![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamI think we have seen the five worst Prime Ministers in the history of Britain and in descending order of worstness. Their greatest common sin was to consistently put duty to their Party or to their own venality ahead of their duty at Prime Minister but each one has a fault of their own.
David Cameron, Britain's 5th worst Prime Minister. A man whose arrogance was only exceeded by the gap between ability and his own perception of his ability.
By choosing the most simplistic form of plebiscite as a way to save the Tory Party from itself he put in to hazard 50 years of Britain's foreign and economic policy. Too arrogant and too stupid to stop for a day and think, "what if this goes wrong? what could I do today to make those risks less?"
What he learned from the AV referendum was that he would easily win referendums. What he should have learned from the AV referendum was that, if you don't carefully structure the referendum process the other side can and will just lie.
Also, he appointed George Osborne Chancellor, and he, more than anyone else caused this mess.
Teresa May, Britain's 4th worst Prime Minister. A genuine patriot and someone keenly sensible of the sacredness of the duties she was heir to somehow failed to realise that she was in charge of what happened next and could make some different decisions. Mistaking, as many Tories do, the unity of the Conservative Party for the unity of the country. After she realised that she was in charge, at each point chose to do the thing that would damage her party least. She could have asked, "well this is a mess, how can we as a country work out what to do next?" She chose not to but instead to push on as quickly as she could so that the Tories would not fall too much to fighting each other over the impossibility of dealing with the Brexit referendum result without having to say that some Tories were pig ignorant nut jobs too loudly.
Boris Johnson, Britain's 3rd worst Prime Minister. Having ridden Teresa May over the Brexit jumps with cries of "faster, faster" he demonstrated an utter inability to find any meaningful way to put in to practise the slogans and smoke rings he had blown in to the air to get himself elected. Having contributed to the destruction of Britain's foreign policy in order to advance his career by "saving" the Tory Party from itself he then purged the Tory Party of two thirds of the broad church that had made the Tory Party the natural party of government in England for 200 years leaving it a hollow shell bereft of ideas, talent, ideology or any sense of anything greater than itself. And then, like the scorpion on the frog he could not help himself but fail to follow the rules he had set for the rest of the country. He appears not to understand that people love their grandparents, as much if not more than he loves himself, and will not lightly abandon them to die a lonely, undignified death or lightly forgive someone who did abandon them.
For his own convenience he hollowed out three of the great institutions of our country and then lost his job supporting a sex pest in Parliament.
Johnson's great (espoused) hero, when sacked from Government in 1916 over the Gallipoli landings spent two years as a battalion commander on the Western Front. Johnson appears never to have asked himself "why would a man who didn't have to do that, go and do that?"
Johnson should be made to look at a picture of himself taken during his address to the nation on the eve of the Covid lockdowns when you can see flickering in his expression the realisation that people, large numbers of people, were going to die because of decisions he had already bungled and that he was just realising, to a rough order of magnitude, how out of his depth he was. It won't do him any good but then nothing could. His soul is a sodden mess of his own incontinence.
Liz Truss, Britain's second worst Prime Minister, as well as the shortest serving. Possibly actually insane. That alone is enough to put her on this list.
Took all the examples of the four Prime Minister's prior to her; that a Conservative Prime Minister simply stating something made it the truth, that there were no political consequences from poor government if you lied well enough, that the Tory Party and the country were linked in some sort of spiritual union expressed through the voice of the leader and that believing in your own ability was the same as actually being able and things would probably turn as you hoped because you were a good sort really. Then she applied them to the profoundly left-wing institution of the UK's's banking system with the sort of gusto that would make a sledge-hammer wielding David Hasselhoff attacking the Berlin Wall look on in admiration. By accident she then applied that sledge-hammer to about 10% of the households in the UK via the magic of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and seemed surprised, perhaps even disappointed, that people disliked this.
If Britain has stood for anything since 1745 it is stability, prudent financial management and a sort of Whiggish hope for the future. Radical nutjobs destroying banking is the sort of thing British Communists disapprove of let alone the Tory party members who voted for Liz Truss.
Then we come to Rishi Sunak, Britain's worst Prime Minister ever. Having watched the last 8 years unfold from inside government his response to the profound political, economic, social and financial mess that the country finds itself in was to do, nothing. To sit in his office, in Office in his ill-fitting suit jacket doing nothing. To take no action but to blame some poor unfortunates in ill-fitting life jackets. Not just to say this as a lie or a distraction but to appear to genuinely think this was sufficient to discharge the duties of his office.
That is why, despite the strong competition from his predecessors, I believe he is the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had. To look at the country as it is and decide to do nothing about it.
We've had someone who didn't stop to think, followed by someone who didn't stop, followed by someone who didn't think of anyone but themselves, followed by someone who appeared not to be able to manage a single coherent thought and finally followed by someone who thinks this is okay. That it's all okay.
Come tomorrow, come the reckoning.
David Cameron, Britain's 5th worst Prime Minister. A man whose arrogance was only exceeded by the gap between ability and his own perception of his ability.
By choosing the most simplistic form of plebiscite as a way to save the Tory Party from itself he put in to hazard 50 years of Britain's foreign and economic policy. Too arrogant and too stupid to stop for a day and think, "what if this goes wrong? what could I do today to make those risks less?"
What he learned from the AV referendum was that he would easily win referendums. What he should have learned from the AV referendum was that, if you don't carefully structure the referendum process the other side can and will just lie.
Also, he appointed George Osborne Chancellor, and he, more than anyone else caused this mess.
Teresa May, Britain's 4th worst Prime Minister. A genuine patriot and someone keenly sensible of the sacredness of the duties she was heir to somehow failed to realise that she was in charge of what happened next and could make some different decisions. Mistaking, as many Tories do, the unity of the Conservative Party for the unity of the country. After she realised that she was in charge, at each point chose to do the thing that would damage her party least. She could have asked, "well this is a mess, how can we as a country work out what to do next?" She chose not to but instead to push on as quickly as she could so that the Tories would not fall too much to fighting each other over the impossibility of dealing with the Brexit referendum result without having to say that some Tories were pig ignorant nut jobs too loudly.
Boris Johnson, Britain's 3rd worst Prime Minister. Having ridden Teresa May over the Brexit jumps with cries of "faster, faster" he demonstrated an utter inability to find any meaningful way to put in to practise the slogans and smoke rings he had blown in to the air to get himself elected. Having contributed to the destruction of Britain's foreign policy in order to advance his career by "saving" the Tory Party from itself he then purged the Tory Party of two thirds of the broad church that had made the Tory Party the natural party of government in England for 200 years leaving it a hollow shell bereft of ideas, talent, ideology or any sense of anything greater than itself. And then, like the scorpion on the frog he could not help himself but fail to follow the rules he had set for the rest of the country. He appears not to understand that people love their grandparents, as much if not more than he loves himself, and will not lightly abandon them to die a lonely, undignified death or lightly forgive someone who did abandon them.
For his own convenience he hollowed out three of the great institutions of our country and then lost his job supporting a sex pest in Parliament.
Johnson's great (espoused) hero, when sacked from Government in 1916 over the Gallipoli landings spent two years as a battalion commander on the Western Front. Johnson appears never to have asked himself "why would a man who didn't have to do that, go and do that?"
Johnson should be made to look at a picture of himself taken during his address to the nation on the eve of the Covid lockdowns when you can see flickering in his expression the realisation that people, large numbers of people, were going to die because of decisions he had already bungled and that he was just realising, to a rough order of magnitude, how out of his depth he was. It won't do him any good but then nothing could. His soul is a sodden mess of his own incontinence.
Liz Truss, Britain's second worst Prime Minister, as well as the shortest serving. Possibly actually insane. That alone is enough to put her on this list.
Took all the examples of the four Prime Minister's prior to her; that a Conservative Prime Minister simply stating something made it the truth, that there were no political consequences from poor government if you lied well enough, that the Tory Party and the country were linked in some sort of spiritual union expressed through the voice of the leader and that believing in your own ability was the same as actually being able and things would probably turn as you hoped because you were a good sort really. Then she applied them to the profoundly left-wing institution of the UK's's banking system with the sort of gusto that would make a sledge-hammer wielding David Hasselhoff attacking the Berlin Wall look on in admiration. By accident she then applied that sledge-hammer to about 10% of the households in the UK via the magic of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and seemed surprised, perhaps even disappointed, that people disliked this.
If Britain has stood for anything since 1745 it is stability, prudent financial management and a sort of Whiggish hope for the future. Radical nutjobs destroying banking is the sort of thing British Communists disapprove of let alone the Tory party members who voted for Liz Truss.
Then we come to Rishi Sunak, Britain's worst Prime Minister ever. Having watched the last 8 years unfold from inside government his response to the profound political, economic, social and financial mess that the country finds itself in was to do, nothing. To sit in his office, in Office in his ill-fitting suit jacket doing nothing. To take no action but to blame some poor unfortunates in ill-fitting life jackets. Not just to say this as a lie or a distraction but to appear to genuinely think this was sufficient to discharge the duties of his office.
That is why, despite the strong competition from his predecessors, I believe he is the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had. To look at the country as it is and decide to do nothing about it.
We've had someone who didn't stop to think, followed by someone who didn't stop, followed by someone who didn't think of anyone but themselves, followed by someone who appeared not to be able to manage a single coherent thought and finally followed by someone who thinks this is okay. That it's all okay.
Come tomorrow, come the reckoning.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:05 am (UTC)And I accept that she is a woman driven by a concept of duty and virtue. I don't agree with her on the fine details of that concept but I do respect that she was trying to work towards what she conceived as the greater good. Which is more than I think can be said for the other four.
Her decisions in the context she found herself in were poor. Her very narrow focus on what people like her would think morally acceptable blinded her to a range of possibilities. She made a bad situation worse. I think one of the reasons she did that was because she was not prepared to risk the destruction of the Tory Party (or perhaps her own career) in order to negotiate a workable Brexit referendum outcome.
Very much agree there are definitions of worst here.
Johnson's character has in several ways degraded the *office* of Prime Minister. The others are probably just very poor Prime Ministers. Perhaps not Truss. An office which can now be held by someone who may or may not be actually insane is less of an office than it used to be.
Truss and Sunak have demonstrated that if you let a very small group of people select from a very small group of people shortlisted by a very small group of people where none of the those groups of people is incentivised to think critically about the outcome you are going to get unhinged inadequates because it is easy to sound hard core and gung-ho when you have no idea nor care about how you are going to deliver on your wilder promises.
Cameron mostly made a series of catastrophic errors of judgement and May was inflexible in a dynamic situation.
I *think* it is a semantic point whether Sunak's actions, or inaction, as Prime Minister is due to a failure to fully grasp the problem or deciding to inaction. Not certain about this.
Item one as Prime Minister is to have a really good think about 1) what is going well that we need to do more or 2) what are the root causes of the big problems 3) what are people agitated about that I can't solve. I don't think Sunak started with that sort of analysis and so did nothing (my view) or did only inadequate things.
He decided not to think about the problems the country has. For me, and I know I didn't say it like, that was his first and most fatal bit of inaction. He dondered in to office and appears to me to have given no thought to what the problem was and so he continued Osborne's habit of announcing policy that sounded on the front pages like it would improve things but either couldn't or would make them worst. For example he appears to have mis-understood where concerns about unregulated migration spring. He knew people were excited about it. I don't think he knows why. So he ended up with a policy of blaming the French and trying to scare irregular migrants by threatening them with Rwanda.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:52 am (UTC)May made one catastrophic decision - to call an election. She made a series of bad ones about EU Exit but I'd find it very difficult to make the case that anyone else leading the Tory party after the referendum would have done better. The only other person to have a crack at it - Johnson - did worse. I disagree that Cameron should have stayed; he would have had no credibility with anyone inside or outside the party and I don't believe he could have been effective.
Cameron could have averted the EU referendum result in a number of ways. He could have said that the decision is so momentous that it required a 55% majority. He could have required each of the four nations to have a majority vote - which would have been a phenomenal gesture to the Union - or he could have said that British citizens living in the EU can vote. He did none of these things, because he was so utterly convinced that he would win. I think that is a failure of character, and if the competition weren't Boris Johnson then I'd say it made him the worst character on your list.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 11:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 12:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:52 am (UTC)(I don't know what Sunak actually cared about, to be honest. Cutting taxes. Anything else?)
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:59 am (UTC)Not a lot, but it seems like some was actually allocated.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 10:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 10:59 am (UTC)Since it's clearly nuts to hypothesise that Sunak did not think about the problems of the country and yet he failed to do very much* about the problems of the country, it is then interesting to explore what shaped his responses, because I do agree with Dan that they are baffling. So then for me the enquiry becomes "what warped his thinking?"
So Rwanda is an interesting way into this. He had a window to turn the volume right down on this - not necessarily bringing it to an end but at least focusing the discourse away from it. There were two very good reasons why he might be expected to have done that. First, he's not actually a nutter and it's the most unworkable policy in the history of policies. Second, he's a fucking Treasury bod and it's very, very expensive. There is nothing in Sunak's revealed history to suggest that this policy would be in line with his convictions. Instead, he doubled down, thus creating the single biggest unnecessary problem of his premiership and probably the most significant contribution to rendering him unelectable. HS2 is another example of policymaking that appears to have no coherent thought behind it.
So... why? What is going on here? Why has someone who presented in summer 2022 as "the sane, mature safe pair of hands candidate" suddenly pivoted to swivel-eyed loon territory?
I have absolutely no evidence in support of this theory and may be 100% completely wrong about it - I don't hold to it strongly - but I think that he has not got over losing the 2022 Party leadership election. He's never lost anything. He's had everything he wanted, and appeared successful in all his roles to date. He was promoted very very quickly in all his career pathways. CST doesn't require much of you, and he won popularity as CX through furlough and EOTHO. Correlation is in fact not causation, but if only good things ever happen to you then it is rational to conclude that you earned them and deserve them. That's how most people work. The idea that he would lose a popularity contest - and to Truss, with whom he had served in Cabinet and whom he therefore knew to be deranged - was a source of outrage to him.
So one hypothesis - which I certainly don't think is the whole picture, but I do think is part of it - is that he's trying to retroactively win that election, which is what I mean by "relitigate". I think he's still trying to convince the members that they should have voted for him, which is why his policymaking has been so incoherent, extreme and detached from reality - because those were the criteria that made Truss the winning candidate.
If we look at the q "what really comes from Sunak's own convictions", it appears to be maths teaching and banning smoking. That's the primary evidence, in my view, that he's unqualified to do the job - his utter lack of vision and strategy in terms of forming a policy platform. I don't believe for a second that he actually gives a fuck about f'rex national service.
I really need to stop now and get some work done - I've been trying to write this for about an hour! Am I making sense yet?
*I do feel quite strongly that any discussion of Sunak's premiership should not overlook the Windsor Framework, which is a genuinely significant and impressive piece of negotiation, as discussions of Johnson's and Cameron's premierships should also not overlook their achievements (Ukraine and vaccines** in the former case and gay marriage in the latter case (+?)). I can't think of any for May, but I'd like to be wrong because as my earlier comment probably reveals I have a sneaking liking for May.
**Yes I know that there was no need to leave the European Union in order to negotiate the vaccines etc. etc. I still think it was highly effective and since he damn well gets the blame for all the failures when he was at the helm, he also should get the credit for the successes.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 01:17 pm (UTC)If he's trying to please the Conservative membership then that will make a big difference from if he was trying to please himself or trying to please the electorate at large.
I have been wondering why the Conservatives were totally ignoring the polls that were saying "This is not what the public wants" and "They were trying to appeal solely to their membership" is definitely a good explanation for that.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 01:21 pm (UTC)That's my best inference from the data I have. Other interpretations also available.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 01:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 10:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 11:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 09:53 am (UTC)You could argue that an office that ejected such an inadequate holder after 49 days is stronger than people think.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 12:00 pm (UTC)I think the way to reconcile my conviction that she was at heart in good faith and your thesis that she put the good of her party ahead of the good of the country is to understand that for her, the good of her party and the good of the country were basically the same thing. Her belief in the righteousness of the Conservative Party was such that it automatically followed that its success would be a national good.
This thesis is debatable - both whether it’s right and whether her assumptions are accurate - but I think it allows us both to be right. (I think it’s true and I am pretty sure it’s supported in textev - I did a lot of back reading of May’s speeches, interviews and articles when she became PM - but I am not going to go out searching so I’ll cave if challenged. I think her care for society is real, though, and I wouldn’t make that claim for anyone else on this list.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 12:20 pm (UTC)Yes that's exactly my point. I doubt I agree with her on much (though prob not nothing) but I think she is for the most part in good faith and that's why I think this post is hard on her. I cannot make this claim for anyone else on the list. If you really, really pushed me then I can make it for Truss, I suppose, but it is stretching the definition a very long way indeed. I certainly cannot make it for Cameron, Johnson or Sunak.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 08:18 pm (UTC)I find it difficult to believe that no PM before the current administration* made the bottom five.
My first hand knowledge only goes back to Callaghan and I can only give guesses at other candidates. I would not be surprised if Callaghan had been suggested - I don't think he was bad, but I have heard it suggested by people who maybe should have some judgment. If there is anything positive to be said about Chamberlain, I have never heard it.
If the last five PMs are really the worst, does that say more about the period than about the five ? Should I mention the phrase "social media" ?
* polling is still open as I type this.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 01:39 pm (UTC)I think there are several different ways of holding that view including believing that doing what is right for the Conservative Party will automatically result in doing the right thing for the country through to the less wholesome belief that the *real* people and the *real* country is the natural Conservative voter.
I've never had any doubt that May was a genuine patriot but not a patriot of the same country as me.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-04 01:59 pm (UTC)Yes I think that’s exactly right.