British Prime Ministers from Attlee to Blair - Professor Vernon Bogdanor

A lecture to mark the publication of Vernon Bogdanor's book based on the series of lectures delivered at Gresham College during 2006 and 2007, 'Leadership and Change: Prime Ministers in the Post-War World'.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/

[@robinsanders5541]

I’m rather enjoying this. It’s broad strokes but I like his conclusion that prime ministers are generally as strong as the people allow. The fact we complain that we think they’re too strong or weak rings true!

[@ian_b]

Regarding the summing up, Heath's only achievement (the EU) has now been undone. And Blair's "New Labour" collapsed into Corbynism.

[@Taoufik7840]

Thank you for sharing

[@richarddavis1163]

After the last speaker I listened to, this is almost calming. Every time the speaker stumbled in searching for a word or expression, I was forced to stumble with him. Trying to figure out which word he was searching for made me do the same and thus forced me from the train of thought, the thread of what he was attempting. This exhausts me. A brilliant person who cannot effectively speak, should write.

[@gorgolyt]

well his final comment certainly ended up applying to brown. "end of boom and bust" he said. whoops.

[@chris01625]

I found myself getting irritated by Professor Bogdanor, this was supposed to be a lecture on Post-War prime ministers and yet so much of it related to Victorian and early 20th century holders of the post. I think in the sparse comments he was wrong about Attlee, who was a prime minister who managed massive political figures - Bevin, Bevan, Morrison and Stafford Cripps and still retained his position, I cannot think of any other post war prime minister who have managed such forces. In comparison the forceful Thatcher was mauled by Howe (referred to previously as a 'sheep in sheep's clothing by Dennis Healey). I also was concerned that there was not enough comment given to the roles of three prime ministers who were not elected Douglas-Home, Callaghan and Brown. For instance the real surprise in 1964 after 13 years of Conservative government and in the latter stages a not very successful economic policy, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, a figure more akin to the 1920's ruling elite was only marginally defeated by Wilson and did very much better than his more egaliterian successor Edward Heath in 1966. In the case of Callaghan it would have been helpful to have heard views on managing a government that moved from having a small majority to being in a minority - did this give him more or less power in dealing with those within his party with more politcally extreme views? Professor Bogdanor early in the lecture spoke of luck he could well have added to this judgement, in the cases of both Callaghan and Brown there was a general feeling that if they had each gone to the country earlier then they each would have been elected, I did not find that there was sufficient analysis of prime ministers who have become leaders after successful leaders, I wonder how much this marked their own need to made a name for themselves - Eden in the wake of Churchill, Major in the shadow of Thatcher and Brown who believed he had been wronged. And so I think the title of the lecture was both misleading and not particularly a good analysis of post war prime ministers.

[@stevebbuk]

Well he was putting in context the fact that Cabinet government never really had existed.

[@bobcornford3637]

Good old UK.... the land of Ad Hoc

[@robertewing3114]

Appeasing dictators, not a policy. There is a difference between an academic and a statesman, only no academic has ever learnt it.

[@jayd4ever]

Attlee,Churchill,Macmillan,Thatcher, were the best in the post war era I don't know about Tony Blair,Wilson,Major and David Cameron some say good some say bad

[@NagleOliver]

Charles Young Churchill voted against giving women the vote and got Britain more debt then any post war labour government put together and Mrs Thatcher privatised most industry which has cost each household £2500 more on average every year and she put 3 million out of work. Think of Clement Attlee. Without him there would be no NHS or council housing. Without those the majority of people here would be screwed.

[@jayd4ever]

NagleOliver Churchill was against woman suffrage but later changed his views after ww1 and Churchill carried a lot of the good he saw in the Attlee and supported more council housing for the poor and thatcher privatized because it was necessary which john major continued Aatlee government was good because there was a lot to do after the war

[@NagleOliver]

Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa The majority of of Thatcher's privatization was unnecessary, Churchill voted against several bills regarding the rights of women after 1945 and said, and I quote, "The scheme for social housing is nothing more than a plot, trying to destroy the inequalities between classes, that must be halted."

[@paulgavin3603]

There was Council house building before Attlee came along. Labour'sperformance has been sometimes good, but never original

[@williamfrancis5367]

1) True, but Churchill was one of the few Liberal Cabinet Ministers pushing for welfare programmes. He along with Lloyd George were responsible for laying the foundations of what would be later known as the welfare state. And, I don't think its fair to blame Churchill for the ridiculous costs of mid-20th century warfare. 2) Most industry (depending on how you define it) was already "privatized", before thatcher set foot in number 10, due to the fact it much of it wasn't nationalized in the first place. Not sure where you got the £2500 figure from. 3) Actually the NHS (or something like it) would have been implemented regardless of who won the election of 1945 as nearly every major political party endorsed the Beveridge report. Just look at the Tory manifesto of 1945 for instance; "The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament."