Best PMs
It says something about the prejudices of many political scientists when asked to rate PMs of the last 100 years, there is only one National PM in the top seven.
Holyoake won four elections in a row, and is only ranked 5th. Every single Labour PM who lasted more than a year in office is listed though.
The inclusion of Kirk who lost two elections and spent barely two years as PM is silly. He spent most of his time plotting against his colleagues, achieved little except sending a frigate somewhere, and makes the list while Holland is absent.
Likewise while I personally like David Lange’s charisma and wit, I could not rank him as a sucessful PM. He had almost no control over his own Government’s policy, alienated his own support base within the Government, and resigned leaving behind a shambles which led to their worst defeat.
And the most glaring absence is Muldoon. Now I think as Minister of Finance, he was very bad, but as Prime Minister he was beyond any doubt in the top ten for the century. In fact his force of personality was almost unique.
If I had to rate the top five, I would pick:
1 Seddon
2 Holyoake
3 Fraser
4 Muldoon
5 Savage
Without arrogance, I probably know more than most about the 40 or so people who have served as Prime Minister, as one of my more fun jobs in the PM’s Office was to write most of their biographies for the PM’s website. I still have a credit on there!
December 6th, 2004 at 6:50 am
I couldn’t agree more. The only reason why Kirk is held up is because, like Jack Kennedy, we don’t speak ill of those who died in office. It speaks volumes about how the 3rd Labour Government was truly liked when it was devastated 1 year after Kirk’s death by Sir Robert Muldoon in the 1975 election.
And its a little early to be ranking Helen Clark – she may yet leave office in less than glorious circumstances.
December 6th, 2004 at 7:06 am
Hey David, could you do a post on the titles Right Hon. and just Hon.
What is the criteria for getting such titles?
Can you lose them and under what circumstances?
Are these titles for ‘life’ after politicians have left Parliament?
Thanks.
December 6th, 2004 at 7:52 am
Under Muldoon’s stewardship, the country changed from a western possibly overregulated at the time country to a polish shipyard, in a time of worldwide deregulation. As PM (and minister of finance) he should have ensured that his ministers looked after the economy a lot better, in the end he was culpable as the top boss. I would not put him in the top five or even top ten, particularly not ahead of Holland who increased his majority and was in fact the last NZ government to have an absolute majority of voters.
December 6th, 2004 at 8:06 am
Silas – All Ministers, plus the Speaker and High, are entitled to be titled “The Hon.” during their term of office. Upon approval of the Queen (which means the PM) they can continue to use it after they retire. Th COurt Judges upis is basicallyu automatic even though Bolger made Peters wait 18 months after sacking him in 1991.
“The Rt. Hon.” is for members of the Privy Council which in NZ is basically for senior Judges and Ministers. The PM decides which ones to recommend, so it is at their discretion. Clark has not appointed any Minister to it but is a member herself.
December 6th, 2004 at 11:21 am
According to British Convention, the Privy Councillors hold office ‘for the life of the sovereign’, so they must all go back to Hon – member of the executive council- when the Queen dies.
This site http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/
has peerages and all members of the privy council since about the 15th century
December 6th, 2004 at 11:28 am
Reading Sid Hollands bio David,is there any truth that your statement that his ‘health declined’ is a euphenism for ‘lost his marbles’
Interesting that he abolished the Legislative Council without a referendum, and later created the Court of Appeal . Major constitutional change?
No sweat under national
December 6th, 2004 at 11:31 am
Hey Ztev, any truth to the stories that Norman Kirk’s “health declining” involved him shooting at pigeons with a .22 calibre rifle from Parliament Buildings?
December 6th, 2004 at 1:30 pm
Muldoon was an unmitigated disaster as Prime Minister. He may have been a skilled politician, in the worst possible sense of the word, but he left the country a disaster area.
December 6th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
Aaron , any truth to the rumour that you went from highest polling to seventh in one electoral cycle for the Hobson Community Board because you stepped under a truck travelling on the eastern motorway.
As for the other bit about who belongs to the Privy Council, Clark and Cullen are members , as is convention and the Chief Justice and some judges of the Court of appeal were as well so they could sit as members of the judicial board of the ‘Privy Council’ in London. Another perk the Supreme court wont have- not now anyway.
I remeber reading some great stories about the 1960′s Wilson labour government, when a meeting of the Privy Council was required to approve some regulation or other, a couple of cabinet ministers would pile into a car and head off to Windsor castle, where a quick meeting with the Queen ( apparently these are standing only to keep them brief) and a few senior courtiers to make up a quorum.
December 6th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Hey Ztev – you sound like a broken record – any chance you are an ex girlfriend of mine? Your vindictiveness on matters regarding me is somewhat puzzling….
December 6th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
People miss the point with Muldoon. I hated his policies and pretty much detested him also. But rating PMs is not about personal agreement on whether they had good policies or not. I didn’t agree with much of what Savage and Fraser did but rank them as good PMs.
Muldoon as PM had total control of the Government and direction of the country. He dominated NZ for nine years, and implemented the policies he thought were best. Thus to ignore him from the top ten of the last 100 years is ridiculous.
December 6th, 2004 at 3:01 pm
Not quite right to say all Labour PMs who lasted more than a year were included. Walter Nash lasted a full three and played a major role within both the Savage and Fraser governments. I agree Kirk is rated more on what might have been had he not died rather than what he actually achieved and on that basis we should have included Ballance. I agree with you about Muldoon – I have always thought the man was one good friend away from greatness. But you can hardly omit Lange and Bolgier on the same grounds (historical importance).
The day may come when we have to acknowledge the historical importance and political acumen of Helen Clark but it is not today.
December 6th, 2004 at 3:04 pm
David, the flip side I’d like to see is:- Who were the five worst PMs and why? Funny thing is, only yesterday I was thinking about people who are well spoken, that is people who love the language, use it well and don’t murder the Queen’s English. Whitlam and Fraser came to mind. I imagine they’d both be among Australia’s top ten PMs.
December 6th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
Agreed that it’s way too early to judge Clark, and that Kirk did little in his time in office.
However, I think you can make the case that disaster tho’ it turned out to be, Lange led a government that really made an impact on NZ economy and society.
Oh, sure, you can say that it was Douglas’ policies, but in the first term it was Lange that sold those policies. Moreover, the changes the Lange government pursued in foreign affairs were not overturned by the subsequent National government.
Holyoake’s a curious one. There wasn’t a lot of major reform, the abolition of the death penalty being perhaps the biggest. Indeed, one of the most significant things Holyoake did was minimizing the NZ contribution to the Vietnam war.
I’d say that Helen Clark’s Iraq policy owes much to Holyoake’s Vietnam policy.
Bolger’s another under-appreciated one. It was quite a trick to have two-and-a-half terms in which the political skills needed were quite different.
December 6th, 2004 at 4:31 pm
Greyshade – I actually forgot totally about Nash being PM. Perhaps this explains why he wasn’t on top 10!
Adolf – worst five is difficult because some like Rowling and Marshall never had long enough to find out how good or bad they might have been.
Evan – I partly agree. The Lange Government was in many ways a great and inspiring one (until 87) but how much Lange was, yeah a hard one.
December 6th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
You are wrong about Kirk and Muldoon. Kirk was the first NZ Prime Minister who gave NZ a feeling of Nationhood and focused ourselves in the SW Pacific instead of mother England important she still is. There was a reversion under Muldoon who should have been indicted for his totally reprehisable behavior during the devaluation crisis during 1984. He should have devalued during the campaign and if necessary blamed Roger Douglas. He blew at least $1b providing a one-way bet to the speculators. Ignorant and incompetant man but for a while he fooled enough people he was economically literate.
December 6th, 2004 at 7:28 pm
Ztev- National actually campaigned for the abolition of the Legislative Council in 1949, putting their policy into action in 1950. An outright majority of New Zealanders therefore voted for the abolition of the Legislative Council.
December 7th, 2004 at 9:51 am
The last time I saw a similar exercise – in the Sunday Sneer-Whines – it was hardly surprising that Savage and Kirk topped the poll: the creator of ‘cradle to grave welfare’ and the last PM in any position to pay for it.
Also found it rather funny that Holyoake was marked down for being “arrogant and pompous”, but it’s “decisive” when Clark speaks about herself in the third person, abuses those who have the gall to hold a different POV, and generally behaves like Muldoon in drag but without the charm.
December 7th, 2004 at 10:10 am
Doesn’t this depend on your definition of “top”? If the top ten is those who had the biggest influence, then of course Muldoon should be right up there. If the top ten is those who left the place better than they found it, then I’d be most interested to read a justification for Muldoon’s inclusion.
If we are rating PMs qua PMs, on some sort of scale of political effectiveness, then I would argue that Muldoon broke the National party by the time he was finished with it, and made modern Labour at the same time. Dunno whether that makes him tops or not.
I assumed that “top ten” means the best, not necessarily the most influential.
December 7th, 2004 at 10:39 am
Stephen says: “I assumed that “top ten” means the best, not necessarily the most influential.”
I assumed the opposite. Hence the debate.
I think we should debate “most influential,” since that makes us think back to the conditions and issues these people governed in, rather than projecting our own values back onto the past.
It also allows us to get away from projecting our partisan affiliation onto the rankings.