THE FOURTH OF JULY

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that really worked for Jeremy Corbyn in 2019.
Who were of course supported by Rayner, Starmer et al. (Old wine in new bottles).

I've often wondered what state the country would have been in had Corbyn, John Macdonell et al been elected. How would they have coped with Brexit, the Pandemic, (lockdown, vaccination programme), the war in Ukraine, with a busy programme of re-nationalising the privatised industries. Would we have a stronger economy, shorter NHS waiting lists, etc? We'll never know, but I think we can guess. (But no, I don't think we'd have had 'party-gate').

With an eye to the future, Labour are promising to sort of the NHS - shorten waiting lists, get more NHS dentists, more GPs, improve education (nursery place for all children, breakfast clubs), 'pull up the shutters on small businesses', improve productivity, reduce delays in the criminal justice system, get tough on crime, better public transport, make efficiency savings, net Zero by 2030, lower energy prices, get affordable homes built, all with no tax rises!

The recent TV debates were a lost opportunity for all who took place. It didn't come close to being a debate - it was just a slanging match with people interrupting and shouting over each other to try to discredit the other person, whether it was Starmer/Sunak, Rayner/Mordant or whoever.

Whether you think Sunak's proposal to introduce some form of National Service was a good idea or not, (If so, why has it never been mentioned before in the last 14 years?), the low point of the debate for me, bearing in mind that the D Day anniversary was imminent, was when Starmer scoffed and said: "Sunak want to introduce a teenage army". Utter disgrace. He saw no irony in that facile comment when a day or so later on D-Day, he was over in Normandy for a photo opportunity praising the war dead and veterans. They were a 'Teenage Army' - not old enough to vote, not old enough to buy a pint in pub, but ready to fight and die for their country. Teenagers like these in the pics below:

1) 16 year old Para.
2 & 3) 19 year old Para killed with his 'Para Dog'
4) 19 year old corporal. S.G.T Eckert
5) His 22 year old brother, C.A.J Eckert, also a corporal

Then blow me, Sunak goes AWOL back to the UK and gets 'yesterday's man' Cameron to stand in for him.

I'm puzzled as to who the 'working class' are.

If you're born illegitimate into poverty (as I was), with an absentee father, a mother disowned by her family, who died when I was five and is buried in an unmarked grave. I went to an inner city school, left at 15, no qualifications. Then as I did, rose up the ranks, was still taking qualifications until age 35, and in terms of roles that I've fulfilled, position I held at the company I worked for, the salary I earned, the house I live in, and the pension I now have, many would argue I'm 'middle class'. I've never said any of this in a public forum till now, but I'm getting a bit fed up with politicians putting labels on people who are by inference, either the 'deserving poor', or the 'undeserving well off'. And I'm getting pee'd off about the likes of Starmer who wears his so called 'working class' roots as a badge of honour, to show that he can 'empathise' with the less well off. He proclaimed " I know what it's like to be poor - we once couldn't afford to pay the phone bill so it was cut off". Give me breath.

What about my two sons? Grew up in Rotherham, went to a mediocre comprehensive school, but managed to pass GCSEs, A Levels, went to Uni, (at which time, in 1981/2 the mortgage rate was 16.64% and we had no disposable income, so no holidays. (Not moaning - just saying). They gained degrees, and later went on to gain MBAs. One runs his own company and has global clients - the other is a director in the NHS. Are they working class?

And our three grand-daughters, GCSEs, A Levels, first class honours, two from Oxford.

If a kid from a council estate who goes to Oxford then has a career, are they still working class?

And what is a 'hard-working family?' (or even a 'family' these days, come to that).

Are these no 'not hard working' families?

Am I and my family 'hard working', or are we now just undeserving 'cash cows' who have it all on a plate?

Is a Police constable 'working class?' If he rises up the ranks to say Chief Superintendent, does he become middle class? Is a teacher working class? If they become Head of a large academy do they become middle class?

Is a nurse married to a doctor middle class?

Who is 'the man in the street'?

There was a time when social mobility was applauded.

To listen to some politicians, all those who they claim to represent are 'strivers'.

What about all the 'skivers' living on handouts paid for the strivers?

Not ranting, just rambling.

David.
 

Attachments

  • 16 yr old para headstone.jpg
    16 yr old para headstone.jpg
    548.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Para age 19, killed with  para dog.jpg
    Para age 19, killed with para dog.jpg
    419.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Para & Dog inscription.jpg
    Para & Dog inscription.jpg
    535 KB · Views: 0
  • Brother2 Eckert.jpg
    Brother2 Eckert.jpg
    288.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Brother 1 Eckert.jpg
    Brother 1 Eckert.jpg
    291.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
.......
I'm puzzled as to who the 'working class' are.

....
It depends on what point you are arguing but in economics it could mean simply having no assets and having to work for every penny. Hence pay, conditions and security of work, public services / progressive taxation, are crucial.
For non working class the ownership and returns on their assets (if they have enough of them) and low taxation would be priority. Wealth gives them power over the working class.
In other words a fundamental conflict of interest.
Most of us are in between.
Then there are supposedly different cultural interests but that's another thing altogether.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-working-class-and-middle-class-actually-mean
 
Last edited:
I much prefer the 4 quadrant placement of political parties, rather than a simple left/right. Generally I've seen it done with the vertical axis being authoritarian (strict rule of law) vs libertarian (personal freedom), and the horizontal axis representing economic policy. Chart below from circa 2015; hence it's likely somewhat out of date - but it illustrates the point.

View attachment 182697
Generally the groups criticised as being "far right" are really just massively high on the authoritarian scale (i.e. fascism). It sparks the amusing observation that if Stalin and Hitler were to discuss rule of law they'd be closely aligned (both extreme authoritarian), but they'd disagree greatly on economic policy (Stalin being left, Hitler being more towards the right).
I’m a long time Liberal Democrat and I have been so because I identify as being slightly left and south of the very centre. Certainly not towards the authoritarian. Though I suspect that most voters for the main political parties see themselves right in the centre.
 
For Starmer the challenge is rather different - if he does not deliver he will be held to account at the next election in 2029(?
Keir Starmers job has been to fight against right wing populism, with the right wing media gaslighting the nation and spreading propaganda. Labour has one job only: to win power



Anyway I don’t see how your argument stacks up.

The public voted Conservatives into power in 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019

Wages have stagnated since 2008, public services have been decimated…..the Conservatives haven’t delivered but been re elected each time.

Are you saying Labour will be held to higher account than Conservatives?
 
Keir Starmers job has been to fight against right wing populism,
He hasn't though has he. He's just kept his head down and dodged issues - he is no fighter. Excusable to some extent as he is an inexperienced politician.
... Labour has one job only: to win power
..to win power by leading the argument for alternative policies.
Maybe what we see is all we'll get, vague promises and dubious claims about tax and funding.
.......

Are you saying Labour will be held to higher account than Conservatives?
Well actually Labour is always are expected to do something interesting. Labour promises change, the tories promise conservatism - keeping things as they are.
 
Keir Starmers job has been to fight against right wing populism, with the right wing media gaslighting the nation and spreading propaganda. Labour has one job only: to win power



Anyway I don’t see how your argument stacks up.

The public voted Conservatives into power in 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019

Wages have stagnated since 2008, public services have been decimated…..the Conservatives haven’t delivered but been re elected each time.

Are you saying Labour will be held to higher account than Conservatives?
His job is not to fight against right wing populism - it is (or should be) to provide competent, fair, democratic leadership to the country.

In 2010 after 13 years in power Labour left an economy in tatters - no surprise they lost. A not dissimilar position to the Tories now (albeit different reasons)

Election in 2015 decimated LibDem vote - proof that coalitions don't work?

2017 and 2019 were overshadowed by Brexit.

Perhaps it just proves that electoral success depends on more than simple economics - spin and emotion are as important as substance,
 
In 2010 after 13 years in power Labour left an economy in tatters - no surprise they lost. A not dissimilar position to the Tories now (albeit different reasons)
What really did the economy more damage was the stupidly pro-cyclical austerity policy that followed. Sure budgets needed trimming, but full scale austerity massively weakened the economy and eroded this country's institutional capacity and failing public services. For instance, we haven't even got the physical courts left or the legal system capacity to deal with criminal justice, even if we had the police to police it properly (all dating back to austerity decisions). All that goes back to a deliberate ideologically-driven smash up of state capacity, dressed up in the simpleton clothes of 'household economics'.
 
With an eye to the future, Labour are promising to sort of the NHS - shorten waiting lists, get more NHS dentists, more GPs, improve education (nursery place for all children, breakfast clubs), 'pull up the shutters on small businesses', improve productivity, reduce delays in the criminal justice system, get tough on crime, better public transport, make efficiency savings, net Zero by 2030, lower energy prices, get affordable homes built, all with no tax rises!
You have not been listening, they are going to grow the economy just like that !

was when Starmer scoffed and said: "Sunak want to introduce a teenage army". Utter disgrace. He saw no irony in that facile comment when a day or so later, he was over in Normandy for a photo opportunity praising the war dead and veterans, who were a 'Teenage Army' - not old enough to vote, not old enough to buy a pint in pub, but ready to fight and die for their country. Teenagers like these in the pics below:
All politicians seem to talk before engaging what little brain power they have, Starmer is obviously blind to just how young the soldiers, sailors and aircrew were who fought in both world wars and with far to many dying on all sides.

Conservatives have released their manifesto

It has the strap lines:
Clear plan
Bold action
Secure future
My biggest issue with the conservative manifesto is that a manifesto is apart from being waffle and shieet is a list of what a party will do when in office, so with the conservative manifesto the question is why are you saying what you will do when you have had the chance to actually do it !
 
In 2010 after 13 years in power Labour left an economy in tatters - no surprise they lost. A not dissimilar position to the Tories now (albeit different reasons)
That had a LOT to do with the huge economic crash in 2008 which started in the USA and polluted most financial systems around the world. Little to do with Labour.
Election in 2015 decimated LibDem vote - proof that coalitions don't work?
Not much to do with coalitions per se, more that the Lib Dems promises to change the polling system and cancel student debt failed.
 
In 2010 after 13 years in power Labour left an economy in tatters
They did have to weather the small matter of the 2008 global financial meltdown and all that ensued.

A meltdown assisted in no small part by hedge-funds, including the one Rishi Sunak was working for, betting against British banks.
 
....

In 2010 after 13 years in power Labour left an economy in tatters - no surprise they lost.
Not Labour's fault:
"The 2008 global financial crisis affected economies around the world. It led to the deepest UK recession since World War II, with rises in unemployment, debt and home repossessions. Young people experienced particularly high levels of job losses and unemployment."

but yes labour had failed dismally in other areas, e.g Iraq, no great effort over housing, etc
.....

Perhaps it just proves that electoral success depends on more than simple economics - spin and emotion are as important as substance,
Yes, persuasion, not Starmerlite inertia.
 
Greens sounding sensible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69111362
Labour /Tories should be competing along the same lines with policies matched to tax rises, instead of pretending it's not necessary.
They think we are all stupid but anybody with a bit of common sense will vote for highest tax rises, not the lowest, as long as they are steeply progressive.
 
In 2010 after 13 years in power Labour left an economy in tatters - no surprise they lost. A not dissimilar position to the Tories now (albeit different reasons)
That is just out and out nonsense. Labour did not “leave” the economy in tatters. The actions of Darling and Brown saved the UK from the worst impact of the banking crisis and its sequela.
 
Greens sounding sensible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69111362
Labour /Tories should be competing along the same lines with policies matched to tax rises, instead of pretending it's not necessary.
They think we are all stupid but anybody with a bit of common sense will vote for highest tax rises, not the lowest, as long as they are steeply progressive.
Green Party gathering and Reform gathering. What a difference 😬
IMG_6062.png
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6020.jpeg
    IMG_6020.jpeg
    241.9 KB · Views: 0
That is just out and out nonsense. Labour did not “leave” the economy in tatters. The actions of Darling and Brown saved the UK from the worst impact of the banking crisis and its sequela.
Several posters believe Labour did not leave the economy in tatters in 2010 - it was the outcome of a global financial crisis starting in the US.

It may be fairer simply to note that the economy was in tatters (no doubt about that). Asserting Brown and Darling did so wonderful a job they saved the UK from the worst of the impacts is debateable.

The Tories did not start the pandemic but carry responsibility for the consequences - high debt, low growth, stressed public services etc. It is no more convincing to assert that Johnson and Sunak saved the UK from the worst impacts of Covid.

They are both unforeseen global scale events with limited effective contingency planning. Political and practical responses in both cases were intuitive with the best of intentions (generally).

In the case of the 2008 financial meltdown it is worth noting regulation of the financial sector was wholly deficient despite a Labour government for the preceding 11 years.
 
They are both unforeseen global scale events with limited effective contingency planning.
A global pandemic had been the top of lists of threats to the UK for decades before. Previous governments had kept stockpiles of emergency items to deal with it, but the tories austerity meant that preparedness had been dropped and many stocks used up and never replaced. Look up the Cygnus exercise which had tested how well we were prepared (not well enough) for such a threat and advised what was needed to handle a pandemic. The tories did nothing, failed to act timely when the crisis arrived and threw money at their mates rather than trusting existing UK suppliers.

Similarly some economists had warned about the risky habits of sub-prime mortgage lending, even if few really understood the scale of how dodgy debts had been parcelled up, hidden and traded around the globe.

So both events were foreseen, but those warnings weren't acted on because they were inconvenient to deal with.
 
A global pandemic had been the top of lists of threats to the UK for decades before. Previous governments had kept stockpiles of emergency items to deal with it, but the tories austerity meant that preparedness had been dropped and many stocks used up and never replaced. Look up the Cygnus exercise which had tested how well we were prepared (not well enough) for such a threat and advised what was needed to handle a pandemic. The tories did nothing, failed to act timely when the crisis arrived and threw money at their mates rather than trusting existing UK suppliers.

Similarly some economists had warned about the risky habits of sub-prime mortgage lending, even if few really understood the scale of how dodgy debts had been parcelled up, hidden and traded around the globe.

So both events were foreseen, but those warnings weren't acted on because they were inconvenient to deal with.
"Not dealing with things" is a central feature of tory ideology:
"Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible".
(The Marquess of Salisbury)
 
Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, made labour electable.
A missed opportunity for Starmer to come out fighting with his own attacks and traps for the tories. That's what he's there for!
Instead he keeps his head down, except for appeasing the enemy by ceaselessly attacking his own party! 🤔
A better leader would have been setting out a radical agenda for the next 5 years.
The suspicion is he doesn't have one and will be another lame duck.
What he represents is the UK move to the right in line with most of Europe recently.
UK led this shift with Brexit heralding the start of the collapse of the EU and a slow return to the dark ages.
Jacob - are you saying that if the EU collapses it'll be our fault ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top