Thatcher or Churchill?
Discussion
Both are great Prime Ministers.
On balance I think that Margaret Thatcher was the greater as she had to cope with many different types of problems. On the one hand she had the poor economic situation and the strength of the unions which she successfully overcame, on the other, a much smaller war in the Falklands.
Churchill was a great man, and the right man to lead Britain in WWII, but had less to offer as a peacetime PM.
On balance I think that Margaret Thatcher was the greater as she had to cope with many different types of problems. On the one hand she had the poor economic situation and the strength of the unions which she successfully overcame, on the other, a much smaller war in the Falklands.
Churchill was a great man, and the right man to lead Britain in WWII, but had less to offer as a peacetime PM.
Murcielago_Boy said:
I can't decide between them but I think Thatcher, had she been PM during WW2, would **also** have been a tremendously inspirational leader. She wouldn't have given an inch to the Nazi's, just like Churchill.
I think though that Churchill was a superb orator and that made a difference too.Cometh the hour, Cometh the man. I think most people would agree that Churchill was absolutely the right man for the job in 1940. A truly great wartime leader. During those times he managed to unite the nation. In 45 the nation although undoubtedly grateful chose not the reelect his party to government.
No one can really predict how any other person would have performed in those circumstances, so to make comparisons is really pointless and unfair. However while most pople would agree that Churchill united the nation, Thatcher's peacetime divisive politics had the opposite effect.
No one can really predict how any other person would have performed in those circumstances, so to make comparisons is really pointless and unfair. However while most pople would agree that Churchill united the nation, Thatcher's peacetime divisive politics had the opposite effect.
dreamz said:
Eric Mc said:
Churchill without a shred of doubt. If he hadn't prevailed in 1940, we might be asking, who was the greatest PM, Halifax or Merkels?
surely it would've been hitler or gobbels? In 1940 Lord Halifax was the PM option preferred by the Parliamentary Conservative Party and Cabinet to replace Chamberlain. He was an appeaser and it was highly likely he would have tried to make an arrangement with Hitler to keep Britain out of the war and allow Germany to follow its expansionist plans in the East.
Churchill was selected as PM primarilly through a coup by Conservative back benchers and the Labour Party.
Eric Mc said:
dreamz said:
Eric Mc said:
Churchill without a shred of doubt. If he hadn't prevailed in 1940, we might be asking, who was the greatest PM, Halifax or Merkels?
surely it would've been hitler or gobbels? In 1940 Lord Halifax was the PM option preferred by the Parliamentary Conservative Party and Cabinet to replace Chamberlain. He was an appeaser and it was highly likely he would have tried to make an arrangement with Hitler to keep Britain out of the war and allow Germany to follow its expansionist plans in the East.
Churchill was selected as PM primarilly through a coup by Conservative back benchers and the Labour Party.
Perhaps - although if Germany had consolidated its position in Russia by the end of 1941 (not having to deal with Britain or British interests in North Africa and the Med would have made that entire feasible), I reckon Germany and Britain might very well have become Allies.
Who knows.
Who knows.
Eric Mc said:
Who knows.
It's a fascinating period of history and has been the subject of "What-if" scenarios for decades as you know, however I feel that it would have taken a Germany, US and UK alliance to even stem the red army, and even then would we have been as willing, or as able, as the Russians to take the losses necessary to defeat them?The Russians lost 92 combatants for every 5 Germans on the Eastern front, I'm not sure how long democracies would tolerate such losses.
Eric Mc said:
Perhaps - although if Germany had consolidated its position in Russia by the end of 1941 (not having to deal with Britain or British interests in North Africa and the Med would have made that entire feasible), I reckon Germany and Britain might very well have become Allies.
Who knows.
I reckon that could have been the route as well, if Halifax and his crowd had been in charge.Who knows.
Don't know enough about the detail of Churchill's Prime Ministership but Thatcher was far too egotistical, to the point were her determination to kill off the union power destroyed UK engineering with the help of the equally egotistical union leaders. A better leader would have found a way with less fall-out.
Sticks. said:
Thatcher divided the country, Churcill united it imho.
Uniting the country against an existential threat wasnt that difficult. Churchill managed to unite the political elite, which was much harder. Thatcher actually did unite the country during the Falkland war, and was rewarded by the electorate.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff