what she did and had more balls
it doesn't take balls to destroy people, just megalomania and a total lack of compassion
Chat Forum
Who is the most useless politcal party leader ever?
-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
Pretty inevitable that after hugely influential leaders like Thatcher and Blair you get numbnuts like Major and Brown, and then after defeat the second-raters set up for failure like Milliband (I can't even remember the names of the Tory ones).
Having said that, Cameron isn't exactly impressive. Not sure what happened in the cycle there.
Posted 11 months ago # -
King John. More hereditary than political I grant you, but he was a leader (of sorts) and left an interesting, albeit unintentional, legacy. His apalling judgement led to the loss of his continental posessions thus forcing England to stand on its own two feet rather than exist as some remote vassal state, ultimately paving the way for the dominance of centuries to come. And then there was Magna Carta... sometimes you have to be crap to do good!
Jim Callaghan was pretty hopeless too
Posted 11 months ago # -
This guy, captured on film demonstrating exactly why he was useless, for posterity.
Chamberlain's legacy divides political historians to this day, so it's asking a bit much for wee woppit to say anything sensible about it.Why do you say that ?
Posted 11 months ago # -
This guy, captured on film demonstrating exactly why he was useless, for posterity.
Hindsight is very nice but at the time that picture was taken nobody had actually experienced the kind of war we were about to have and it was genuinely believed that in the first night of the blitz alone half a million civilians would die.
In the year that he delayed our entry into the war we built our Spitfires and our Anderson shelters and evacuated our children from the cities. We built the factories that would supply our forces. The preparations we made for war in that year were immense, and that lead time in terms of both strategy and production were invaluable. And it was our building and manufacturing strategies as much as our fighting that won.
In that year Hitler also started his invasions so it became clear what his actions would be rather than what his rhetoric was. And that was very important, with some people, not least the Daily Mail (still owned by the same family incidently) openly backing Hitler up to the point where he started to play his hand we wouldn't have gone into the war with the universally held moral superiority that we needed. That kind of moral superiority that we don't have in Afganistan or Iraq for instance. As it was though our men would cross the channel carrying just six bullets but know they were doing the right thing.
So, some people think he won the war for us. And that picture up there, thats a picture or a man with a piece of paper in his hand and terminal cancer. He was dead within a couple of months of leaving office.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Do you think anyone ever suggested to Hitler that the moustache was a mistake?
Posted 11 months ago # -
I don't think he was that bad but this pic makes me laugh...I hate the Sun though
Posted 11 months ago # -
Do you think anyone ever suggested to Hitler that the moustache was a mistake?
No, it was his choice of gear ratios that were more questionable. It has been said (Stephen Fry so it must be true) that Hitler's mustache was a homage to Charlie Chaplin, even though he knew that the Great Dictator was taking the piss out of him he still wore a Chaplin maustache anyway, so he was being ironic.
Posted 11 months ago # -
this pic makes me laugh...
yeah, helped give us another 5 years of tory rule and one of the most disasterously inept governments ever.
hilarious.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Foot, brilliant in so many ways, could not lead his party (which makes him useless as a party leader).
Thatcher, despicable in so many ways, led her party very effectively.
Posted 11 months ago # -
uplink - Member
what she did and had more balls
it doesn't take balls to destroy people, just megalomania and a total lack of compassion
POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
Perhaps but she was a strong leader as was Hitler. Not useless in any way.Posted 11 months ago # -
William Hague and the baseball cap stand out for me. Has anyone ever been so poorly advised and lost so much credibility over such a trivial thing!
Posted 11 months ago # -
that guy that's stepping down as the leader of scottish labour, no idea what his name is. but aye him, worst politician i've ever seen.
Posted 11 months ago # -
"As it was though our men would cross the channel carrying just six bullets but know they were doing the right thing."
Shocking, amazing and humbling.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Macrusiken - excellently said. And the year's delay from 1938 - 1939 allowed Britain to get radar functioning, which was arguably the necessary edge in the Battle of Britain.
Posted 11 months ago # -
So basically all of them
Posted 11 months ago # -
Thatcher was not useless as a leader and neither was Blair or indeed Hitler. You can argue with both of their policies but they fact they had got policies and got them through parliament inherently makes them not useless. I would also argue that any leader who wins a general election has to have a degree of competence, though actual amounts do vary.
In modern times I think IDS and Ed Milliband are about as bad as you can get. Neither had their party on side, neither seem to have/had any ideas and both seem somewhat bewildered about how they got there.
Posted 11 months ago # -
William Hague and the baseball cap stand out for me
Sharing a hotel bed with another bloke makes wearing a hat, well, superficial.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Jeremy Thorpe
Posted 11 months ago # -
I can't listen to Ed Milliband, his lisp is just so incredibly annoying. It's impothible to take him theriothly.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Foot, brilliant in so many ways, could not lead his party (which makes him useless as a party leader).
What people always seem to forget concerning Foot's leadership of the Labour Party is the systematic and highly coordinated sabotage from within the party that his leadership had to endure. I know of no other leader of the Labour Party, or any other party, who has ever had to endure anything like that.
When Michael Foot was first elected leader of the Labour Party the hard right within the party were absolutely mortified, and they then did everything they could possibly do to undermine and attack him and, the democratically decided policies of the party. Finally they made a very concerted and ultimately highly successful bid, to sabotage all hope of Labour winning the '83 general election.
The famous "longest suicide note in history" gibe which has long been associated with him came originally not from a Tory politician or a Tory newspaper, but from a prominent MP within his party - Gerald Kaufman. Likewise the famous sneering taunt which is often repeated that he looked like "an unemployed navvy" was originally made by a Labour MP - although you could be forgiven for thinking that only a Tory would consider insulting someone by comparing them with a manual worker without a job.
Of course some very highly prominent Labour politicians went much further than just denouncing and ridiculing Michael Foot to the media, they actively and very openly organised a split within the Labour Party so that any chance of Labour winning a general election would be scuppered.
And the Gang of Four were no small fry by any means, they included a former Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was so galling was the fact that despite remaining in the party, the Gang of Four were so open about what they were doing, and media gave them such huge publicity.
Even more disgraceful is the fact that they were never expelled from the Labour Party and they simply left when the final touches to their party had been completed. Indeed in an desperate attempt to encourage them to stay in the Labour Party, Shirley Williams received the highest vote of any candidate in Labour's NEC elections just a couple of weeks before launching a new party to rival Labour.
And there is no doubt at all what the purpose of the new party was. There was never any chance that it could win a general election - it was simply too small even with its 28 Labour MPs and countless councillors, David Owen made it clear at the time that the priority was to stop Labour winning and guarantee a Tory win.
In the end they formed an electoral alliance with the Liberals which received 25% of the vote in the '83 election, about 12% up on what the Liberals had received in the previous general election. The SDP undoubtedly split the Labour vote - which is what they intended to do, had the SDP not been formed and Labour not lost that 12% in '83 they would have had a very reasonable result.
Michael Foot was never going to be the best leader the Labour Party leader ever - he was a very talented but old and tired man to stepped in to help his party at a time of crises and when there was no other natural choice. But he had everything stacked against him as a result of internal sabotage.
It would be interesting to speculate how well David Cameron would have done as leader of the Conservatives, if when he was leader of the opposition, his own MPs had ridiculed and taunted him. And if very prominent Tory politicians such as William Hague and Ken Clarke, and dozen of other Tory MPs, had split the Tory vote by setting up a rival Conservative Party. David Cameron didn't actually do very well last election - with everything stacked in his favour.
Posted 11 months ago # -
David Owen made it clear at the time that the priority was to stop Labour winning and guarantee a Tory win.
did he/ quote please! IIRC they marketed themselves as the alternative opposition due to labour being so left wing and riddled with Militant (although not named at the time)
Posted 11 months ago # -
she did and had more balls and conviction than any of the shower we have had since
Yeah, she destroyed so many villages and communities. There have been other leaders with similar strengths of conviction...
Posted 11 months ago # -
Yeah, she destroyed so many villages and communities.
Why didn't they go on strike? Apparently that's the way forward.
Posted 11 months ago # -
did he/ quote please!
Find your own bleedin' quotes, what to you think I am - a defence lawyer that needs to provide exhibits to a court ?
It was absolutely clear when the SDP was formed that they stood no actual chance of winning a general election, and that the most they could expect was to split the Labour vote. When that was put to David Owen, as it obviously was, he replied that it would be better for the Tories to win than for Labour to win. His priorities were very clear.
btw big and daft I'm surprised to read my post - it was very long and you never agree with anything I say anyway. But such dedication eh ?
Posted 11 months ago # -
Actual worst in the western world is probably Kim Campbell of the Canadian conservatives. Took over from an unpopular Mulroney in 1993, called an election and got beaten like a rented mule. Went from 150 seats to 2 (!), lost her own seat and ended the party as a political force. Nothing to match that in the UK from the last century AFAIK.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I always knew what Thatcher, Foot, Kinnock and Major stood for. And I knew what Blair and Brown wanted to do as well.
I have no idea what Milliband wants or believes in. And what's more I don't even care.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I as prepared to give Miliband the benefit of the doubt until I saw this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13971770
see also - http://www.twitlonger.com/show/bfensmPosted 11 months ago # -
), lost her own seat and ended the party as a political force. Nothing to match that in the UK from the last century AFAIK.
I'm fairly certain killing 13 million people beats that. I mean I'm not totally keen on saying how great the nazi party and their leader were but I suspect the greatest war ever on earth ever, wins over her big time.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Posted 11 months ago # -
Unfortunately there are so many now to choose from.
Blair sold us all out, he fell in love with his own image and ultimately will be remembered for being all about personality and not about substance. However, Cameron, Clegg et all seem to be cast from the same mould.
None of the current political elite want to pin their colours to anything, even when they're elected. The upshot is that the electorate get none of what they voted for and plenty of what they didn't vote for.
We're going to get more and more drones, with fewer and fewer palatable policies that wind up being watered down simply because most of us are so disillusioned that we expect nothing better.
Posted 11 months ago # -
mastiles_fanylion - Member
ThatcherHitler was never useless. Very easy to disagree withherhis policies butshe was visionary in much of whatshe did and had more balls and conviction than any of the shower we have had since.Do you see what I did there? very clever innit?
Also, this is excellent:
Find your own bleedin' quotes, what to you think I am - a defence lawyer that needs to provide exhibits to a court ?
Posted 11 months ago # -
you may rightly hate politicians such as Hitler and Thatcher, but they are far from useless at their job. These are people who persuaded people to vote for them, which after all is the point of a politician.
For a truly useless political leader you need to find someone who has done badly with the electorate, someone no one actually remembers or cares about,
Posted 11 months ago # -
"For a truly useless political leader you need to find someone who has done badly with the electorate, someone no one actually remembers or cares about"
If that's the criteria, then it's that undead-botherer Michael Howard then.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
