Incidentally, the obvious candidate in British political history is Hugh Gaitskell, sometimes called "the best Prime Minister we never had". He was the Labour leader who would probably have become PM in 1964, had he not died prematurely the previous year. He had been leader since 1955 and had lost the 1959 election, and it would be interesting to know how he would have performed in office had he won it. Having said that, the Conservative who did hold office at that period, Harold Macmillan, has a fairly distinguished record, so it's not clear that Gaitskell would have done better.
Originally posted by TeinosukeIsn't the obvious candidate whoever Thatcher was opposing?
Incidentally, the obvious candidate in British political history is Hugh Gaitskell, sometimes called "the best Prime Minister we never had". He was the Labour leader who would probably have become PM in 1964, had he not died prematurely the previous year. He had been leader since 1955 and had lost the 1959 election, and it would be interesting to know how ...[text shortened]... , has a fairly distinguished record, so it's not clear that Gaitskell would have done better.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, Neil Kinnock would have done fine. Having said that, it's a bit predictable if the answer to this question gets decided on the basis of my political preferences. Thatcher effectively pursued and fulfilled her aims. I was trying to think of people who would have been more effective in power than the actual winner, rather than more to my political taste.
Isn't the obvious candidate whoever Thatcher was opposing?
Also, I think Michael Foot would have been a failure as PM if he'd beaten Thatcher in 1983.