Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics UK.svg

This British politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



In the boring history section, please write in complete sentences. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So is it Douglas Alec-Home or Alec Douglas-Home? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to be more consistent with sentences .... and everything else, I guess. Alec Douglas-Home is right. Wow. Dalek (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for my tone. You're trying to make it interesting, and mostly succeeding with the snark and commentary. perhaps some mention should be made of the huge number of PMs who served twice, non-consecutively? It seems unusual to me in the world of politics. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool, I'm going to try to expand it a little tomorrow, and will make note of the non-consecutive thing. It's interesting to note that up until Thatcher came about, it was quite usual for people to stay on as a Party's Leader even if they lost the office of Prime Minister. I believe that for about 40 years in the late 1800s, it went something like Disraeli, Gladstone, Disraeli, Gladstone, Salisbury, Gladstone, Salisbury, Gladstone, someone unimportant, Salisbury. Dalek (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I go to the WP list of UK PMs all the time when I am struggling with cryptic puzzles (it's always DISRAELI), and have been struck by that. It's a flaw in modern politics that the essential "strongest leader" a party might have gets shown the door for losing one election (Al Gore comes to mind). I'm sure I'll enjoy your additions as I did today's! If I can think of anything useful to contribute, I will, but my UK politics is shaky. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking of also making a sort of "Prime Ministers that never were." article, not sure what I'd call it. A common point of commentary in the UK is what great leaders we missed out on, how things would be different, etc. Think it'd be worth doing? What would you call it? Dalek (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure... try to keep the "mission" in mind when coming up with article ideas, though. Thanks for adding the parties to these people, I was going to suggest that. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is Alec Douglas Hume - and the number of Prime Ministers that never were probably could be extended to 'every last MP' (there might be some very peculiar circumstances under which (obscure MP X) could have served as a (caretaker) PM). There are usually good reasons why 'the greatest PM we never had' was elevated to that office. (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


So I ended up on this page while researching the crazy way Prime Ministers are chosen. I couldn’t help but notice that the section regarding Gascoyne-Cecil has some issues. Despite the fact that it made me spit out my coffee, I don’t believe that referring to his actions with the Portuguese-Anglo alliance as “almost kicking them in the ‘nads” (don’t have the actual quote), reads as something backed up by facts.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this Prime Minister or this situation could possibly edit this? I’ll take the time to try to learn so I may be able to, but to use some vocabulary as the editor of this glorious section of this page, I’d rather not kick this task in the ‘nads.

Also, as a side note, ‘nads is not even a correct term to use here. As I assume that the original editor meant to convey the message as kicking it in the testicles (or balls, to use the layman’s terms), ‘nads (gonads) may be too broad a term as it is a general term to refer to any sex organ (testicles, ovaries, etc.). So the edit I’m asking for should either be more academically written, or at least change ‘nads to balls or testicles.

TL;DR This section is amazing, but doesn’t sound academic.

imperfect memories[edit]

seems like recent history is often too recent for accurate appraisals, with wounds still fresh interfering with any kind of objectivity. Britains recent political history is more than just recent, its still on going. wounds are more than just fresh, they sill have the knife lodged in as it twisted.

the last three prime ministers of the uk, instigated and have overseen a period of trauma that is not yet concluded. it is likely more trauma is to come. it is important, i feel, examine the parts played by these three individuals with as much detachment that can be mustered. it is grossly lacking as it stands in any clear analysis free from the hysterics of true believers.

the least contentious section is on cameron. it is also the most superficial. helming a party that had not seen power for over a decade since tony blair swept into power, we've ignored that it was a party still riven by the same arguments over that brought major down. austerity is alluded to but its role in ensuring defeat in the brexit referendum is absent. a less obvious omission is the incredible hubris of cameron, of the kind that only an old etonian could exhibit, fuelled by victories in the recent election and in the two other referendums held under his watch, but learning nothing from the divisive nature of scots indy ref. brexit was doomed by camerons own thatcherite policies and the delusions of the strength of his own leadership skills. overconfident old etonians vecome significant later.

theresa may gets a bad rep. there is much to criticise her on, but her biggest sins were 'the hostile environment' and the resultant windrush scandal, which we do not talk about here nearly enough considering the sheer inhumanity of the treatment of is victims rivals anything trump has done to immigrants. but this when she was home secretary. her time as prime minister was doomed from outset. it was a poisoned chalice and johnson should probably thank the weasel gove for sabotaging his leadership bid. her party was divided. brexit negotiations and legislation would be tough to get through and bitterly fought over. snap elections are the standard move here after a leadership campaign, to shore up support. it failed and is the one mistake we can lay at her door. blaming all that followed on her weakness or ineptitude grossly misunderstands what happened. a minority government propped up unionists, her party so divided there was no meaningful vote that could be had that was not still born. the choice was between a no deal exit, a redo of the referendum, or a state of affairs where we abide by eu legislation as if we still in the eu, but no say. argument over the backstop could not be resolved because there is no answer to it. no amount of amendments can alter that fact. defeats in the house were inevitable, and most certainly not led by corbyn. he didnt provide any alternatives and just saying nope doomed him as much as may. may put forward the best brexit bill available. its pretty much identical to what johnson later proposed and still no answer to the backstop. it was shit because the reality is brexit is shit.

i'll not comment to much on the johnson. hes not done yet and theres a lot so uncertain. he is not though, the british trump. whatever superficial similarities there are, it does not help us to think in those terms. please stop making the comparison. he is not some far right extreme thatcherite either. hes a vacuous old etonian opportunist who had no clue what to do as prime minister once he got the job. his cabinet are the extreme thatcherites we should be fearful, only in the jobs because boris burnt so many bridges in getting here. with no thoughts of his own, he only has the poison dripped into his ear by advisors like cummings as guidance. his links to those who funded brexit leave campaigns tell us who really won brexit. its only the pandemic that has slowed attempts to finish what thatcher started in 1979. we dont really get her right either. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

im not going to touch this article despite all that. i cannot be objective about any of it, it would be easier to replace each section with 'cunt'. its also very difficult to talk of prime ministers without reference to their governments or what came before. they are not presidents. they do not act alone, needing consensus to get things done. there is so much missed just looking at the pms. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)