I always detested Thatcher

[Thomas]

Off the top of my head immigration trebled under tony blairs new labour from the average before he got into power , and inequality massively rose under his watch.

In 2001 , blairs massive victory turned out to be on reflection extremely hollow , as voter turnout had collapsed to the lowest in the post war period , so disgusted were many of the electorate of the man and his red tories.

I thought this was a pretty fair article on the damage tony blair did to the labour party , and how the large warning signs during his reign , still largely ignored by the likes of keir starmer and the blairites back in charge , of the gradual disintegration of labours voting base  , people so disgusted by the party they show no signs of running back , especially under yet another clone like the lamentable keir starmer.

Thatcher did a lot of damage. She seems to be held in high esteem especially by the southern english , but much of what she did , rightly or wrongly was predictable. A typical tory one might say.

Blair on the other hand  destroyed not only his own party , and the values they once held so dear , but absolutely betrayed the so called working classes that were once the labour parties bread and butter.

I would say blair was far worse than thatcher.

Labour's lost future: the inside story of a 20-year collapse

"What you've witnessed in slow motion over nearly 20 years is a large section of Labour voters who are absolutely disgusted with the party and are in no rush to go back."

1. A feeble victory
In 2001 Labour won 15 more seats than Margaret Thatcher had at her peak in 1983. But Blair's triumph was hollow: voter turnout had collapsed, falling from 71 to 59 per cent. In victory, New Labour had lost nearly three million votes. Fewer than one in four of those eligible to vote backed Labour, giving Blair a weaker mandate than any prime minister in the 20th century.
Few paid attention to this at the time – MPs were elected just the same – and Blairites casually blamed Labour's vast poll lead for discouraging voters from showing up. Why vote in a foregone election? But a warning light was flashing. Rob Ford, professor of politics at the University of Manchester, tells me the 2001 collapse in Labour's turnout is one of the "most underestimated statistics" in politics. For many core Labour voters, abstention was their first break with a party to which they never returned

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2021/09/labours-lost-future-the-inside-story-of-a-20-year-collapse

[DeppityDawg]

So your preferred PM was who and why?

You defended her because she was a woman rather than on whether she was a good or bad PM, then made sure to blame the men around her for any failings. Its not unusual for leaders to lose support, as Boris is finding out, but that is generally a result of policy disagreements, not the leaders gender

Meanwhile, it was largely women who put "Bambi" in no 10

Women's support gave Blair the edge | Politics | The Guardian

I've put my thoughts on Thatcher out numerous times, and like Cromwell says, she caused enormous hurt and damage to many communities that has still not fully healed. That isn't to deny that she was a great leader, only to say that no one is wholly good or all bad. Thatcher had great leadership qualities, she pulled this country out of the 19th century, but she also had great personality flaws too. She was vindictive and let her personal feelings drive policy, and as a result caused a lot of harm along the way.

Yours is a typical modern woman's comment that obfuscates equality. There's nothing equal about expecting sympathetic treatment for a woman when a man wouldn't get any. In reality you only want equality when it suits you.

[johnofgwent]

And if you look at points 2 4 11 13 and 14 you might understand why I detested her,and look at energy as a current point (pun intended) and how her chickens have come home to roost.

Yes, Energy. Her brilliant invention, the New Electricity Trading Arrangements. Electricity supply was chang d forever from a sector focussed on generating power for the country's needs to one forced to gamble on an insane game of Russian roulette.

Across the regional electricity generating board areas, companies who bid to supply power to users had to declare, a year in advance, exactly how many kilowatts their customers would need during each of the 48 thirty minute periods in each day. Those guesses became binding contracts which a middle man the Network Management Company would supply... But they "supplied" it not by making it but by trading it ....

Companies who wished to create power were told of these contracts and offered the chance to bid for a contract to supply the middle man with that power. 

Naturally most suppliers also went into the business of creating power...

But a supplier had to receive every watt they gambled they needed, and could not receive a watt more than they gambled they would use.

Power generators were required to generate every watt they contacted to create, and not one watt more
In the past suppliers generated their own needs and if customer demand hiked in cold weather or when the bond film ended so the country went for a piss and a cup.of tea, they just held off taking a piss themselves, until they spun up extra generating capacity, or if the weather was warm they shut down the turbine

But now, like with Shylock of The Merchant Of Venice, if the amount varied by more than a scruple ...

Contracts to supply power were made with a government created artificial middle man who like the stock exchange took a commission for accepting the contract to supply, and contracts to sell to people and businesses were made with that same government middleman who took a commission to provide from the bidding generators...

But the real money was in the business of failure.

A company whose customer base expanded by population growth, or whose demand expanded by new factory growth or cold weather in the year since they made their bid had to pay a huge premium for every extra watt, even if they owned the company called on to create it at shirt notice, who received only a fraction of that premium price.

A company whose customer base shrunk through migration or whose demand fell by unseasonably warm weather or collapse of the steel industry faced swingeing penalties paid to the middle man for not consuming every watt they contacted to receive a year ago, a fraction of this went to power generators as a subsidy for not now making the power they had contractually agreed to make, or suppliers to retail could offer to buy the unwanted watts from the middle man at a ridiculously cheap price.

Either way the penalty of not using exactly what they said a year ago, no more and no less, fell on the company that supplied your home. And screwed with their ability to continue to do so.

The system was well under way to implementation when Blair came to office and he did F@@@ all to stop it.

I was hired by Yorkshire electricity group to roll out a version of a stockbroker trading floor system to their new supply bid gamblers.

Being canny tight fisted buggers, Yorkshire realised they had to find a way to use every watt every 30 minutes and not a watt more or less. 

In their region lay one of the biggest cement makers in the country. Much of the process once started was unstoppable, but the stone crushers were a flexible resource.

A plot was hatched. Remote control SCADA equipment was fitted to the stone crushers and a special price negotiated so if the company had an unexpected excess from its gambling, it could burn it crushing stone for cement, and an unexpected shortage could be endured by not crushing any stone.

Thus a company whose job was to supply customers with power became a company more focussed on when to crush stone to make cement so as not to be massively punished for not using each watt in each 30 minutes, or needing more than they gambled they needed.

Total fucking insanity 

[Sheepy]

they were both honoured but who damaged this country more?

They were both the same, they both set out to change the face of the UK forever and by division both managed it very well. The fallout has been felt by the electorate ever since.

[cromwell]

Out of interest I asked Google what did Thatcher do and this answer came from the Guardian. Some I remember some I don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/14/margaret-thatcher-20-changes-britain

And if you look at points 2 4 11 13 and 14 you might understand why I detested her,and look at energy as a current point (pun intended) and how her chickens have come home to roost.

[T00ts]

Out of interest I asked Google what did Thatcher do and this answer came from the Guardian. Some I remember some I don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/14/margaret-thatcher-20-changes-britain

[johnofgwent]

So your preferred PM was who and why?

Can I answer that one ? Callaghan. Paralysed by the need to be propped up by the liverals and unable t actually DO anything, his premiership marked the time where I undoubtyedly enjoyed the highest dispsable income and spending power in real terms of my entire adult life. Thatcher would destroy the controls on my household bills and destroy my ability to earn in the career I had set for myself, and precipitated a decade of just managing tomeet the bills the month brought, while simultaneously demanding i be thankful for that as most of my neghbours were in deep shit and debt up to their necks.

[johnofgwent]

they were both honoured but who damaged this country more?

Blair, without a doubt.

Yes, I can hear the left roaring in anger but note that Blair's polices included steps that were to the RIGHT f thatcher, he introduced privatisations into the health service that thatcher dared not.

Thatcher's antics doomed the people of this united kingdom to a lifetime of misery; Blair destroyed the unity of a sovereign state, reducing it to four land masses whose devolved leaders do little except ehnage in mutual dick waving contests to show who has the greater "power" over their serfs.

[srb7677]

Why did you detest her so much? Do you not remember  what a mess we were in before she was elected? I remember so clearly listening to her and for once someone made sense about running the country and balancing the books. I believe that she started out intending to put the country first but sadly she was surrounded by suits who couldn't stand having a female leader. She stood up to the EU in a way that no man had done or has done since and she finally put the unions in their place. We need unions of course but they do not deserve to run the country.
Blair they called Bambi as he first stood on the steps of No10. He was a charlatan from the get go and simply got worse. His aim was power, he was an actor rather like Macron, with performances ready for every occasion. He saw himself as boy wonder but as time proved he had nothing but the performances and was more concerned for his future earnings than his country.

Your criticisms of Blair resonate with me too, though we differ greatly in political outlook. Blair was indeed a charlatan and an actor, essentially believing in power for it's own sake and little else. He was well known for his ability to act out emotions and fake anger or compassion, whilst telling different things to different audiences with apparent conviction, a conviction that had to be dishonest because it was always so contradictory. And when he finally discovered a principle, something he actually believed in and was prepared to risk his reputation on, it was his apparent belief that the UK was a pygmy nation that should always do what it was told by America, irrespective of right or wrong. That this supposed principle was not one most of the British were ever going to buy into - from the jingoistic right to the socialist left - was the beginning of the end for him in the eyes of the public. His charisma was all an act. I would much rather a man - or woman - of good principles rather than someone who could talk the talk with fake but convincing passion but who actually believed in very little.

We will certainly differ on Thatcher though. I was 13 when she was elected and 25 when she was ousted. She dominated my formative adult years and I quickly developed a lasting hatred of her. Even now I invoke her name when I speak of a Thatcherite consensus, as opposed to the more common name of late for the same thing - the neo-liberal consensus. As a working class person struggling to make my way in the world and still young at the time - every action of her government seemed calculated as an attack on people like me. What little mimimum sectoral pay that existed  was abolished, rent controls were done away with, housing benefit made less all encompassing, welfare benefits across the board slashed for young people, abolished altogether for the under 18s. And even as taxes were cut, thresholds at the bottom were not increased in line with inflation so that the poorest paid more. Whilst VAT was doubled. And cheapskate employers were actively encouraged, like the one who made me work a 70 hour week for a pittance and if that were not enough ordered us to work unpaid overtime on top. Entirely unpaid. Zero pence per hour. That was typical of Thatcher's entrepenuerial Britain, full of chancers and exploitative scumbags on the make. And as for Thatcher as some kind of feminist, she consciously strove to be more male than the males, rather than attempting to challenge the patriarchy.

[Thomas]

Tricky.

I liked them both and the country is more prosperous than before, so can't I vote for the pair of them?

Same here. They both served the scottish independence cause admirably , thatcher for getting us to hate the uk , blair for getting us to hate labour.

I have been involved in too many threads now over the years discussing the rights and wrongs of margaret thatcher that i have heard all the arguments , and at the end of the day the wummin is pan breid. Blair though is still much very alive , still grabbing the headlines and as such is still quite usefull as a political hammer to batter labour with  , and tweak same olds nose.

So as i cannae vote the pair i will vote neither.

[Borchester]

they were both honoured but who damaged this country more?

Tricky.

I liked them both and the country is more prosperous than before, so can't I vote for the pair of them?

[T00ts]

And off we go. Thatcher couldn't possibly do any wrong because she was a woman. And the feminist narrative wouldn't be complete unless she was surrounded by idiotic men

Blair meanwhile was just basically a charlatan

That's how that post reads

So your preferred PM was who and why?

[DeppityDawg]

Why did you detest her so much? Do you not remember  what a mess we were in before she was elected? I remember so clearly listening to her and for once someone made sense about running the country and balancing the books. I believe that she started out intending to put the country first but sadly she was surrounded by suits who couldn't stand having a female leader. She stood up to the EU in a way that no man had done or has done since and she finally put the unions in their place. We need unions of course but they do not deserve to run the country.
Blair they called Bambi as he first stood on the steps of No10. He was a charlatan from the get go and simply got worse. His aim was power, he was an actor rather like Macron, with performances ready for every occasion. He saw himself as boy wonder but as time proved he had nothing but the performances and was more concerned for his future earnings than his country.

And off we go. Thatcher couldn't possibly do any wrong because she was a woman. And the feminist narrative wouldn't be complete unless she was surrounded by idiotic men

Blair meanwhile was just basically a charlatan

That's how that post reads 

[cromwell]

Why did you detest her so much? Do you not remember  what a mess we were in before she was elected? I remember so clearly listening to her and for once someone made sense about running the country and balancing the books. I believe that she started out intending to put the country first but sadly she was surrounded by suits who couldn't stand having a female leader. She stood up to the EU in a way that no man had done or has done since and she finally put the unions in their place. We need unions of course but they do not deserve to run the country.
Blair they called Bambi as he first stood on the steps of No10. He was a charlatan from the get go and simply got worse. His aim was power, he was an actor rather like Macron, with performances ready for every occasion. He saw himself as boy wonder but as time proved he had nothing but the performances and was more concerned for his future earnings than his country.

Well despite all that and by a head I chose Bliar.

Why did I detest her? she damaged some communities and people beyond repair.

[Thomas]

Why did you detest her so much? Do you not remember  what a mess we were in before she was elected? I remember so clearly listening to her and for once someone made sense about running the country and balancing the books. I believe that she started out intending to put the country first but sadly she was surrounded by suits who couldn't stand having a female leader. She stood up to the EU in a way that no man had done or has done since and she finally put the unions in their place. We need unions of course but they do not deserve to run the country.
Blair they called Bambi as he first stood on the steps of No10. He was a charlatan from the get go and simply got worse. His aim was power, he was an actor rather like Macron, with performances ready for every occasion. He saw himself as boy wonder but as time proved he had nothing but the performances and was more concerned for his future earnings than his country.

I think it hard to quantify the damage  as you suggest either of these political leaders caused , different problems at different times.

Out of the two , and i have no love for either thatcher or blair , i think blair can be regarded as the worst as he is hated by all and sundry , both left and right were thatcher is hated by the left.

Many people regard blairs devolution as the greatest damage to the integrity of the uk state , john of gwent often discusses this even though he also has no love for thatcher. Difficult to quanitfy , and as ever it boils down to personal belief and politics.