Great Leaders - who are your favourites?

[spacein_vader]

I don't see the difference. How can you be a great leader but do bad things while a leader?

By doing those bad things very effectively.

[badass]

no body has said Putin thus far...wonder why?

Oooooohh good call.
He's clearly a great leader. A prick but nonetheless a great leader.

[TeePee]

Above picture doesn't include the bit about slaves being worth 3/5ths of a slaveowner.



Thatcher wasn't a great leader as she accelerated the poverty of swathes of the north, commenced a trend of selling off public assets, deregulated the economy, and pushed forward ugly neoliberalism. While she may have united sections of the country when she came to be elected, she's without doubt the most hated british politician of the 20th century. Highly flawed and the first to be struck off the list of 'great leaders'.

Tony Blair would be on my list of more hated Prime Ministers. Another would be Anthony Eden. Widening our scope to include all British politicians, we'd have to name Enoch Powell. Thatcher may be hated by some, but she's a long way from the worst we've seen.

[blueball]

You have low expectations!

[ik9000]

Tony Blair would be on my list of more hated Prime Ministers. Another would be Anthony Eden. Widening our scope to include all British politicians, we'd have to name Enoch Powell. Thatcher may be hated by some, but she's a long way from the worst we've seen.

Wazzickle pretty much nailed it. Though she did help drag our economy out of the gutter - but at an awful price. Blair was a slimey holier-than-thou too eager to rush off to war, and sitting back while the coffers emptied. Equally bad, but when juxtaposed against the bickering scandals of the Major government it did seem like a breath of fresh air. I'm with you on Eden. Irresponsible war wager. I'm always amazed at some of the parrallels between Blair and Eden. Thatcher, for all her faults, was spot-on with the Falklands, and the Gulf (round 1). I gather she also instructed the intelligence operations in NI that eventually infiltrated the IRA so much that they came to the table in the 90s because their whole command infrastructure was compromised. (I think it was Tebbit who is on record as saying that.)

[wazzickle]

Tony Blair would be on my list of more hated Prime Ministers. Another would be Anthony Eden. Widening our scope to include all British politicians, we'd have to name Enoch Powell. Thatcher may be hated by some, but she's a long way from the worst we've seen.

Nonetheless she is still the most hated by the most number of people, eclipsing Enoch Powell in large part because he was never in power and never had the opportunity to be a 'great leader'.

[Lost4words]

Kermit the frog. An awesome leader.

[peterb]

Leaders don’t have to be popular to be good or effective at leadership.

[Corky34]

Oooooohh good call.
He's clearly a great leader. A prick but nonetheless a great leader.

It could be argued that to be a great leader takes a certain amount of dickery, just look at the likes of Genghis Khan, Alexander the great, and Julius Caesar, i mean these were not nice guys but they lead their people to greatness. (That's not me excusing them BTW as being on the receiving end of such 'greatness' probably sucks).

[spacein_vader]

There was a programme on radio 4 the other week about how effective ministers are at enacting change in their department and getting things done.

Apparently (according to civil servants and others who have experience in the area,) in terms of leadership and efficiency, Michael Gove is incredibly effective. He wanted to make big changes in education and did so in a short timeframe and DEFRA is consistently named as one of the most brexit ready/capable departments at present.

Now my other half is a teacher, and its fair to say that (on education at least,) the changes he chose to make aren't necessarily popular, but he's very good at leading a government department through change.

[wazzickle]

There was a programme on radio 4 the other week about how effective ministers are at enacting change in their department and getting things done.

Apparently (according to civil servants and others who have experience in the area,) in terms of leadership and efficiency, Michael Gove is incredibly effective. He wanted to make big changes in education and did so in a short timeframe and DEFRA is consistently named as one of the most brexit ready/capable departments at present.

Now my other half is a teacher, and its fair to say that (on education at least,) the changes he chose to make aren't necessarily popular, but he's very good at leading a government department through change.

That's not a great leader, that's someone who's great at being a d*ckhead. Leader =/= d*ckhead.

[peterb]

That's not a great leader, that's someone who's great at being a d*ckhead. Leader =/= d*ckhead.

That is just personal prejudice.

As I said earlier, great leaders don't have to be popular - one of the hallmarks of good leaders is managing and leading people through unpopular change. I wouldn't say Gove is a great leader, but n terms of being a minister, heading a Department of State, he was an effective and therefore good leader.

You could say the same about Boris Johnson as Mayor of London.

(And wearing my moderation hat - I'll overlook you attempt to circumvent the swear filter )

[spacein_vader]

That's not a great leader, that's someone who's great at being a d*ckhead. Leader =/= d*ckhead.

He led his department and got them to achieve big changes, nationwide in a short time period. Ignore what the changes are and focus on how well he was able to implement them. That makes the case for good leadership.

I don't agree with a lot of the reforms he made, but I can't argue he didn't implement them well.

[Smudger]

If I've learnt anything from great literature such as Game of Thrones and Ender's Game, its that great leaders in battle or struggle often make terrible leaders in peace. cf Churchill

[Zak33]

If I've learnt anything from great literature such as Game of Thrones and Ender's Game, its that great leaders in battle or struggle often make terrible leaders in peace. cf Churchill

often entirely true.. because to be a great leader in war.. during battle OR sending people into battle, involves being heartless and harsh.

Churchill is an obvious great exampel but so is.....

Sir Arthur Travers "Bomber" Harris

[Zak33]

I don't see the difference. How can you be a great leader but do bad things while a leader?

you surprise me. You're bright, sharp and witty. But we're obviously not defining what we mean by "Leadership" in a way you've grasped and that smore our failing than yours.

I will try from another angle.

Imagine a great war time leader, who our contry depended on, and who fought valiantly, cleverly and bravely, with tactical cleverness, and who protected as many people as was statistically possible. Someone who motivated the people of your contry to believe in themselves and to be strong when they felt weak.
Imagine that person being truly good at not just talking, and convincing people, but who actally did the right things for those people and who led from the front, by example and often in danger himself


Now.... keep that image in your mind. A true leader, a good do-er and a a charismatic nice, protector of you and your family.

ok..?


now imagine being on the oother team... and utterly despising him.