Better 20th century Tory Prime Minister
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:34:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Better 20th century Tory Prime Minister
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Churchill ('40-'45, '51-'55) vs. Thatcher ('79-'90)
#1
Churchill
 
#2
Thatcher
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Better 20th century Tory Prime Minister  (Read 560 times)
hangfan91
Rookie
**
Posts: 198
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 24, 2014, 04:35:03 AM »

Which 20th century British Prime Minister ranks higher in your opinion?
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2014, 05:13:36 AM »

Not Thatcher.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2014, 05:26:34 AM »

Not Churchill
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2014, 10:24:40 AM »

Whatever you think about either politician, I can't come up with a justifiable reason not to pick Churchill.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2014, 10:32:23 AM »

Whatever you think about either politician, I can't come up with a justifiable reason not to pick Churchill.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2014, 10:34:57 AM »

Whatever you think about either politician, I can't come up with a justifiable reason not to pick Churchill.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2014, 02:26:54 PM »

Churchill was essential to winning the war. Thatcher was essential for nothing. Churchill.

I also somehow doubt that if Thatcher was magically transported to 1940, that she would've known how to understand Franklin Roosevelt's personality in the way Churchill did.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2014, 02:40:19 PM »

Thatcher ideology wise, but Churchill was the better on the whole.
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2014, 02:50:15 PM »

Whatever you think about either politician, I can't come up with a justifiable reason not to pick Churchill.
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2014, 07:45:10 PM »

Thatcher ideology wise, but Churchill was the better on the whole.

This. As much as I adore the Iron Lady, Churchill's still higher up in my book.
Logged
RR1997
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2014, 06:57:43 AM »

Churchill, but I like both.
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2014, 09:50:39 AM »

Churchill (US Democrat).
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2014, 09:03:10 PM »

Thatcher, at the very least, didn't deliberately neglect to alleviate a humanitarian crisis in Bengal, nor was she an open white supremacist.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2014, 06:21:57 AM »

Thatcher, at the very least, didn't deliberately neglect to alleviate a humanitarian crisis in Bengal, nor was she an open white supremacist.

Isn't it fair to say, however, that Churchill's overall impact on society was far more of a net positive than Thatcher's, owing to his fight against the Nazi threat? I don't worship Churchill or anything - I think it's fair enough to say the vast majority of his non-war political career were mediocre or botched (his handling of the General Strike, Gallipoli, the gold standard) - but without Churchill, WWII could have gone down a much darker route.

I think you can overstate Churchill's role RE: the Bengal famine. The move sounds ridiculously callous, but other people are far more culpable in the tragedy. British aid would have arrived too late anyway to prevent most deaths.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2014, 03:54:38 PM »

Churchill's role in World War II is vastly overrated and if anything was inflated after the fact--the Battle of Britain was won by the inferiority of German fighters and Hitler's decision to bomb civilian targets instead of the airfields, not by a pep talk.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2014, 04:00:44 PM »

Churchill.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2014, 12:37:54 PM »

Churchill's role in World War II is vastly overrated and if anything was inflated after the fact--the Battle of Britain was won by the inferiority of German fighters and Hitler's decision to bomb civilian targets instead of the airfields, not by a pep talk.

although, I do agree that Churchill was never a great tactician; to say that his role could have been served by any random politician seems myopic. I know that saying Churchill was "inspirational" or "held the nation together" sounds horrendously goofy, but really it's true. George Washington was a lousy military strategist, but we recognise him as the symbol of a revolution. Churchill was certainly a more complicated man than the syrupy portrayal often presented, but I don't doubt that he was a major asset for the allies.

I do understand why people might think it's unfair that Churchill - who had an objectively terrible tenure outside of the war - is so beloved by history, as opposed to various more forgettable, but more noble people. But I also think it's unfair to paint him as having a more negative influence than Thatcher of all people; a woman who divided the nation and lucked her way into reelection twice. The statement:

Thatcher, at the very least, didn't deliberately neglect to alleviate a humanitarian crisis in Bengal, nor was she an open white supremacist.

might as well be

" Reagan at the very least, didn't put Japanese people in camps; nor was he responsible for the Manhattan Project.

Therefore Reagan > FDR "
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2014, 02:08:54 PM »

Whatever you think about either politician, I can't come up with a justifiable reason not to pick Churchill.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 15 queries.