How many Prime Ministers were the respondents asked about in these polls. For instance was the Newsnight poll asking respondents "who is your favourite prime minister out of these 3?"

Presumably the other two were Pol Pot and Rober Mugabe?

Funny thing ... I wasn't asked in any of those polls.
Can we have a link maybe, so that we can check such trivia as sample size, target social groups, the actual question that was asked and options offered?

I mean (unknown date) isn't exactly confidence-inspiring is it?

Also, you have to bear in mind that a) she never had the vote of the majority of the population (more people voted consistently against her than for her), and as all PMs go out under a cloud, so "third best" is a strange and probably meaningless term is it not?

If I was offered a choice of tripe, courgette, Big Mac, Strawberries or lamb chops then Big Mac would come 3rd, even though I never touch that muck.

Ajw71 = illogical, not for the first time.

Quote ="El Barbudo":2idglxozFunny thing ... I wasn't asked in any of those polls. Can we have a link maybe, so that we can check such trivia as sample size, target social groups, the actual question that was asked and options offered? I mean (unknown date) isn't exactly confidence-inspiring is it? Also, you have to bear in mind that a) she never had the vote of the majority of the population (more people voted consistently against her than for her), and as all PMs go out under a cloud, so "third best" is a strange and probably meaningless term is it not? If I was offered a choice of tripe, courgette, Big Mac, Strawberries or lamb chops then Big Mac would come 3rd, even though I never touch that muck. Ajw71 = illogical, not for the first time.'" :2idglxoz Me, illogical? Haha I think not. You think Margaret Thatcher was a rubbish PM? You offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims apart from, 'well I say so, and I'm right'. The fact is, if she was bad as you think she was, she wouldn't rank so highly in :2idglxozevery single but the fact is she is regarded as one of the greatest prime ministers the country has had. You disagree about being in a minority, please provide evidence to support your claims, as I have done. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom

Quote ="El Barbudo":2idglxozFunny thing ... I wasn't asked in any of those polls. Can we have a link maybe, so that we can check such trivia as sample size, target social groups, the actual question that was asked and options offered? I mean (unknown date) isn't exactly confidence-inspiring is it? Also, you have to bear in mind that a) she never had the vote of the majority of the population (more people voted consistently against her than for her), and as all PMs go out under a cloud, so "third best" is a strange and probably meaningless term is it not? If I was offered a choice of tripe, courgette, Big Mac, Strawberries or lamb chops then Big Mac would come 3rd, even though I never touch that muck. Ajw71 = illogical, not for the first time.'" :2idglxoz Me, illogical? Haha I think not. You think Margaret Thatcher was a rubbish PM? You offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims apart from, 'well I say so, and I'm right'. The fact is, if she was bad as you think she was, she wouldn't rank so highly in :2idglxozevery single but the fact is she is regarded as one of the greatest prime ministers the country has had. You disagree about being in a minority, please provide evidence to support your claims, as I have done. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom

Abe Lincoln was assasinated by a disillusioned member of his electorate and hated by many in the south.
Winston Churchill became unpopular after the second world war.

Both still regarded as great leaders.

There aren't many British Prime Ministers who are sacked by their own party WHILST STILL IN THE JOB.

There hasn't been a British Prime Minister in my lifetime where their own party has decided that things have gone so far wrong that they need to sack their leader RIGHT NOW instead of taking a chance at the next election.

When she left Downing Street in tears in the back of that limousine she didn't have a single supporter in her own party, none in parliament and certainly not many in the country as a whole - to claim that she was the most popular PM this country has ever had is just bloody hilarious when you're old enough to remember the FACTS and not what your school history books have told you.

Quote ="Ajw71"Me, illogical? Haha I think not. You think Margaret Thatcher was a rubbish PM? You offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims apart from, 'well I say so, and I'm right'. The fact is, if she was bad as you think she was, she wouldn't rank so highly in every single poll on the issue. Now as I have said earlier, you are in a minority as all the evidence shows. You may not like it, you may think everyone who likes her is [insert swear words here but the fact is she is regarded as one of the greatest prime ministers the country has had. You disagree about being in a minority, please provide evidence to support your claims, as I have done. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom'" You've provided sod all evidence to back up your claim. 2010 University of Leeds poll - was a survey of 106 academics and restricted to post 1945 2004 University of Leeds - was an online survey of 139 academics and was a survey of how successful they thought 20th Century PM's were. 1999 Radio 4 poll - was a survey of 20 historians, politicians and commentators. 2000 British politics group poll - asked 22 US and UK scholars. 2006 BBC History Magazine - The opinion of 1 historian on how well each PM implemented their policies. 2007 Daily Politics - a discreet online poll, which excluded Churchill and makes no mention of how many people voted. The Times - It's the Times FFS. Do the same poll in the Mirror and you'll get a different result. The only poll that has even semi-legitimacy is the Newsnight poll of 27,000 viewers. But even that had flaws, it's online only, it's viewers only, which restricts it to certain types of people. So in essence, you have provided no evidence for your assertions.

Quote ="Ajw71"Me, illogical? Haha I think not. You think Margaret Thatcher was a rubbish PM? You offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims apart from, 'well I say so, and I'm right'. The fact is, if she was bad as you think she was, she wouldn't rank so highly in every single poll on the issue. Now as I have said earlier, you are in a minority as all the evidence shows. You may not like it, you may think everyone who likes her is [insert swear words here but the fact is she is regarded as one of the greatest prime ministers the country has had. You disagree about being in a minority, please provide evidence to support your claims, as I have done. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ed_Kingdom'" You've provided sod all evidence to back up your claim. 2010 University of Leeds poll - was a survey of 106 academics and restricted to post 1945 2004 University of Leeds - was an online survey of 139 academics and was a survey of how successful they thought 20th Century PM's were. 1999 Radio 4 poll - was a survey of 20 historians, politicians and commentators. 2000 British politics group poll - asked 22 US and UK scholars. 2006 BBC History Magazine - The opinion of 1 historian on how well each PM implemented their policies. 2007 Daily Politics - a discreet online poll, which excluded Churchill and makes no mention of how many people voted. The Times - It's the Times FFS. Do the same poll in the Mirror and you'll get a different result. The only poll that has even semi-legitimacy is the Newsnight poll of 27,000 viewers. But even that had flaws, it's online only, it's viewers only, which restricts it to certain types of people. So in essence, you have provided no evidence for your assertions.

I don't have to take your word for it or "prove" anything. I was old enough to not have voted for her and to have lived through her government. The most memorable thing you probably remember is when she snatched your milk from school (thats if you were even born then).

I have provided evidence. Just because you don't like it and try to discredit it does not mean it's not evidence.

8 different polls, some popular opinion, some academic, some from political commentators. But all one common theme, they rank Thatcher as one of our best.

You can say, I'm too young etc all you want. The academics agree with me in their droves and I'm betting they know more about her time as PM as anyone on this forum.

Oh and incidentially, you haven't provided any evidence so I can't even begin to discredit it.

Hellow HWS.

Assuming then from the tone of your post, you don't like Maggie very much.

What is the reason the polls all rank her so highly then, in your opinion?

I don't listen to polls, I'd rather listen to people who were there living through it at the time, having their milk taken away and having to pay their poll tax from their YTS £29.50/40hr week wages and at the same time donating to the miners childrens fund from said (slave) wages.

You really don't have a clue how this works do you. To back up your assertions you need to provide CREDIBLE evidence, otherwise you're just like Kirkstall claiming the bible is evidence of creationism. I don't need to try and discredit it, it is discredited already in this context.

There were 8 polls you provided, all from Wikipedia.
5 of them do not poll the public and have too small a sample size to be credible in this case.
The 3 that do, 1 is from a right wing newspaper. This restricts the sample, in the same way that if you poll a Hare Krishna temple you'll get a large support for shaving your head.
Another is from a politics tv show. It attracts only 200k viewers, is broadcast in the middle of the day and less than 25% of viewers are under 45. This again restricts the sample. Plus we are not told any details of how many people voted and Churchill and pre 1945 leaders were excluded.
As I said the only poll that can claim any sort of legitimacy is the Newsnight one due to the fairly large sample size. But then, as with the Daily Politics, Newsnight attracts a certain type of person, generally older, generally already interested in politics, generally wealthier.

Come up with a large, comprehensive, impartial poll then I'll take more interest.

You appear to be changing your argument, was Thatcher a good PM? Or good at getting her policies through and implemented? The academics don't agree with you in droves because they are 2 different questions.

Not only have you thoroughly lost credibility you also appear to have lost yer marbles.
I haven't said anything about you being too young and I haven't asserted anything, so why would I provide evidence for something I haven't said?

A bit of advice, quit while you're dead, buried and 6 feet under.

Don't worry about it, Mrs HWS. The polls are an irrelevant distraction from a quick, lazy search on Wikipedia.

Given that most polls are commissioned by one or other interest group it could be difficult to satisfy your criteria - but then that is what you want!!

But here goes - June 2011 Reuters/Ipsos Mori political monitor poll for the Daily Telegraph suggest Mrs Thatcher was the most capable of recent prime ministers but Blair the most likeable?

I lived through the three day week when electricity was rationed due to the miners strike of 1972, I also lived through the Callaghan/Healey debacle when rubbish didn't get emptied, bodies didn't get buried and top rate tax was 83% and basic rate was 33% and the IMF were required to Healey out of the crap.

I'd agree with that, but then it isn't as subjective as "best" and I'd guess the questions were a little more refined and the sample size a little more representative than that some of those linked to.

You probably find Blair was towards the top of some of those polls linked to, popularity within a certain sample of the population isn't an indicator or how the wider population feels.

I have a bottle of champagne ready for when she pops her clogs which I will drink to the tune of "Ding dong the witch is dead" from "Wizard of Oz". I will the be a true champagne socialist



Ajw 71, I suggest you listen to "Tramp the dirt down" by Elvis Costello to see why we hate her. She destroyed the entire economies of some towns, started the move away from free university education and sold off all the family silver in her mad cap privatisation program that have lumbered us with profiteering utilities companies and some of the worst and most expensive public transport in western Europe.

Is it? Your psychic powers must be amazing to know what I want. All I asked is for ajw to produce some evidence from an independent source with a decent sample and fair weighting. Otherwise polls are unrepresentative.

For instance The Guardian did a poll asking if readers "do you admire Margaret Thatcher as PM?"
Funnily enough the poll came out:
Yes - 12%
No - 88%

To take ajw's stance, that proves that the nation hated her and thought she was rubbish. There, incontrovertible evidence.


Yep, I'd seen that. The weighting seems ok but there is a larger proportion of people living in the south that were polled compared to relative populations and for some reason Wales & NI is unrepresented entirely.
Though I'd agree it's a far far better poll than the dross that was brought up by ajw as "evidence". Though again we get into the issue of the question. You can think someone is capable whilst disagreeing with what they do.

You have found a way to question every poll that ajw has put forward, you are also questioning the poll I put forward because it doesn't give you the answer that you want.

You don't have to be a psychic to see where you are coming from - Stevie Wonder can see that.

Just think how bad things would have been if Callaghan and Healey had stayed in power - IMF would have been deciding how we spent our money and Arthur would have continued to bring the country to a standstill along with his other pseudo lefty mates at the TUC.

Thatcher simply redressed the balance of power between the elected body and a bunch of union guys who thought they ran the country. In something as fundamental as that you will have casualties Arthur had it coming the fact he was strategical out thought says much about Thatcher and Arthur.

As for selling off public assets - anyone who thinks public transport - especially the trains offer a worse service now than it did then didn't use it then and doesn't use it now. BT is much more efficient organisation now than it ever was under public ownership etc.

Exactly. You can guarantee too that if Thatcher was at the bottom of these polls, the anti's would be lapping it up.

Just because they don't like her they want to believe everyone in the country doesn't too.

True, similar to the institutuion of slavery in 1860's USA. Wasn't going to go down without a fight, just like the unions.

Oh come off it. 7 of those 8 polls he put are utterly ridiculous, anyone with half a brain can see that. As I said, the only one that has semi legitimacy is the Newsnight poll, but then Newsnight attracts certain types of viewers from certain types of backgrounds.
Which part of that do you disagree with?

The poll you linked to is, as I said, far better. But isn't actually asking the question ajw talked about. Can you see that? Or are you back in your real world again?

As I mentioned earlier, the only poll that matters is the poll that her peers, fellow party members, and her cabinet took in November 1990, that was the point at which they chose to sack her from the job because they no longer agreed with her ideology, could see that she was obviously and intensely despised by the electorate, and feared for their own jobs at the next electorate choice.

Now when an extreme right wing politician is sacked by her own party members there can only be two reasons - one is that he/she is embracing a political stance that is too left wing for their tastes, or they are veering too far to the right and into dictatorship realms - like her very best ally Pinochet.

I think we all know why the Tory members of 1990 sacked her and I think we all know what the reality of any "popularity" claims were just by looking back at that time.

Deregulation of banking; opening up of and encouraging cheap credit; destruction of industry and move to 'service' economy; bar on social housing to boost the housing market ...

Recognise these?

They're the foundations of the current crisis.

All the Maggieites either don't know, have forgotten or applaud these things.

And that is without mentioning the rise of MRSA (a direct consequence of privatisation) and old people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors.