The UK Prime Ministers Ranked (Part 5)

 

16. Earl of Shelburne

The Prime Minister who made peace with America. He gave them considerably more territory than either side expected. This cemented the foundations for the US/UK trading alliance. The Father of the Special Relationship. You might not like ever closer union; you might regret some of the decisions made under it. However, it is inarguable that the closeness of the two nations hasn’t been to the UK’s benefit on multiple occasions. And it all stemmed from Shelburne.

ADVERT - If you like this article, you can follow Michael on Twitter, YouTube, Soundcloud or send some Irn Bru or bill paying funds via the donation button. Every little helps. Thanks!

15. David Lloyd George

"If it is not reserved for me to lead the people for whom I have fought all my life to the promised land, I shall feel a pang of disappointment."
Letter to Frances Stevenson (22 January 1929), quoted in My Darling Pussy: The Letters of Lloyd George and Frances Stevenson, 1913–41, ed. A. J. P. Taylor (1975), p. 114

Lloyd George was the Chancellor behind the People’s Budget, with a gift of the gab which could rile support and opponents alike. He was also far friendlier towards Hitler than we’d like. Both of those happened when he wasn’t Prime Minister, so he won't be judged on that. Nor will he be judged on his machinations to stimmy things in 1916 so as to oust Asquith. He can be judged on his muddled election campaign in 1918, where his message appeared to be Hang the Kaiser, after a just and fair trial! And that was the coupon election, where his power grab doomed the Liberals to parliamentary irrelevance since.

Lloyd George took over the Premiership in 1916 and helped steer the UK towards being on the victorious side of World War One, partially through convoy support, as the German war machine was running out of steam. Too many fronts, not enough Schlieffen Plan, eh, Higher History alumni? After the war, Lloyd George pushed for a harsher Versailles than might otherwise have passed, helping to build the problems which would led to the sequel war. You see, while David Lloyd George would state his aims were to avoid crippling the German economy, he pushed for the Treaty to include German payment of British war pensions, which resulted in crippling the German economy! He also demanded the insertion of the Guilt Clause, by which it was stated the First World War was the fault of Germany and Germany alone, which helped bring in the Stab in the Back conspiracy, which led to the rise of Lloyd George’s mate, Adolf.

"We ought not to stint anything that is necessary in order to crush the rebellion."
Letter to Bonar Law (10 May 1920), quoted in D. G. Boyce, 'How to Settle the Irish Question: Lloyd George and Ireland 1916–21', in A. J. P. Taylor (ed.), Lloyd George: Twelve Essays (1971), pp. 150-151

Under Lloyd George, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed, which ended one part of the Irish problem (home rule) and created the next Irish problem (Northern Ireland) which was to cause issues for the next century plus! Lloyd George had gone for the Irish Convention to come up with a home rule solution. At the same time, he tried to force conscription in Ireland. His biography called his legacy in Ireland "complicated", which, in understatement terms, is akin to calling a civil war The Troubles.

David Lloyd George was characterised by continually supporting polices which went against the beliefs he claimed to have. While Chancellor, he claimed to support women’s suffrage, yet made little effort to change Asquith’s mind on the matter. Yet, it was Lloyd George’s government which brought in the Representation of the People Act. Here, the franchise extended to most men, and also gave the vote to women over the age of 30. He also allowed women to sit as MPs for the first time and banned the sacking of people based on their sex.

During this time, he also enforced minimum wages for farm labourers, extended unemployment insurance by 11 million workers, and started the 1920s rush to build new housing and towns. He also banned the employment of school age children in heavy industry, and in sea jobs.

As a human being, he was flawed. His foreign policy had no concept of future complications. He was yet another Prime Minister muddied in the Irish question. However, if you look beyond the man, you see a Prime Minister who rushed through the culmination of the Liberal Reforms. When Henry Campbell-Bannerman died, there was a crucial vacuum, a progressive hole between the death of Gladstone and the rise of the Labour party. Into that vacuum walked the vainglorious David Lloyd George, a man who would rate himself in the top one of Prime Ministers, and if he didn't lead his people into the "promised land", he did light the path.

“A master of improvised speech and improvised policies.”
AJP Taylor, English History 1914-45

14. The Duke of Wellington

“I like to walk alone.”
Duke of Wellington, letter to Henry Wellesley (his younger brother), 7 July 1801

“The only thing I am afraid of is fear.”
Duke of Wellington, in Philip Henry Stanhope, Conversaitons with the Duke of Wellington

“He was the GREATEST MAN this country ever produced.”
Queen Victoria, letters (her emphasis)

Some Prime Ministers rank this highly because of many achievements over lengthy careers. The Duke of Wellington, that great British war hero, was Prime Minister for little more than two years. In effect, he was the man for one season, politically, and that was pushing into law Catholic Emancipation. It did what it said on the tin, it allowed Catholics to stand in parliament. It allowed freedom of faith and axed bars from public jobs, by removing the Test Acts. There was widespread opposition to this law, which had been a government problem for decades, and the duke was brought in to be the figurehead of the act.

He took that role to heart, to the point of having a duel with one of his anti-Emancipation rivals, the Earl of Winchelsea. Which he won, though no one died. Can you imagine Boris Johnson defending his main policy by going ten paces with a firearm? Wellington also forced Royal Assent on the bill by threatening to resign if it wasn’t passed. I repeat, he faced down a gun, and threatened a King, to pass an unpopular law on humanitarian grounds. (Though he'd have hated that I refer to it as such.)

The Duke of Wellington wasn’t a natural reformer. He was opposed to the Great Reform Act. He wasn’t keen on Jewish emancipation. Usually he was a solid conservative with a reputation for a quick wit and a stubborn personality. Yet, in 1828, when the country needed him to pass civil liberties for the greater good, he was steadfast and determined.

“Many of the Whigs objected to the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet at its first formation, merely because he was thought to be adverse to the Catholic Claims, and the ultra Tories have ceased to support that Cabinet only because it proposed the concession of those claims. That question is for ever put at rest. The measure of emancipation, as it is termed, has passed, and cannot be recalled.”
The Duke of Wellington and the Whigs, Joseph Hume, Hume Tracts (1830)

13. Henry Campbell-Bannerman

A frail old man in poor health, Henry Campbell-Bannerman was given the job of Prime Minister at the insistence of Arthur Balfour. Balfour believed that a man weak in health would be forced to call an election before long, an election the Tories would sweep back to power in. Do you remember what I said about Balfour often not twigging the consequences of his own short-term actions? Well, he was right, in that there was an election called soon after. He was wrong, in that this election produced the Liberal Landslide of 1906, an anti-Tory wave so significant even Arthur Balfour lost his own seat!

As said, Campbell-Bannerman came into office aged 70, and suffering from heart problems which were to get worse over the next year. He knew his time in office would be limited. And so, he aimed to pass as many of the Liberal dreams, before his body gave up. He had a tick list of achievements to pursue from liberalising the legal system to giving women the right to vote. Alas, he died before the latter could be achieved, and his sceptical successor delayed the prospect by a decade.

Campbell-Bannerman was Prime Minister for only 27 months, and in that time, he brought into law the right to free school meals, compensation for accidents at work, and probation as an alternative to jail. His attempts at House of Lords reform were carried on by Asquith. Under his government, the Hague Convention aimed to limit European armaments, and the Russian Entente was signed.

Unfortunately, the body was weaker than the spirit. Heart issues gave way to full on heart attacks, and throughout 1907, as he pushed these reforms, he grew frailer. He resigned in April 1908, too sick to be moved from his bed, and died two weeks later in 10 Downing Street.

“In politics I think he may be fairly described as an idealist in aim, and an optimist by temperament. Great causes appealed to him. He was not ashamed, even on the verge of old age, to see visions and to dream dreams. He had no misgivings as to the future of democracy. He had a single-minded and unquenchable faith in the unceasing progress and the growing unity of mankind.”
HH Asquith, eulogy in the House of Commons, 27 April 1908

Henry Campbell-Bannerman dreamed of a fairer country and sought to achieve it against the hands of time. Some of his most hoped for achievements were carried posthumously (eventually) by others, but when they achieved that, it was because they stood on his shoulders, the father of modern liberalism. Every progressive British leader for the last century has started from the template of Henry Campbell-Bannerman, struck down before his time, but whose planning and legacy continues to shape the country.

12. Winston Churchill

“I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter.”
Churchill, 1949

Winston Churchill was Prime Minister during the Second World War. 

You might have heard of him.

And if you know anything about Churchill, you know he hated the Nazis.

He also hated the Irish, the Scots, the Indians, sub-Saharan Africa and pretty much everyone else. 

But he especially hated Nazis.

In general, I don't get the need for heroes to be perfect. So much binary, no room for nuance or shades of grey. Everyone wants their heroes to be Superman, seemingly, when most are Batman at best. Most of my favourites had deep flaws. Michael Foot promoted anti-racism and tolerance but was ¤¤¤¤ing ¤¤¤¤e to women in his private life. One needs to acknowledge that even if one thinks the scales tip the other way.

Now, arguably for Churchill, that includes looking the other way at thiry-five years of flawed decisions, in favour of five years. A man for one season, like the Duke of Wellington. (He’d have preferred a Marlborough reference.) 

You see, fighting Nazi Germany was a pivotal moment – economically, diplomatically, humanitarian, ideology, etc. 

And the thing about the Nazis was, their leader was an absolute nutter. 

You may have noticed this. 

Believed 100% in his own abilities, and in moving forward in his cause, no matter how twisted and evil they were.

The European political class at the same time fit into the categories of those who supported Hitler, those who were so anti-war as to be unwilling to act, those whose hearts weren’t set for war, and those who would make peace at the first available opportunity, no matter how many extra millions were lost to the execution camps. 

Churchill was different from that. A patriot who 100% believed in British Empire superiority, who would keep fighting on the beaches because he’d never give up believing victory was just round the corner.

Perhaps saying Winston Churchill was our own Hannibal Lector when we needed one might overegg the pudding slightly. But to fight an evil regime run by a delusional mad man, we needed our own delusional nutter in charge of Britain, to keep everyone going when sane politicians would have given up long before.  In that moment of crisis, Churchill was our delusional nutter.

Thank Christ for that, eh?

And after the war was dying down, the public voted him out. They knew, too, that he was a man for one season.

He was also an astute war leader. He actively encouraged the Americans into World War Two, after Pearl Harbour, by having Britain declare war on Japan before the Americans even had a chance to. This decision by Franklin Roosevelt, forced by a direct attack, but persuaded by eighteen months of relentless PR by Churchill, was one of the two pivotal turning points of World War Two.

(The other, of course, was the Germans breaking the grand rule of European conquest. Step one, take the Brits and France out ASAP. Step two, do not try to conquer Russia. Incredible how many Napoleons think they can overcome the geographical and weather odds for that one.)

And before Pearl Harbour, Churchill’s government had negotiated lend-lease with the Americans, by which the US gave the Brits Naval destroyers, and food and munitions coveys across the Atlantic. He also met with Molotov, negotiations which led to Stalin working with the Allies. Churchill was part of the Big Three meetings. Yalta agreed on the setting up of the United Nations, and the lack of concerted opposition to a Soviet “sphere of interest” set in motion the road to the Cold War. (And then, dear readers, Stalin took over Poland.) If you noticed we said the Big Three, Charles de Gaulle was not invited to these talks, and he held a grudge for life over the matter.

So, the overall war conduct was to keep Britain in the conflict, prevent Hitler from winning, bring the Americans into the conflict, and bring Russian into the Allied fold, momentarily. The flaws were in not standing up more convincingly to Stalin once his imperialism reared its head, especially at Potsdam when an ill Churchill all but gave up the Balkans. 

He also ordered the area bombing campaign. 

Total war is total war, and total war is shit.

The gravest error of all was in India, where a lack of credible administration after an outbreak of crop disease led to a famine in 1943, where over three million people died. The government was slow to respond, until the extent of the dying was known. Previous famines had seen rice imports from Burma increase, but in 1943, Burma was under Japanese occupation. The British had instead exported Indian rice to elsewhere during the war effort.

“Diaries written by British officers responsible for India's administration show that for months Churchill's government turned down urgent pleas for the export of food to India, fearing it would reduce stockpiles in the UK and take ships away from the war effort. Churchill felt local politicians could do more to help the starving. The notes also reveal the British prime minister's attitude towards India. During one government discussion about famine relief, Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery recorded that Churchill suggested any aid sent would be insufficient because of "Indians breeding like rabbits".”
Yogita Limaye, BBC News: Churchill’s legacy leaves Indians questioning his hero status, 21 July 2020

Ireland, yes, we'll skip over, as the matter of Winston Churchill vs Eamon de Valera is akin to a kick in the balls or a punch to the gut. 

Churchill's second term as Prime Minister, in the 1950s, was hampered by age, a stroke, and mutual distrust of President Eisenhower.

11. Harold MacMillan

Just missing out on the top ten is Super Mac, a One Nation Tory Prime Minister who promoted the necessity of reading and was prone to dominating his Cabinet. So much so, he sacked a Chancellor who wanted to commit to spending cuts! MacMillan spoke of the wind of change, his belief that decolonisation should no longer be blocked by the Conservative party. During his 6 years as Prime Minister, Malaya, Ghana, Uganda, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Sierra Leone and Nigeria successfully declared independence from Britain. The interest bit of the Wind of Change speech, apart from the fact it happened at all, is that MacMillan gave it in Cape Town, and used part of it to decry the South African policy of apartheid at the same time.

It was Harold MacMillan who famously said, “most of our people have never had it so good”, and as someone who doesn’t believe in binary absolutes, I appreciate the use of “most” there. In terms of the end of rationing, the introduction of policies which built on the achievements of Attlee rather than Churchill, and in terms of the rise of consumerism, he had a point, to a degree. Then came the wage freeze in 1961!

Harold MacMillan brought in the British nukes, which live down the road, but also called a halt on nuclear tests and pushed the Partial Test Ban Treaty. He reduced the working week down to 42 hours maximum and brought in minimum notice periods for terminations. His government had the Tay Road Bridge constructed, created Keele and Sussex Universities, and restricted the sale of flick knives.

Internationally, his attempt to join the EEC was foiled by the veto of de Gaulle (I did say he held a lifelong grudge), but he did successfully mend the Special Relationship post-Suez, maintaining a strong friendship with Dwight Eisenhower. In 1959, MacMillan went to Russia to meet Nikita Khrushchev, leading to a thawing in the USSR/USA-UK relationship.

He also brought in peerage disclaimers, which meant we got to enjoy 50 years of Tony Benn, not Lord Stansgate. His government decriminalised suicide, which was still illegal at that point. Environmental issues appeared on the agenda. Not only was the Clean Air Act implemented (aided by a few famous smogs), but clean river acts aimed to depollute the UK’s riverways too.

He retired, sped on by poor health and poor shagging choices by John Profumo, and took up a position in retirement of becoming an outspoken critic of monetarism.

An old-fashioned Tory who believed the point of government was to make people's lives better, Harold MacMillan was one of our best Prime Ministers. However, he actively supported the Beeching Axe. Richard Beeching was commissioned to look at the viability of British railways under MacMillan, and Harold had the view that railways had to be profitable businesses rather than a public service. Hmm, as a devoted lover of the train, and acknowledger of the ongoing infrastructure issues at Glasgow Central caused by Beeching’s decisions, is too late to take back all the nice stuff we just said about Super Mac?