Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Thunderbird 900

Gordon Brown Voted 3Rd Worst Prime Minister Since The War

Recommended Posts

"Winston Churchill once declared that history would judge him kindly because he would write it himself.

But the same cannot be said for Gordon Brown, it seems, as historians have already delivered their verdict.

The academics have voted the former Labour leader the third worst prime minister since the war."

"He comes tenth out of the 12 post-war premiers, ahead of Sir Anthony Eden and Sir Alec Douglas-Home - two men who have long been associated with failure.

It means Mr Brown is considered by experts to be the biggest prime ministerial failure for more than 45 years.

The poll of more than 100 academics found that although Mr Brown should be congratulated on his response to the banking crisis, he should be considered a failure because of the huge debt he left behind.

Top, by a wide margin, was Labour's post-war leader Clement Attlee who between 1945 and 1951 set up the welfare state and established the NHS. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299797/Gordon-Brown-voted-worst-post-war-Prime-Minister-historians.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ian Chesterton

Top, by a wide margin, was Labour's post-war leader Clement Attlee who between 1945 and 1951 set up the welfare state and established the NHS. "

Sounds like Satan to most HPCer's minds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historians are fast becoming the next celebrity darlings (following gardeners, chefs and property experts). Can't they restrict themselves to just telling us what happened and when - rather than telling us what we should think about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Top, by a wide margin, was Labour's post-war leader Clement Attlee who between 1945 and 1951 set up the welfare state and established the NHS. "

which begs the question - what exactly was new about new labour?

More welfare state and NHS bloat comes with the territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top, by a wide margin, was Labour's post-war leader Clement Attlee who between 1945 and 1951 set up the welfare state and established the NHS. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299797/Gordon-Brown-voted-worst-post-war-Prime-Minister-historians.html

Would Clement Attlee himself approve of what his creation has become? I doubt it.

The fact that the welfare state has run out of control to the point that it's no longer fit for purpose does not diminish the achievement in setting it up, all done at a time when Britains finances were in very poor shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top, by a wide margin, was Labour's post-war leader Clement Attlee who between 1945 and 1951 set up the welfare state and established the NHS. "

I think that alone tells us a lot about these 100 historians.

The awful financial position of the UK after the war. The distorted mix of society after the war and the inevitable upheavals to cope with it. The loss of influence and power. Coping with all that, much worse circumstances than any other PM had to cope with - and these historians say that setting up the NHS was the worst thing anyone has ever done to the country?

I wonder who could survive that lot doing their next performance review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that alone tells us a lot about these 100 historians.

The awful financial position of the UK after the war. The distorted mix of society after the war and the inevitable upheavals to cope with it. The loss of influence and power. Coping with all that, much worse circumstances than any other PM had to cope with - and these historians say that setting up the NHS was the worst thing anyone has ever done to the country?

I wonder who could survive that lot doing their next performance review?

You might want to read the article again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown is closest in character to Ted Heath - basically a decent though over-sensitive man who genuinely wanted to make things better, who then out of necessity became a machine politician, and was eventually driven slightly bonkers by his unsuitability for the top job.

Macmillan rather snobbishly (though correctly) described Heath as a "first class staff officer who shouldn't be permitted to marshall in the field". The only additional misfortune Brown had over Heath was that the global financial architecture being what it currently is, he just had more opportunity to do more damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown is closest in character to Ted Heath - basically a decent though over-sensitive man who genuinely wanted to make things better, who then out of necessity became a machine politician, and was eventually driven slightly bonkers by his unsuitability for the top job.

Macmillan rather snobbishly (though correctly) described Heath as a "first class staff officer who shouldn't be permitted to marshall in the field". The only additional misfortune Brown had over Heath was that the global financial architecture being what it currently is, he just had more opportunity to do more damage.

Whilst he is a victim of timing to a large extent, i cant agree he was decent, the single act of switching RPI to CPI in 2003 was completely self serving sh!t; and one of the most destructive economic decisions ever taken; there is simply no justification for it other than winning labour another term, i can forgive all the other mistakes because their results werent so completely obvious and guaranteed, fck all decent putting self ambition above the country you are meant to represent and thats why he took the job, and was given it, to make decisions for the benefit of the country, and there is clearly an element of scorched earth towards the dying days, completely unforgivable he strikes me about as decent as Fred Goodwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yeah...I never realised that Government was all about one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst he is a victim of timing to a large extent, i cant agree he was decent, the single act of switching RPI to CPI in 2003 was completely self serving sh!t; and one of the most destructive economic decisions ever taken; there is simply no justification for it other than winning labour another term, i can forgive all the other mistakes because their results werent so completely obvious and guaranteed, fck all decent putting self ambition above the country you are meant to represent and thats why he took the job, and was given it, to make decisions for the benefit of the country, and there is clearly an element of scorched earth towards the dying days, completely unforgivable he strikes me about as decent as Fred Goodwin

Well, like I said, he became a machine politician, rather like Heath did, and like Heath he became totally lost between his values and what he needed to do to carry on being a politician.

If he'd been elected to PM in 1973, he'd have been shovelling money into British Leyland and not giving a fig about CPI and RPI. When people lose their way, they just do what is expedient and slowly lose their marbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown is closest in character to Ted Heath - basically a decent though over-sensitive man who genuinely wanted to make things better, who then out of necessity became a machine politician, and was eventually driven slightly bonkers by his unsuitability for the top job.

Macmillan rather snobbishly (though correctly) described Heath as a "first class staff officer who shouldn't be permitted to marshall in the field". The only additional misfortune Brown had over Heath was that the global financial architecture being what it currently is, he just had more opportunity to do more damage.

Dear oh dear.

Both monsters. Heath the worst. Probably both liked little boys too, and killed to keep it out of the public domain.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread44314/pg1

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=12246

At least one had the decency to go rot in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much his failure as PM, as the ticking time bomb he planted during his time as Chancellor. He didn't become PM until June 2007 FFS, haven't these historians been paying attention to the dates? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear oh dear.

Both monsters. Heath the worst. Probably both liked little boys too, and killed to keep it out of the public domain.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread44314/pg1

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=12246

At least one had the decency to go rot in hell.

Do you think Ted Heath might have shagged the young Gordon Brown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst he is a victim of timing to a large extent, i cant agree he was decent, the single act of switching RPI to CPI in 2003 was completely self serving sh!t; and one of the most destructive economic decisions ever taken; there is simply no justification for it other than winning labour another term, i can forgive all the other mistakes because their results werent so completely obvious and guaranteed, fck all decent putting self ambition above the country you are meant to represent and thats why he took the job, and was given it, to make decisions for the benefit of the country, and there is clearly an element of scorched earth towards the dying days, completely unforgivable he strikes me about as decent as Fred Goodwin

Hear, hear. +100. The man was utterly driven by ambition and self-interest. Totally toxic and completely ego-centric - his arrogance knew no bounds and rendered him incapable of acting in another's best interest since he was completely unable to perceive from another's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tumbleweed.jpg

Not sure if that was supposed to be supportive or not, but just to make it clear, I was referring to Tony Blair. Gordon Brown didn't have a chance to be anything other than a failed prime-minister because of the damage he did as chancellor. We should remember him as a terrible chancellor more than anything.

Blair was prime-minister when the damage was done. He also started two major wars, and since leaving office has been shown to be utterly corrupt.

So I vote Blair as the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if that was supposed to be supportive or not, but just to make it clear, I was referring to Tony Blair. Gordon Brown didn't have a chance to be anything other than a failed prime-minister because of the damage he did as chancellor. We should remember him as a terrible chancellor more than anything.

Blair was prime-minister when the damage was done. He also started two major wars, and since leaving office has been shown to be utterly corrupt.

So I vote Blair as the worst.

....lets go halfers....Brown and Blair equal worst.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too early to judge Brown.

There are hints the public finances may not be as bad as supposed (as well as strong hints they are much worse).

Will the banks move back into profit so that the taxpayer makes a profit on the bank bail out?

Who knows? Probably not but who knows?

The "historians" who are voting on Brown now are engaged in contemporary comment not history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too early to judge Brown.

There are hints the public finances may not be as bad as supposed (as well as strong hints they are much worse).

Will the banks move back into profit so that the taxpayer makes a profit on the bank bail out?

Who knows? Probably not but who knows?

The "historians" who are voting on Brown now are engaged in contemporary comment not history.

How can the tax payers make a profit when the banks are trying to recapitalise by rinsing the taxpayer through the lending rate

And as i alluded to it is not the bank bailouts or even the public sector spending that is the problem for me , it was the removal of houses from the inflation index forcing massive malinvestment at the expense of the economy in order to win an election (its what made me keep hold of my house after 2003 despite me knowing it was comically priced, its impact was so obvious. That happened 7 years ago, it was obvious the result of it then as it is now, that is history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.