Margaret Thatcher was not a very nice Prime Minister, but she was effective in pursuing the policies she favoured. She was also less devious than many Prime Ministers - what you saw was what you got.

I take the view that the British economy did need to be restructured in the 1980s. The way Mrs Thatcher went about it lacked compassion and empathy for those negatively affected by the changes. On the other hand perhaps a less ruthless leader would not have persisted with policies which were so harsh and thus failed to achieve the benefits of it.

Edward Heath started out with what in 1970 were seen as right wing policies, but in around 1972 he reacted to rising unemployment by reversing course (the famous u-turn which Mrs Thatcher, a member of Heath's cabinet, reacted against so strongly during her own Premiership).

The calculated destruction of the National Union of Mineworkers, was an excellent example of callous efficiency in achieving an objective. Mrs Thatcher had the tactical flexibility to cave in to the miners when she was not ready to fight, but once she was ready she moved ruthlessly to obtain her objective.

I do not see Mrs Thatcher as the sort of politician Tony Blair is - starry eyed about rich businessmen. She was perhaps a bit more nationalistic in approach than the modern acolytes of free trade and outsourcing. However Dennis Thatcher had a background in the oil industry and Margaret Thatcher no doubt agreed that it was important to produce a competitive business climate.

The Thatcher foreign policy stood up for perceived British interests strongly, but was not as warmongering or as militarily aggressive as that of Bush and Blair. The Falklands was a limited war for a clear and attainable objective. Mrs Thatcher was not interested in either high minded fantasies of solving the problems of the world at the point of a bayonet or naked resource grabs by force.

The late Thatcher, who had followed the usual trajectory of long serving leaders in losing touch with reality, pursued the truly bad policy of the poll tax with single minded zeal.

I do not see bad leaders (in policy terms, from my own political perspective) who were on the whole efficient and effective in their actions, as being real candidates for worst Prime Minister ever. It is the weaker characters who tend to be drawn along by others who I see as the strong candidates for the accolade.

• he does not seem to believe in much of anything, and what little he believes in - his policies are wildly different (claiming to be pro-European but not doing anything to bring the UK in the euro or any other joint policies, praising markets but running a traditional tax and spend economic policy, pretending to be a bridge between America and Europe but staying on one side of the bridge, claiming to be tough on the causes of crime but doing only the repressive bits, etc...);

• linked to the above, his focus on spin (and the Murdoch-aimed kind only) at the exclusion of any actual policy was particularly damning;

• his boneheaded, self-righteous decision on Iraq, of course, takes the cake.

While of course his speeches were inspirational, was he all mouth and no trousers? Certainly alcohol and depression were considerable factors in his persona. His unreasonable expectations drove his son to an early grave. Nor should we forget his war crimes in ordering or authorising the fire bombings towards the end of the war.

Still, I'm not sure I can look at this from a British perspective. My impression is that most Brits are rather comfortable with being a seoond-tier country. But from the outside looking in, I'm appalled by Blair's domestic policies as well -- the national IDs, collaboration with extraordinary rendition, racial profiling, all the various "Security" acts that never seem to inspire much opposition.  

At any rate, for all these reasons my vote goes to Blair. Up till now, the UK always managed to muddle through its Edens, Thatchers and Majors, but Blair has caused real and, I believe, permanent damage.

One can damn imperial and colonial attitudes and the onsequences of them, but they were very much of their time.

The only one of them we are remotely in a position to judge was the last. Given that the horror of WWI was still alive in that generation's memories, their desire to do anything to avoid a repeat in europe was understandable. Quite simply, they had got to the point where the englishman's burden of civilising europe was too expensive in lives to consider doing except in the face of dire national threat..

keep to the Fen Causeway

Also the country was broke, but we still pretended we were a world power and carried on behaving like we could afford all of the nonsense that went with such status, like nuclear bombs and huge navies, air-forces etc.

We had to wait for an entire generation to die before we could start getting some realism into British politics.

keep to the Fen Causeway