target to those who conveniently chose to forget that it was a global crash that began with bank failures in the USA. Luckily they've made *such* a good job following him. 👹
In my lifetime, I would list every US Democratic President as favorite. Only one Republican has come close, Eisenhower, mainly because he inaugurated the National Highway System, though that was the start of the failure of the passenger rail lines in the US.
I should say, no President in my lifetime is without their faults, though.
I doubt if any US President or UK Prime Minister or leader of any country in anyone's lifetime in the entire history of humanity has been 'without their faults.'
Meanwhile, I wonder what this list would look like if we included monarchs, bishops, Popes and Patriarchs, abbots and abbesses, ministers and pastors ...
Churchill was a great man with great flaws. We don't need to go over those again, or to gloss over them. He thought he was a military genius, as did Hitler. Fortunately, in WWII ne had Alan Brooke to stand up to him, while Hitler didn't.
Yes, Attlee gets my vote. 'A modest man, with much to be modest about', said Churchill; which is not the put=down many imagine it to be.
I don't think there was ever any possibility of the UK 'surrendering' to Germany in 1940. They could have negotiated and come to terms though, which might have amounted to the sane thing, morally at least.
Much counter-factual and speculative ink has been spilt as to whether Britain (and her Empire, we didn't 'stand alone') would have come to some sort of terms with Hitler in the summer of 1940 had Churchill not been PM of a coalition government.
Lord Halifax and some others may have pushed for that. As it was, and as Arethosemyfeet has rightly reminded us, Labour and other groups were solidly behind Church at that point, despite their reservations about his politics.
Nobody's diminishing the impact of his speeches nor his efforts to persuade the US to enter the War. The main war aim was to hold out until the 'New World' came to the rescue and succour of the 'Old.'
At any rate, Hitler's invasion of Russia was his biggest strategic blunder and that didn't have a great deal to do with Churchill or any other western leader - at least not directly. Hitler should have dealt with us and contained us first before embarking on a costly Russian campaign.
He was the man of the moment in summer of 1940 most certainly but he had a coalition behind him and popular support.
His record at other times was pretty poor to say the least but hey, you can't have everything.
But for providing a focus and leadership in the summer of 1940. Yes, full marks.
Meanwhile, Lloyd George. A relative of mine by marriage, apparently. No, Lloyd George didn't know my father ...
He was the UK's first working class PM and gave the King and the aristocracy short shrift. Both he and Asquith treated the King with far less deference than the first Labour MPs.
The 1906 Liberal government was probably the most radical and 'progressive' Britain had ever had up until that time and certainly before Labour's star began to rise.
But corrupt? The old goat was up to all sorts of scams that put recent Tory misdemeanours into the shade. Well, almost ... 😉
But seriously, the bloke was as crooked as crooked can be.
He has a few blemishes, most especially the 1969 White Paper on Indigenous policy.
And whatever one thinks of his actions during the October Crisis, refering to civil-libertarians as "bleeding hearts who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns" was pretty gratuitous, and seemingly lifted from typical tough-on-crime rhetoric of the Right.
And it always kinda irks me the way his latter-day fans quote "Just watch me" by itself to show what a character he was, when in fact, he was bragging about how far he was willing to go with tossing left-wingers in jail.
If I had to choose a Prime Minister I remember it would be Gordon Brown; but I have a feeling, not based on any detailed knowledge, that from my lifetime Harold Wilson would get the nod.
Wilson regarded himself as a "man of the people" and did much to promote this image, contrasting himself with the stereotypical aristocratic conservatives and other statesmen who had preceded him, as an example of social mobility.
That's how I remember him, rather than his failures in the field of economics.
Meanwhile, Lloyd George. A relative of mine by marriage, apparently. No, Lloyd George didn't know my father ...
He was the UK's first working class PM and gave the King and the aristocracy short shrift. Both he and Asquith treated the King with far less deference than the first Labour MPs.
The 1906 Liberal government was probably the most radical and 'progressive' Britain had ever had up until that time and certainly before Labour's star began to rise.
But corrupt? The old goat was up to all sorts of scams that put recent Tory misdemeanours into the shade. Well, almost ... 😉
But seriously, the bloke was as crooked as crooked can be.
I didn't know Lloyd George but I did know a few people called George Lloyd
Wilson regarded himself as a "man of the people" and did much to promote this image, contrasting himself with the stereotypical aristocratic conservatives and other statesmen who had preceded him, as an example of social mobility.
That's how I remember him, rather than his failures in the field of economics.
I was happy to vote Labour when James Harold Wilson was leader.
I’ve always said that it’s a massive shame that we never had Neil Kinnock as Prime Minister. He turned the Labour Party around and set it back on course for government. Although he didn’t quite make it to No 10, I truly believe he laid the foundations for the 1997 victory.
He wasn't necessarily a great political figure but Harold Macmillan gave one of the most prophetic speeches of any British PM when he addressed Parliament in Cape Town in February 1960 after a tour of British colonies on the African continent. His Winds of Change speech indicated that the British government recognised that decolonisation and independence from Empire was inevitable and would not stand in the way of those ambitions.
"The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact."
Apologies. It was a feeble attempt at a joke. I didn't mean it literally and have no desire to start a Pond War. I will aim to do better and not write potentially wind-up inflammatory posts.
I’ve always said that it’s a massive shame that we never had Neil Kinnock as Prime Minister. He turned the Labour Party around and set it back on course for government. Although he didn’t quite make it to No 10, I truly believe he laid the foundations for the 1997 victory.
I hope he learnt that it's best to wait untill after victory to have a celebration
He wasn't necessarily a great political figure but Harold Macmillan gave one of the most prophetic speeches of any British PM when he addressed Parliament in Cape Town in February 1960 after a tour of British colonies on the African continent. His Winds of Change speech indicated that the British government recognised that decolonisation and independence from Empire was inevitable and would not stand in the way of those ambitions.
"The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact."
I hope he learnt that it's best to wait untill after victory to have a celebration.
"Alright!"
I remember that clip airing on the news the day after the election. Never imagined I was seeing something that would still be discussed over thirty years later.
As a general rule, you can get away dad-trying-to-be-cool behaviour if it all ends in joyful triumph. Obviously, that did not.
The 'I warn you not to be old ...' etc one, a master-piece.
The one where he got Hatton and Militant on the run too.
Genius.
And thanks to a certain cross-pond cribber, we will never forget "My ancestors were all coal miners who couldn't afford to go to university."
Yes, cross-pond plagiarist ...
But let's not get into Pond War territory again.
For the record, I wasn't in any way pandering to cross-pond animosity, even jocularly. It was just a way of more clearly identifying the lifter in question.
The 'I warn you not to be old ...' etc one, a master-piece.
The one where he got Hatton and Militant on the run too.
Genius.
I was one of the liverpool teachers who had their redundancy letters thrown over the school wall. I cheered to the rafters at that speech.
What was the reason for the letters being delivered in the manner that they were? And did it somehow tie into an ideological criticism of those councils?
The 'I warn you not to be old ...' etc one, a master-piece.
The one where he got Hatton and Militant on the run too.
Genius.
I was one of the liverpool teachers who had their redundancy letters thrown over the school wall. I cheered to the rafters at that speech.
What was the reason for the letters being delivered in the manner that they were? And did it somehow tie into an ideological criticism of those councils?
I have no idea. And I don't much care.
But I do know that it resulted in me, a young man with three young children and a mortgage not being paid for three months.
Luckily those filthy capitalists at the Yorkshire Bank gave me an interest free loan to the value of my salary for as long as the situation lasted.
Comments
UK Prime Minister: David Lloyd George. Like his domestic policies; love his image. I'm taken to understand he was a scoundrel in his prosecution of World War I, but no one really comes out of that looking too good anyway.
A less racist version thereof but yes. LBJ too. It's been a long time since the Democrats had a presidential nominee with that sort of force of will.
For the UK we have not been well served by PMs for the most part. Attlee, obviously, but I'd pick Asquith over the wantonly corrupt Lloyd-George. Asquith laid the foundations on which Beveridge and ultimately Attlee built, and at which governments over the last 45 years have been hacking away.
The immediate strategic goal the U.K. was pursuing in the Second World War was the independence of Poland. The large scale "grand strategic" goal was the preservation of the British Empire. Given that at the end of the war Poland was not independent and the stage was set for the dissolution of the British Empire (largely because of the war), in the sense of accomplishing its war goals the U.K. did lose WW2.
You can add Dieppe, to Canadians, to the list. And look at what winning WW2 did to his electability in 1945.
And let's not forget that while Bengalis were starving back in India, they were also dying in service of the British enpire as well. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/2098804/suresh-bhattacharya/
In fairness the war was run by a national government which featured many of Labour's big beasts, who acquitted themselves admirably. People may have been grateful for Churchill's leadership but they didn't confuse that with being solely responsible for victory.
Happily, Mr Brown is still active, in charitable works rather than politics, but occasionally makes typically trenchant comments about the misdoings of the current lot at Westminster.
Neither he nor Attlee are or were perfect, but we could still do with their like in power now.
I should say, no President in my lifetime is without their faults, though.
I doubt if any US President or UK Prime Minister or leader of any country in anyone's lifetime in the entire history of humanity has been 'without their faults.'
Meanwhile, I wonder what this list would look like if we included monarchs, bishops, Popes and Patriarchs, abbots and abbesses, ministers and pastors ...
Equally as chequered.
2 of my father's uncles died there but that's the sort of thing that happens in war.
If Churchill had surrendered to Germany in 1940, Germany would probably have won WW2
Yes, Attlee gets my vote. 'A modest man, with much to be modest about', said Churchill; which is not the put=down many imagine it to be.
Much counter-factual and speculative ink has been spilt as to whether Britain (and her Empire, we didn't 'stand alone') would have come to some sort of terms with Hitler in the summer of 1940 had Churchill not been PM of a coalition government.
Lord Halifax and some others may have pushed for that. As it was, and as Arethosemyfeet has rightly reminded us, Labour and other groups were solidly behind Church at that point, despite their reservations about his politics.
Nobody's diminishing the impact of his speeches nor his efforts to persuade the US to enter the War. The main war aim was to hold out until the 'New World' came to the rescue and succour of the 'Old.'
At any rate, Hitler's invasion of Russia was his biggest strategic blunder and that didn't have a great deal to do with Churchill or any other western leader - at least not directly. Hitler should have dealt with us and contained us first before embarking on a costly Russian campaign.
He was the man of the moment in summer of 1940 most certainly but he had a coalition behind him and popular support.
His record at other times was pretty poor to say the least but hey, you can't have everything.
But for providing a focus and leadership in the summer of 1940. Yes, full marks.
He was the UK's first working class PM and gave the King and the aristocracy short shrift. Both he and Asquith treated the King with far less deference than the first Labour MPs.
The 1906 Liberal government was probably the most radical and 'progressive' Britain had ever had up until that time and certainly before Labour's star began to rise.
But corrupt? The old goat was up to all sorts of scams that put recent Tory misdemeanours into the shade. Well, almost ... 😉
But seriously, the bloke was as crooked as crooked can be.
He has a few blemishes, most especially the 1969 White Paper on Indigenous policy.
And whatever one thinks of his actions during the October Crisis, refering to civil-libertarians as "bleeding hearts who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns" was pretty gratuitous, and seemingly lifted from typical tough-on-crime rhetoric of the Right.
And it always kinda irks me the way his latter-day fans quote "Just watch me" by itself to show what a character he was, when in fact, he was bragging about how far he was willing to go with tossing left-wingers in jail.
FWIW, from the Wikipedia article about him:
Wilson regarded himself as a "man of the people" and did much to promote this image, contrasting himself with the stereotypical aristocratic conservatives and other statesmen who had preceded him, as an example of social mobility.
That's how I remember him, rather than his failures in the field of economics.
I didn't know Lloyd George but I did know a few people called George Lloyd
I was happy to vote Labour when James Harold Wilson was leader.
I met his wife a few times. She was feisty and told things like they were. She didn't rate Blair much and his support for Bush in Iraq.
'Lyndon Johnson went down on his knees and begged my husband to send British troops to Vietnam... but her refused!'
Way to go, as the Americans would say.
Sorry guys, but our Wilson whipped your LBJ's sorry ass.
How many kids have you killed today?'
More seriously, I can't think of any leader without feet of clay.
So you have goat feet?
BroJames, Purgatory Host
"The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact."
Apologies. It was a feeble attempt at a joke. I didn't mean it literally and have no desire to start a Pond War. I will aim to do better and not write potentially wind-up inflammatory posts.
Ha ha ha.
No, I didn't have trotters last time I looked.
There's no room for complacency though.
Trip-trap, trip-trap, trot, trot, trot ...
Back to the hag-ridden woods of Celtic antiquity with ya.
Cadwaladr and all his goats.
I hope he learnt that it's best to wait untill after victory to have a celebration
We never had it so good.
"Alright!"
I remember that clip airing on the news the day after the election. Never imagined I was seeing something that would still be discussed over thirty years later.
As a general rule, you can get away dad-trying-to-be-cool behaviour if it all ends in joyful triumph. Obviously, that did not.
Great speeches though.
The 'I warn you not to be old ...' etc one, a master-piece.
The one where he got Hatton and Militant on the run too.
Genius.
And thanks to a certain cross-pond cribber, we will never forget "My ancestors were all coal miners who couldn't afford to go to university."
Those are the two I particularly remember too.
Yes, cross-pond plagiarist ...
But let's not get into Pond War territory again.
Kinnock had his faults and the tabloids made a big thing of the 'Welsh windbag' charge.
Had he been English and Conservative they'd have hailed him as a Churchillian orator.
For the record, I wasn't in any way pandering to cross-pond animosity, even jocularly. It was just a way of more clearly identifying the lifter in question.
Aside from the original quote being "Most of our people have never had it so good", that was hardly a difficult claim after the 1930s and the 1940s.
I was one of the liverpool teachers who had their redundancy letters thrown over the school wall. I cheered to the rafters at that speech.
What was the reason for the letters being delivered in the manner that they were? And did it somehow tie into an ideological criticism of those councils?
Indeed, and a lot of the *good* was the result of the Attlee administration...
It wasn't the quote. It was a reference to the quote.
I have no idea. And I don't much care.
But I do know that it resulted in me, a young man with three young children and a mortgage not being paid for three months.
Luckily those filthy capitalists at the Yorkshire Bank gave me an interest free loan to the value of my salary for as long as the situation lasted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(Labour_Party_leader)