Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Would it ever be possible to have a Prime Minister who was elected without the backing of big business?
Ha, Pitt. The. Elder!
the country can never be perfect, and the PM gets all the blame for everything that is wrong. it is only with hindsight that we admire people like Atlee, I bet at the time we would have hated him.
He one a second election and it sounds more like it was the people around him that brought the party down more than him
only WON a 5 seat majority in the 1950 election.
My point was that your facts were wrong and the paragraph there goes on to imply the issues were around the Labour party as a whole not Attlee himself.
My facts were wrong: I have apologised for this. Clearly the Labour government had something of an implosion at the time. However, the fact that in the 1950 the party only won a very small (and greatly reduced) majority, (before going on to lose a further general election a year after that) suggests that Atlee was hardly Mr Fucking Popular at the time.
Despite the introduction of the NHS and the welfare state.
Of course he wasn't hated by all, but neither was he, at the time, widely considered to be the greatest PM this country has ever seen.
"it is only with hindsight that we admire people like Atlee, I bet at the time we would have hated him."?
He put The Bosch firmly in their place...
Nice gardens tbh tbf...
Whatever's your preference...
Gordon Brown, saved the world
Though circumstances meant that it was hardly a "typical" Prime Minister's job.
it's too simplistic to couch a PM in terms of whether they were "good" or "bad". Perhaps in a hundred or so years that will be possible.
i dont know much about him, but wikipedia says
"He arguably made a greater impact on British public life than any other 20th-century leader, thanks to his pre-war introduction of Britain's social welfare system, his leadership in winning the war, his post-war role in reshaping Europe and his partitioning Ireland (between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland which remained part of the UK)."
it probably says something very negative after, im not reading the whole article.
but yeah his career ended in disgrace after it emerged he'd made a personal fortune selling peerages
he also had lots of sex with people
re Ireland and post-war Europe, that Wikipedia quote is true - he had a big impact. But in a positive way? Er, no.
Sadly the media decided to give him a rough time because his smile looked a bit like Hodor's cum face.
who bullied and shouted at most people he came into contact with in Whitehall?
more left-wing = nicer person continuum. Didn't expect in_limbo to be getting on board with it mind!
And the latter makes you an overall better person than not being the former.
I always got the impression that Brown was well politically informed and sincere about wanting to improve the country's situation, and if he came across otherwise it was only because he was obviously getting misguided advice to change his image before the 2010 election. I also believe that the UK would have struggled a lot more with the financial crisis without his influence, and it's a shame his legacy is at best damage limitation due to circumstances out of his control.
It's quite difficult to unpick Blair and Brown's personalities and political sympathies after all that happened under New Labour/Blair/Mandelson. From what I've read about Gordon Brown pre-1997 he certainly seemed like the sort of decent, principled politician that I'm very much fond of. Difficult to disentangle that from New Labour and his own brief stint as PM.
He was about a week away from calling a general election in 2008. Then Cameron gave a speech at the Conservative Party conference which turned the polls on their heads. Could've been all very, very different...
he was complicit in the continued, and wreckless, deregulation of the financial services industry which contributed significantly to the near collapse, and subsequent bail out, of the financial services industry and...
Ah but then he said something really sincere about his family when he left office and stuff so, y'know, he must be alright.
"We know in retrospect what we missed. We set up the Financial Services Authority (FSA) believing that the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution," he said. "So we created a monitoring system which was looking at individual institutions. That was the big mistake. We didn't understand how risk was spread across the system, we didn't understand the entanglements of different institutions with the other and we didn't understand even though we talked about it just how global things were, including a shadow banking system as well as a banking system. That was our mistake, but I'm afraid it was a mistake made by just about everybody who was in the regulatory business."
what should he have done? we were literally hours away from cash machines not being able to dispense money.
And rightfully so. Chances are that Tony Blair wouldn't have understood the extent of the problem as intuitively and wouldn't have acted swiftly and decisively. Right man in the right place at the right time. And thank fuck for that.
I'm all for a display of contrition after the event and an erudite sense of self-awareness. His predecessor could learn a lot from that. Point is though the New Labour were largely ideologically unbothered by the mechanisms of, shall we say, turbo capitalism, so long as they were able to tax the profits. And it was hugely wreckless.
Blame shared; sure. But a nice bit of self-effacing wisdom after the event doesn't change the effects we're all feeling of it now - the largest triumph of greed over common sense we'll probably ever see.
in the period leading up to the French revolution.
you'd have had the Global Financial Crisis (TM) anyway (and it would likely have been even worst under a Tory government, who were advocating further deregulation).
The roots of the crisis were in the US, not the UK, with the sub-prime mortgage issue, and then with British institutions 'buying up' some of that debt. If British banks had been capped in terms of their lending/asset ratios, the global financial crisis would still have happened, and it's debateable whether it would have left the UK any less exposed.
What we do know is that the impact of the bailout will be felt for at LEAST the next parliament. That's a decade of austerity, at least. Wow.
Wasn't doing that. Fact is though that whoever's in government has less money to play with and has to make public spending savings. How you make those savings is a different matter, of course, and this lot have made some horrendous choices.