Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Thatcher polling continues….Best PM since ’45 and her g

SystemSystem Posts: 11,683
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Thatcher polling continues….Best PM since ’45 and her greatest achievements

YouGov’s ‘Greatest British PM since 1945′ findings broken down by party support twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    Bring back Thatcher.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    edited April 2013
    Amused to see the Lib Dems and Labour think ticking a diversity box more impressive than reclaiming British land and winning a war.

    Edited extra bit: just had a weird error. Tried posting the above very shortly after the thread was created and had a 'DiscussionID required' box pop up. I checked, and was already signed in. Upon the second attempt the message went through fine.

    I'm hoping this is just a one off. Incidentally, thanks Mr. Smithson for your e-mail.
  • Options
    Says a lot that third in the list is don't know.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited April 2013
    Cameron is in real trouble if he as brown,Douglas-home,major and callagham polling above him ;-)
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Even labour voters put Thatcher ahead of Brown.... that's how awsomesauce she was...

    Poor old Heath. no votes at all....
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    Presumably those choosing Churchill did not click that this was a post-45 poll.

    Given when the poll was done it's results are not a huge surprise.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,993
    interesting that libdem voters are like labour voters, *except* on the question of the unions
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    Enough with this Dianification!

    For heaven's sake, she was a politician, a formidable one, I grant you, a necessary one by the end of the 1970's. She achieved much; she made some appalling errors and she started to believe her own propaganda. There is stuff to learn, both from her successes and mistakes.

    But she is not some non-partisan Mother of the Nation and all this nostalgia is becoming a bit gross, frankly, and risks backfiring on the Tories.
  • Options
    Mr Observer.

    Your uncle sounds amazing.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    The problem with including Churchill in a post-1945 question is that not many people are able to assess his record as PM from 1951-55 without taking into account his earlier war-time period in office. In fact it's almost impossible to do so.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    Amused to see the Lib Dems and Labour think ticking a diversity box more impressive than reclaiming British land and winning a war.

    I think her being the first female prime minister was an amazing achievement too. And the best part is she did it entirely on her own merits as a person, and at no point would ever dream of arguing for special treatment simply due to her sex - the sour grapes of this type of feminist polemic are most amusing for instance : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-no-feminist !
  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Hmmm.

    Best PM since 1945? Churchill gets 24% despite only being in office 6 months?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @SouthamObserver They read the question more closely than you. They were not asked "which Prime Minister had the most achievements after 1945?" They were asked "who do you think has been the greatest Prime Minister since 1945?"

    Sir Winston Churchill is the correct answer to that question. That his achievements after 1945 were relatively slight is neither here nor there. He was Prime Minister and he was the greatest of the list available to pick from.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,993
    Ironic, that his spell post WW2 as Prime Minister was not his finest hour. I would not rate Churchill as the best post-War PM.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,444
    edited April 2013
    BenM said:

    Hmmm.

    Best PM since 1945? Churchill gets 24% despite only being in office 6 months?

    You need to brush up on your history he was PM again from 1951 until 1955

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Pulpstar, I was amused to see Janet Street-Porter [hyphen?] accusing Thatcher of being a traitor to her sex for not helping women.

    Mr. M, Churchill won in 1951, I think, after Attlee scraped a victory in 1950 and then Churchill kept the PCP camped in Westminster to inflict endless defeats on Labour, prompting another election which Churchill then won.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Interesting to see that 5% of UKIP voters hate Mrs Thatcher so much that they regard her as having no achievements that they are prepared to pick as greatest. The only other party with a non-negligible number of nil responses is Labour.
  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795



    You need to brush up on your history he was PM again from 1951 until 1956

    Ah yes! My bad!

    I'm not sure his record in that period was overly remarkable though?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    antifrank said:

    @SouthamObserver They read the question more closely than you. They were not asked "which Prime Minister had the most achievements after 1945?" They were asked "who do you think has been the greatest Prime Minister since 1945?"

    Sir Winston Churchill is the correct answer to that question. That his achievements after 1945 were relatively slight is neither here nor there. He was Prime Minister and he was the greatest of the list available to pick from.

    Yes, that is true and why I was never cut out to be a lawyer!

  • Options
    It is fair to say Churchill was an awesome wartime PM, less so as a peacetime PM
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    The question is ambiguously worded as to whether Churchill's pre-1945 achievements are relevant - like a poorly worded contract it is a gift for a lawyer ;)
  • Options
    carlcarl Posts: 750
    Brown > Cameron
  • Options
    GasmanGasman Posts: 132
    Has anyone worked out how to get the comments ordered oldest first yet?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937

    Mr Observer.

    Your uncle sounds amazing.

    To be honest he is a bit of an up his own arse actor, who never quite made it but always earned a good living. He looked the part but he was always light on the skills front. Fantastic company when in a good mood; a complete pain when not. A typical thesp in other words!

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,817
    Maggie's going to be just like Elvis - More popular dead than alive.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.
  • Options

    Mr Observer.

    Your uncle sounds amazing.

    To be honest he is a bit of an up his own arse actor, who never quite made it but always earned a good living. He looked the part but he was always light on the skills front. Fantastic company when in a good mood; a complete pain when not. A typical thesp in other words!

    But he was in Blake's 7

  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Bring back Thatcher.

    He's flying home today I understand.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937

    Mr Observer.

    Your uncle sounds amazing.

    To be honest he is a bit of an up his own arse actor, who never quite made it but always earned a good living. He looked the part but he was always light on the skills front. Fantastic company when in a good mood; a complete pain when not. A typical thesp in other words!

    But he was in Blake's 7

    It was never one of my favourites. The Fawlty Towers one is the knock-out for me.

  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    antifrank said:

    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.

    ...Tally for Cameron just about right.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    edited April 2013
    antifrank said:

    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.

    You'd need to be a bit of anorak to go further back than Thatcher, though, except to choose Churchill.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    antifrank said:

    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.

    Blair twice as popular amongst Labour bods as Attlee. Given Blair moved the Labour party to the centre as he had to do in the post Thatcher enviroment and Attlee (I believe) created the bastions of the left's church that are the NHS and post 1945 welfare state that result is particularly surprising.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    And on the negatives of Mrs Thatcher's tenure of office, UKIP voters' responses in some respects are very similar to those of Labour voters' responses. Both groups are far more concerned about the decline in mining and manufacturing and privatisations than either Lib Dem or Conservative voters.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    edited April 2013

    Mr. Pulpstar, I was amused to see Janet Street-Porter [hyphen?] accusing Thatcher of being a traitor to her sex for not helping women.

    Mr. M, Churchill won in 1951, I think, after Attlee scraped a victory in 1950 and then Churchill kept the PCP camped in Westminster to inflict endless defeats on Labour, prompting another election which Churchill then won.

    I'm not sure that's accurate. There were indeed many many late/all night sittings during that short Parliament but I thought few Labour defeats. Party discipline was pretty monolithic in those days. But after Bevan, Wilson and Freeman resigned, the Attlee Government, worn out after 10 years exhausting years, almost literally gave up the ghost in 1951. Ironically, had they waited another 12 months or so as the economy improved, they may well have won a third term.
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    The most interesting figure in that lot is the pitifully low proportion of Labour supporters who understand, or perhaps are prepared to admit, that our entire national prosperity and freedom since the early eighties were based on defeating the miners' strike and limiting the power of the unions.
  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    The most interesting figure in that lot is the pitifully low proportion of Labour supporters who understand, or perhaps are prepared to admit, that our entire national prosperity and freedom since the early eighties were based on defeating the miners' strike and limiting the power of the unions.

    How fittingly pompous.

  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Is see that 24% of LD's don't know who was greatest PM out of the list. Perhaps they don't take any notice of who is running the Country unless it's one of theirs and they'd have to go back a long way for one of those.
  • Options
    I think you'd have to be functionally retarded to vote for anyone other than the top 5 and I'm generally squinting at Harold Wilson and thinking even he doesn't deserve to be there.

    Blair too high, Attlee too low is a given.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    edited April 2013
    I'm going bonkers today!
  • Options
    hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    I don't know how this poll was done, but Cameron bottom of the pile. Would be interesting whether Cameron would win a leadership contest, if one were held.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,674
    Based on record post war I'd vote:

    Thatcher
    Attlee
    Blair
    Heath
    Wilson

    On the basis of a combination of 'getting things done' (Thatcher, Attlee, Heath (EEC)) and 'winning elections' (Blair, Wilson).

    Still waiting for the internals of the Guardian ICM poll to see who the fans of nationalised industry are....
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    BenM said:



    How fittingly pompous.

    How quaint that you don't know the difference between 'pompous' and 'true'
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    BenM said:

    antifrank said:

    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.

    ...Tally for Cameron just about right.
    To be fair, it's far too soon to judge someone's time in office when they're still in place, and Cameron hasn't (luckily) had to cope with any huge crisis (apart from the day-in-day outs of running the country).

    Certainly nothing to compare with Thatcher and the Falklands, or Blair and 9/11 and the fall out from that. Sometimes great PM's are created due to events and things outside of their control (and how they cope with it).

    If anything, luckily world affairs are pretty small fry and localised at the moment.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    hucks67 said:

    I don't know how this poll was done, but Cameron bottom of the pile. Would be interesting whether Cameron would win a leadership contest, if one were held.


    On the semantics, the others 'have been' PM, which is what the question asks, Cameron is PM, and can not be judged in the past tense (although many wish his premiership could be judged in the past).
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,974

    BenM said:

    antifrank said:

    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.

    ...Tally for Cameron just about right.
    To be fair, it's far too soon to judge someone's time in office when they're still in place, and Cameron hasn't (luckily) had to cope with any huge crisis (apart from the day-in-day outs of running the country).

    Certainly nothing to compare with Thatcher and the Falklands, or Blair and 9/11 and the fall out from that. Sometimes great PM's are created due to events and things outside of their control (and how they cope with it).

    If anything, luckily world affairs are pretty small fry and localised at the moment.
    Yet he has still been absolutely useless, marks him out for dunces corner as far as PM's are concerned , easily in the bottom two alongside Brown in the history books.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,109
    JackW said:

    Bring back Thatcher.

    He's flying home today I understand.
    Extraordinary rendition?

  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    I think you'd have to be functionally retarded to vote for anyone other than the top 5 and I'm generally squinting at Harold Wilson and thinking even he doesn't deserve to be there.

    Blair too high, Attlee too low is a given.

    Wilson has a higher claim than Blair, who achieved pretty much exactly nothing other than spend money (any fool can do that when the world economy and the City are booming like never before), but who was responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster of the post-war years. Wilson can lay claim to some significant and lasting social legislation, and kept us out of Vietnam, even though his governments were a disaster for the economy and for education.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    A Wednesday by-election is being held today in Luton/Wigmore:

    http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. G, judging Basil II by the early part of his reign would be folly.

    He can only be assessed properly when his time is done, not unlike a roast parsnip.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,307
    Pulpstar said:

    Amused to see the Lib Dems and Labour think ticking a diversity box more impressive than reclaiming British land and winning a war.

    I think her being the first female prime minister was an amazing achievement too. And the best part is she did it entirely on her own merits as a person, and at no point would ever dream of arguing for special treatment simply due to her sex - the sour grapes of this type of feminist polemic are most amusing for instance : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-no-feminist !
    She was also one of those lady PMs or Presidents not related by blood or marriage to a previous incumbent.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,307
    Who were the demographic who put Tony Blair third in the list???
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited April 2013
    Based on post war Scottish nobility I'd vote top five :

    Lord Home of the Hirsel
    Baroness Thatcher
    Earl Attlee
    Earl of Stockton
    Sir Edward Heath

    Edited as I demoted SuperMac to a mere Viscountcy !!
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    How fittingly pompous.

    Perhaps to understand the seventies you have to have sat round the gas lamps playing cards during the three day week when Joe Gormley turned the lights off.

    You have to have heard the stories of vicious intimidation of honest workers during show of hands votes on strikes, often held in car parks.

    You have to have ridden in an Austin Allegro.

  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Bring back Thatcher.

    He's flying home today I understand.
    Extraordinary rendition?

    LOL

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,307

    It is fair to say Churchill was an awesome wartime PM, less so as a peacetime PM

    It's amazing that he suffered a landslide defeat to Labour just as the war in Europe ended.
  • Options
    If we are rating Prime Ministers then it would be

    Thatcher
    Churchill
    MacMillan

    And thats it the rest for one reason or another are so far beneath those three they do not deserve a vote.......

    Furthermore, may I thank the left for reminding me why its so easy to despise them. Its enough to make people vote Tory again.

    You can drag the left out of the sewers but you can't drag the sewer out of the left

    And with that I shall depart in the knowledge that it seems Margaret Thatcher can do the one thing Cameron is utterly incapable of doing. Even in death it seems she is able to give the Tory polling figures a lift! Pity for Dave such a bounce won't last very long.....

  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    taffys said:

    You have to have ridden in an Austin Allegro.

    Or, as I did, owned one.

    One day I pulled up the handbrake and the mounting fell out of the chassis.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,674
    edited April 2013
    How Thatcher, the economic libertarian, laid the foundations for the changes Thatcher, the social conservative, would not have been so keen on:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/04/margaret-thatcher-an-accidental-libertarian-heroine/

    "That is, just as socialism was challenged and ultimately defeated by Thatcherite economics so too was social conservatism. The triumph of economic liberalism begat the victory of social liberalism too. Margaret Thatcher’s economic libertarianism (if it can so be called) would eventually advance the cause of social libertarianism as well. That she would have disapproved of this matters little; it is part of her legacy too. And a welcome one."
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    AndyJS said:

    A Wednesday by-election is being held today in Luton/Wigmore:

    http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/

    This will be interesting to see how UKIP do and in battling the weird effects of Thatchers death. (so far)
  • Options
    @JackW
    Macmillan was raised to the peerage as Earl of Stockton and Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    The people who voted for Eden must've had their tongue in their cheek, surely. I'd even rate Ted above him.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The notion that Mrs Thatcher stabbed some UK Mittelstand of world class manufacturers in the back in the 1970s is so much complete rubbish.

    The fact is that much of British industry was putting itself in the scrapyard due to its woeful performance. A legion of excuses was trotted out for why we weren't any good. The Germans had 'newer plant' due to the Marshall plan, for example.


  • Options

    I think you'd have to be functionally retarded to vote for anyone other than the top 5 and I'm generally squinting at Harold Wilson and thinking even he doesn't deserve to be there.

    Blair too high, Attlee too low is a given.

    Wilson has a higher claim than Blair, who achieved pretty much exactly nothing other than spend money (any fool can do that when the world economy and the City are booming like never before), but who was responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster of the post-war years. Wilson can lay claim to some significant and lasting social legislation, and kept us out of Vietnam, even though his governments were a disaster for the economy and for education.
    I just really don't like the 60s.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    @JackW
    Macmillan was raised to the peerage as Earl of Stockton and Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden.

    Indeed. Duly edited.

    Thank you.

  • Options
    Cameron and Heath receiving equally low ratings is fittingly appropriate.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    One day I pulled up the handbrake and the mounting fell out of the chassis.

    I remember my uncle complaining about his Morris Marina. All of the instruments on the dashboard slipped out of their mountings within months of purchase.

  • Options

    taffys said:

    You have to have ridden in an Austin Allegro.

    Or, as I did, owned one.

    One day I pulled up the handbrake and the mounting fell out of the chassis.
    You haven't arrived until you've owned a Morris Marina Estate. It was a horrible baby poo colour, might have been Tuscan Beige. I only got it because we needed the space to transport the kids and assorted pushchairs, and I was on a budget.

    I hated that car.


  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    taffys said:

    You have to have ridden in an Austin Allegro.

    Or, as I did, owned one.

    One day I pulled up the handbrake and the mounting fell out of the chassis.
    My Spitfire had an equally unreliable handbrake - for its MOT, it'd be tightened up to pass and then within a few pulls would be totally useless. A hill start or waiting in traffic required both feet revving/braking and my left hand to keep it from rolling forward or back.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    I think you'd have to be functionally retarded to vote for anyone other than the top 5 and I'm generally squinting at Harold Wilson and thinking even he doesn't deserve to be there.

    Blair too high, Attlee too low is a given.

    Wilson has a higher claim than Blair, who achieved pretty much exactly nothing other than spend money (any fool can do that when the world economy and the City are booming like never before), but who was responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster of the post-war years. Wilson can lay claim to some significant and lasting social legislation, and kept us out of Vietnam, even though his governments were a disaster for the economy and for education.
    Worst than Suez?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited April 2013

    Based on record post war I'd vote:

    Thatcher
    Attlee
    Blair
    Heath
    Wilson

    On the basis of a combination of 'getting things done' (Thatcher, Attlee, Heath (EEC)) and 'winning elections' (Blair, Wilson).

    Still waiting for the internals of the Guardian ICM poll to see who the fans of nationalised industry are....

    I do forsee utilities becoming a huge issue in Ed's premiership. The combination of incorrect incentives and lack of action by successive Governments and the private sector to replace power generation facilities is going to come home to roost. Perhaps a rather left wing view on the subject but privatisation and smashing the unions in the eighties kept the lights on for Britain to work. Perhaps a partial renationalisation of power will be needed.


  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,674
    Finally someone giving Livingstone a hard time - Andrew Neil on BBC2 'Thatcher made sure people like you could not take over the Labour Party...'

    After Wednesday, I doubt we'll hear from him again....
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    Cameron and Heath receiving equally low ratings is fittingly appropriate.

    Who on earth would choose Cameron, or indeed any Conservative PM, over Thatcher or (if you take antifrank's interpretation of the question) Churchill? Those two don't leave any room for anyone else.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    What a nice and thoughtful tribute

    RT @nicholaswatt: Speech by @conor_burnsMP worth watching. Planning to speak from spot where Lady Thatcher made her maiden speech + where she sat after PM
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038

    It's amazing that he suffered a landslide defeat to Labour just as the war in Europe ended.

    Do you mean it's amazing but you understand it, or it's amazing and you don't understand it?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,674
    Opposition Benches less than half full.....
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    antifrank said:

    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.

    As Churchill said: "Atlee is a modest man, and has plenty to be modest about".
  • Options
    The top three looks about right, with Churchill and Thatcher interchangeable. Of the rest, most people wouldn't really have any in depth knowledge of them below Brown and Major.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    I was extolling the 'joys' of the Morris Ital only yesterday...both my parents and grandparents had one.

    (not to mention I inherited my grandparents on in about 1997...needless to say it didn't last long in the hands of a 17yr old...), so technically that was my first car.

    If I'm ever famous enough to be the 'star in a reasonably priced car' on Top Gear I might have to lie and make a better history for myself...
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Opposition Benches less than half full.....

    That should keep the expenses for the day lower than otherwise.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Cameron very good re Mrs T and the IRA - my local MP was Ian Gow and I live just 1.5miles from his home - The Dog House - where he was blown up in a car bomb.
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited April 2013
    corporeal said:

    Worst than Suez?

    Most certainly. Suez was of course a disaster, but on a much smaller scale and of short duration. British casualties were 16 dead and 96 wounded, according to Wikipedia, and those of our allies and of Egyptian civilians also relatively light. The contrast with getting sucked into a decade-long disaster in Iraq, and the corresponding boost to world terrorism, could not be starker.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Plato said:

    Cameron very good re Mrs T and the IRA - my local MP was Ian Gow and I live just 1.5miles from his home - The Dog House - where he was blown up in a car bomb.

    I was in Eastbourne the day of his funeral..
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    @Taffys

    Mini - clapped out gearbox, cramped.
    Marina - clapped out, underpowered, hideous colours.
    Allegro - worse than the marina.
    Maxi - fit only for a forfeit at a party, go outside - laugh at a Austin Maxi and return.
    MG Midget - too small, hideous colours.
    TR7 - made in Speke so badly than even BL closed the factory down. Great example of a mediocre replacement of better designs.

    In the 70s, the Germans and Japanese were still able to sell cars here in spite of revaluations of the mark and yen which made their products more expensive. BL, Hillman -Chrylser- Talbot purveyors of unreliable, poorly designed, poorly assembled junk.

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    BenM said:



    You need to brush up on your history he was PM again from 1951 until 1956

    Ah yes! My bad!

    I'm not sure his record in that period was overly remarkable though?
    It's a long time since I thought about it, but wasn't Eden PM during Suez. Which would mean Churchill retired in 1954 or 55.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:

    The tally for Clement Attlee is amazingly low. The tally for Tony Blair is ridiculously high.

    As Churchill said: "Atlee is a modest man, and has plenty to be modest about".
    As with many quotes attributed to Churchill, this one isn't verified and may well not be true.

    As far as Attlee goes, his importance on the administrative side of WWII gets forgotten, beyond that he was a prime minister who effected massive change over a short time, more than almost any other PM.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,307
    Dadge said:

    It's amazing that he suffered a landslide defeat to Labour just as the war in Europe ended.

    Do you mean it's amazing but you understand it, or it's amazing and you don't understand it?
    Um, a bit of both really I suppose.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    taffys said:

    You have to have ridden in an Austin Allegro.

    Or, as I did, owned one.

    One day I pulled up the handbrake and the mounting fell out of the chassis.
    You haven't arrived until you've owned a Morris Marina Estate. It was a horrible baby poo colour, might have been Tuscan Beige. I only got it because we needed the space to transport the kids and assorted pushchairs, and I was on a budget.

    I hated that car.


    I thank god that I lived abroad at that time. I drove Subaru!
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,307
    Charles said:

    BenM said:



    You need to brush up on your history he was PM again from 1951 until 1956

    Ah yes! My bad!

    I'm not sure his record in that period was overly remarkable though?
    It's a long time since I thought about it, but wasn't Eden PM during Suez. Which would mean Churchill retired in 1954 or 55.
    Yep it was definitely Anthony Eden.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Charles said:

    BenM said:



    You need to brush up on your history he was PM again from 1951 until 1956

    Ah yes! My bad!

    I'm not sure his record in that period was overly remarkable though?
    It's a long time since I thought about it, but wasn't Eden PM during Suez. Which would mean Churchill retired in 1954 or 55.
    Yep it was definitely Anthony Eden.
    Churchill was the Mau Mau in Kenya.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    My parents had a Morris Marina and a Morris Ital. My grandparents had an Austin Allegro and an Austin Maxi.

    On the plus side, I've never seen the slightest point in consciously buying British ever since.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    A fine tribute from the Prime Minister.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    BenM said:



    You need to brush up on your history he was PM again from 1951 until 1956

    Ah yes! My bad!

    I'm not sure his record in that period was overly remarkable though?
    It's a long time since I thought about it, but wasn't Eden PM during Suez. Which would mean Churchill retired in 1954 or 55.
    Retired in 1955, stood down as an MP in 1964 and then passed away in 1965.

    He was, iirc, the only MP to ever hold his final constituency.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Support for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition rose to the highest level since January 2010 in a weekly Forsa poll, as her junior partner showed signs of recovery less than six months before German national elections.

    Merkel’s Christian Democratic bloc rose one percentage point to 41 percent in the poll for Hamburg-based Stern magazine and RTL television released today. Her Free Democratic coalition partner had 6 percent, also up one point and the fourth straight week it has been above the 5 percent threshold needed to win seats in parliament. With a combined 47 percent, Merkel has a clear majority for the first time in more than three years. "
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-10/merkel-s-coalition-has-re-election-majority-forsa-poll-says.html
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RT @PeterWatt123: Cameron very good. Strikes the right tone.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Both Cameron and Mliband very good.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,109
    edited April 2013
    <blockquote class="Quote" rel="MikeK">
    As Churchill said: "Atlee is a modest man, and has plenty to be modest about".</blockquote>

    'mod·est
    [mod-ist]
    adjective
    1. having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.'


    I think that may lie within the category of possibly apocryphal Churchill-isms, but if not he was being uncharacteristically loose with language unless he wished to imply that Atlee underestimated his own plentiful qualities.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Great example of a mediocre replacement of better designs.

    As was that ludicrous flying wedge of boxiness, the Austin Princess.

    It was the complete lack of pride that really got me. Even the features these cars had were only grudgingly put there because the competition had them.

    Left to their own devices, they would have been producing trabants.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,674
    Good Cameron comment to the conspicuous no shows:

    In tribute to Thatcher in Commons, Cameron says attendance of those who "profoundly disagreed" with her shows "generosity of spirit"....and statesmanship....
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    taffys said:

    Great example of a mediocre replacement of better designs.

    As was that ludicrous flying wedge of boxiness, the Austin Princess.

    It was the complete lack of pride that really got me. Even the features these cars had were only grudgingly put there because the competition had them.

    Left to their own devices, they would have been producing trabants.

    I saw a Trabant in a Tesco carpark last week - it was the engine sound that alerted me to it. Are they legal to drive here now? I'd be amazed if they are.

This discussion has been closed.