[Closed] Who's the most hated- Blair or Thatcher?

we don't get any gas from there

What about Gazprom then? They are certainly becoming a big player in gas supply to UK businesses. Not a household name because they don't supply the domestic market (yet)

The unions could be useful and explain pensions to their members, that would be a good start.

They do an excellent job of explaining that employers are trying to erode them and you will pay more and be worse off.

QED

At present, I do feel that many larger firms are effectively side-stepping a lot of obligations by using agency workers to a very high degree, skewing the playing field in their own favour.

yes and no. Contracting can be better for individuals as well as for the employer - better pay, more flexibility to take time out, less need to fit in with the corporate culture etc.

My own experience with this is 3 1/2 years contracting on a sequence of contracts at the same client. Before that I lasted 8 months in a perm role in another company before being unceremoniously 'managed out' because a head of dept decided they didn't like me. All employment laws were bypassed by the simple technique of my manager telling outright lies to HR.

I have more job security as a contractor as I'm judged on whether I can get the job done (which I can) rather than the subjective views of one senior person who's able to exploit company hierarchy. I also get paid more as compensation for the lack of a perm contract so am no worse off financially.

So in this example, employment law gave me no advantage at all... a union might have stopped the gameplaying but would I have wanted to stay anyway?

Personally I don't see mass movement towards contractors instead of perm staff as a bad thing. It's another option, which may well suit people much better than the false security of a 'perm' contract...

What about Gazprom then? They are certainly becoming a big player in gas supply to UK businesses. Not a household name because they don't supply the domestic market (yet)

As I understand it they are just a trading arm in the UK and sell whatever gas they make money on e.g. they have contact with Centrica

[url= http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=1041&newsid=2572 ]Centrica Press Link[/url]

As I understand it they are just a trading arm in the UK and sell whatever gas they make money on e.g. they have contact with Centrica

No, it was Centrica who bought the gas FROM Gazprom, not the other way round. There is much argument about how much Russian gas is imported into the UK. Gazprom reckon around 15%, other sources disagree. Centrica don't even know themselves.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/uk-ukraine-crisis-energy-britain-idUKBREA2K16N20140321

Contracting can be better for individuals as well as for the employer - better pay, more flexibility to take time out, less need to fit in with the corporate culture etc.

Agency workers do not contract and they do not get paid more to compensate them for it. Comparing your example to a zero hour agency contract is comparing chalk and cheese
Surveys consistently show that the employers do not choose these employers make them do it.

employment law gave me no advantage at all

That is like claiming that because you got robbed the laws dont protect you?

dragon - Member

The only thing we get significantly from Russia energy wise is coal, unlike Eastern Europe we don't get any gas from there.

World markets and distribution mean it's not that important exactly where your resource comes from any more though, a change in supply anywhere impacts price/availability.

Feel the benevolent warmth, people.

[img] ?w=480&h=598[/img]

"Yes I've just bitten the head off a kitten. What's it to you?"

[i]scaredypants - Member
Feels a bit like comparing two dogshits, but ...

Thatcher, I think, was pretty straight-up about being unpleasant whereas Blair has the extra little boost of promising quite a lot (to me as a leftish leaner anyway) and then turning out to be a disingenuous, grasping, Machiavellian little shit all along.

Doesn't mean she was less nasty, just that she didn't arse about justifying it with a load of platitudes; pretty much just told the nation to **** off if we didn't like it (turns out a lot of the electorate liked to be treated rough, though)

I do wonder how much of Blair's scheming was down to Campbell really - again, Ingham was a bit more old school rather than a marketing man

On balance then, if only for that toe-curling ****yness that was the "now is not a time for soundbites ..." opening gambit,

Blair, by a nose[/i][i]

Both scum of the earth but agree Bliar by a short nose.

Wowzers!
I still can't believe the amount of people on here who, still think Thatcher and Blair ran the country. And still affiliate themselves to the mainstream political parties.

Watch 'the money masters' 3.5-hours of educational awareness

Both are equal of doing bad things
But I may say Blair as what dangers he has brought to our door step.

Junkyard - lazarus
Agency workers do not contract and they do not get paid more to compensate them for it.

Correct. Then there are the other disadvantages - such as not being able to get a mortgage.

steffybhoy - Member
Wowzers!
I still can't believe the amount of people on here who, still think Thatcher and Blair ran the country. And still affiliate themselves to the mainstream political parties.

TBH, you are bang on the money. it is the unelected and anti-fragile that make most of the running from within Whitehall. Having parties to squabble over is a distraction really and, in many respects, also a hindrance, preventing logical, long term thinking and planning.

Just as an aside, casual employees in Australia are guaranteed zero hours, have no unfair dismissal rights, no holiday pay, no sick pay...but they get a 25% premium over permanent employees. Seems like a fair balance between employer flexibility and worker self-protection.

That christmas card is terrifying. I never used to think he looked as manic as Steve Bell portrayed him, but he does seem to be morphing into his cartoon depiction.....

[img] [/img]

I wonder if there's a limit to how much scheming, deviousness and dodgy-dealing you can be complicit in before you start to actually [i]look[/i] like a wrong 'un? Or whether, once you know the world knows and you decide you're going to carry on being a bastard anyway, you start to look at everyone from the perspective of an outsider?

Thatcher by a very long way.

Her actions created massive consequences which are still being felt in the UK today.

Blair, yeah got us into a war by lying and has gone on to make a sh*tload of cash. Some people would call that success, particularly from those in the circles he now moves in.

His political "beliefs" however were fashioned by Thatcherism.

Thatcher by a country mile.