Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Typhoon]

I have no major disagreement with your statements there about Attlee and Bevin. However, there are currently some on the right who wave the Union Jack with the same enthusiasm that they clapped for nurses. They did it because it looked good, when really they are lining their own pockets. I think Attlee and Bevin would treat them with the contempt they deserve.

I don't think Bevin, in particular, would have any time for Momentum, he was a do'er. Mind you, I suspect he wouldn't get far in today's politics, too flawed and not instantly attracted to the media. We prefer the safe or media-friendly.

 

[yorksrob]

Attlee and Bevin understood the importance of Western strength. They would have no time for loony left navel gazing, or indeed loony right market induced weakness.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree about the '45-'51 government being the best post-war government in that it got necessary things done against all opposition at a time when we were recovering from the war. However, Attlee to the right of today's Conservatives?

On social issues, arguably, yes:

The man whose government devised the NHS

Attlee's Government implemented an NHS that was there to treat - broadly speaking, injuries and infectious diseases. Not the monster we have today that people expect to be there to put right anything related to health that they are unhappy with, even stuff that is basically self-inflicted. When Attlee's Government left office, spending on the NHS was about 8% of Government spending (source). Under today's Tories, health and social care amounts to somewhere around 20% of total Government spending.

whose government introduced rights for workers in a wide range of industries,

But the rights Attlee introduced for workers amounted to very little compared to what exists today. Ever since the Attlee Government, successive Governments both Labour and Tory have added more workers' rights and required more and more legal responsibilities to employers to a point that would be totally unrecognizable from a standpoint of what Attlee's Government left.

Of course, it's impossible to be sure what Attlee or the members of his government would think if they saw what exists in law today in terms of employment law or healthcare of anything else. But what we can say with certainty is that what Attlee's Government gave us in terms of social policies generally lies far to the right of what the Tories are doing today. (Of course Attlee's Government was taking things towards the left from a UK whose social policies were even further to the right by today's standards).

The one exception that I'd give you is that, on economic policy, Attlee's Government believed in nationalisation and state control to a level that would seem unthinkable today: In that area, they were arguably well to the left of where even Labour stands today.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

On social issues, arguably, yes:



Attlee's Government implemented an NHS that was there to treat - broadly speaking, injuries and infectious diseases. Not the monster we have today that people expect to be there to put right anything related to health that they are unhappy with, even stuff that is basically self-inflicted. When Attlee's Government left office, spending on the NHS was about 8% of Government spending (source). Under today's Tories, health and social care amounts to somewhere around 20% of total Government spending.

Therein lies the rub that any politically party will ever be able to do anything about until it consumes the entire public purse.

But the rights Attlee introduced for workers amounted to very little compared to what exists today. Ever since the Attlee Government, successive Governments both Labour and Tory have added more workers' rights and required more and more legal responsibilities to employers to a point that would be totally unrecognizable from a standpoint of what Attlee's Government left.

Society has been in constant evolution since whenever and as long as things don't go backwards those from the past who contributed to those improvement can't be judged by todays standard.

Of course, it's impossible to be sure what Attlee or the members of his government would think if they saw what exists in law today in terms of employment law or healthcare of anything else. But what we can say with certainty is that what Attlee's Government gave us in terms of social policies generally lies far to the right of what the Tories are doing today. (Of course Attlee's Government was taking things towards the left from a UK whose social policies were even further to the right by today's standards).

The one exception that I'd give you is that, on economic policy, Attlee's Government believed in nationalisation and state control to a level that would seem unthinkable today: In that area, they were arguably well to the left of where even Labour stands today.

They did have the benefit that the nationalised entities were effectively under govt control from WW2 so it wasn't a huge leap

 

[GusB]

There's a much more plausible and less cynical explanation: Much of what Lee Anderson has said is quite consistent with a working class culture (and particularly, Northern working class culture) of self reliance and personal responsibility. That culture wouldn't have been remotely out of place in the Labour Party of 60-70 years ago, but Labour has been steadily abandoning that ground to the Tories - since at least the early 80s (and possibly earlier - my memory doesn't go back that far ). (As an aside, I would say that, beside Brexit, that's likely a big part of why the 'red wall' had been steadily weakening and why the Tories took so many red wall seats in 2019: A lot of working class people do actually strongly believe in personal responsibility). You might also note that Anderson's defection to the Tories happened while Corbyn was Labour leader. Lee appears to have defected at a time Labour had all but completely abandoned those values.

Sorry, but this is absolute bollocks. I didn't know who Lee Anderson was until fairly recently, but I've seen enough to have decided that the Labour Party should have absolutely nothing to do with him. Nor should the Conservatives if they've got any sense.

The whole issue about people not being able to budget properly is, quite simply, ludicrous. People who are in receipt of benefits are already acutely aware of the necessity to stick to a budget. That such an idiot can proclaim that it's possible to live on 30p a portion is pie in the sky nonsense.

In a way Lee's political path somewhat matches my own, so it doesn't seem that remarkable to me.

That says an awful lot about you, really.

 

[Cross City]

Nor should the Conservatives if they've got any sense.

That's the funny part, they don't!!!

 

[edwin_m]

You'd think a party that promoted personal responsibility wouldn't do things like trashing the economy to cut taxes for the rich, or tolerate staff having parties in the middle of a pandemic when they've decided it's dangerous for anyone else.

 

[birchesgreen]

You'd think a party that promoted personal responsibility wouldn't do things like trashing the economy to cut taxes for the rich, or tolerate staff having parties in the middle of a pandemic when they've decided it's dangerous for anyone else.

Personal responsibility is for the little people.

 

[nw1]

Personal responsibility is for the little people.

Indeed. "Do as I say, don't do as I do" as the Genesis song goes.

 

[ainsworth74]

Attlee's Government implemented an NHS that was there to treat - broadly speaking, injuries and infectious diseases. Not the monster we have today that people expect to be there to put right anything related to health that they are unhappy with, even stuff that is basically self-inflicted. When Attlee's Government left office, spending on the NHS was about 8% of Government spending (source). Under today's Tories, health and social care amounts to somewhere around 20% of total Government spending.

I mean yes the NHS was set up to treat the acute with little regard for the chronic but I'm not entirely sure it's an unreasonable expectation that people should get healthcare for chronic conditions or things they are "unhappy" with! But I can't help but suspect that one of the biggest problems facing the NHS and why it's costs have run away with it is that it's having to treat a larger and larger older population.

AgeUK in 2010 estimated that the NHS was spending £4.6m on treating falls amongst the over-65s in 2010:

Michelle Mitchell, Charity Director at Age UK, said: "Despite costing the NHS over £4.6 million each day, adding up to £1.7 billion per year, the issue of people in later life falling over is all too often dismissed as an inevitable part of the ageing process. The reality is that there are a number of things older people can do help prevent falls, such as exercises to improve strength and balance, and more should be done to promote and support this."

That figure will likely only have risen in the intervening 13 years considering the grown in the population of over-65s (from 9.2m in 2011 to 11.1m in 2021).

The Guardian reported on a Nuffield Trust report in 2016 that two fifths of NHS spending was on the over-65s:

More than two-fifths of national health spending in the UK is devoted to people over 65, according to estimates produced for the Guardian by the Nuffield Trust – a figure that is only likely to increase with the nation’s ageing demographic.

The data shows that an 85-year-old man costs the NHS about seven times more on average than a man in his late 30s. Health spending per person steeply increases after the age of 50, with people aged 85 and over costing the NHS an average of £7,000 a year. Spending on health services across all age groups is £2,069, according to Treasury analysis.

To be absolutely clear this is not the start of me arguing for a Logan's Run type solution(!) but just to offer some push back on the idea that the NHS's spending has grown due people "expecting" it to provide them with healthcare for things that make them "unhappy" even when it's "self-inflicted". It's grown because we've gotten very good at allowing more and more people to reach greater and greater ages. Typically something to be pleased about but it certainly does come with costs!

 

[takno]

I mean yes the NHS was set up to treat the acute with little regard for the chronic but I'm not entirely sure it's an unreasonable expectation that people should get healthcare for chronic conditions or things they are "unhappy" with! But I can't help but suspect that one of the biggest problems facing the NHS and why it's costs have run away with it is that it's having to treat a larger and larger older population.

AgeUK in 2010 estimated that the NHS was spending £4.6m on treating falls amongst the over-65s in 2010:



That figure will likely only have risen in the intervening 13 years considering the grown in the population of over-65s (from 9.2m in 2011 to 11.1m in 2021).

The Guardian reported on a Nuffield Trust report in 2016 that two fifths of NHS spending was on the over-65s:



To be absolutely clear this is not the start of me arguing for a Logan's Run type solution(!) but just to offer some push back on the idea that the NHS's spending has grown due people "expecting" it to provide them with healthcare for things that make them "unhappy" even when it's "self-inflicted". It's grown because we've gotten very good at allowing more and more people to reach greater and greater ages. Typically something to be pleased about but it certainly does come with costs!

Worth adding that the NHS as created by Atlee's government reflected what was possible in an extremely short time, with limited finances, from the dregs of private provision, and based on the medical technology available at the time. There's absolutely no sense in the idea that Atlee looked at what was in place by 1951 and said "this far and no further".

We almost immediately started training a lot more doctors and nurses, which strongly suggests that the politicians of the time planned to increase healthcare spending. Moreover, spending has gone up in the healthcare and university sectors across the world, a huge amount of it being spend on publicy or socially-funded treatment for non-urgent conditions. Even the US provides better free-at-the-point-of-use care than the initial NHS was able to offer. The idea that Atlee would be railing against the NHS offering access to a huge range of life-saving treatments and transformational treatments for chronic conditions, just because they weren't available in 1951, is, to be entirely frank, stupid.

 

[brad465]

Healthcare spending should be thought of in a way as an investment, not expenditure. This has recently been seen in ONS employment data showing one of the causes of a labour shortage is more people being too ill to work.

 

[Cross City]

Healthcare spending should be thought of in a way as an investment, not expenditure. This has recently been seen in ONS employment data showing one of the causes of a labour shortage is more people being too ill to work.

No no, don't you see the 'Eff you got mine' attitude that is prevalent in the US is the new normal in this country. We shouldn't be doing anything which might benefit anybody that isn't ourselves.

 

[Typhoon]

Attlee's Government implemented an NHS that was there to treat - broadly speaking, injuries and infectious diseases. Not the monster we have today that people expect to be there to put right anything related to health that they are unhappy with, even stuff that is basically self-inflicted. When Attlee's Government left office, spending on the NHS was about 8% of Government spending (source). Under today's Tories, health and social care amounts to somewhere around 20% of total Government spending.

But surely that is a good thing. I might agree with you that we have come too far in some areas but that is not down to Attlee's government (rather governments have been reluctant to court unpopularity by making a stand), I would add that governments adding successive layers of bureaucracy, and reorganisations haven't helped. The arguments made by @ainsworth74 in #1630 are well made - we are living longer. Not only because of the health provision but because of working practices - my grandfather spent all his working life (and it would have been a long one) in factories, I have a photograph of him shortly after his retirement, he looks like a man in their late 80s would now, hearing was awful (what a surprise), frail, stooping, body worn out. This is unlikely to be the case now thanks to governments of both parties. Yet there are those on the government benches, including those currently in office, who want to do away with some of this legislation for entirely dogmatic reasons, and because they can't get their act together to replace it.

As @takno implies in #1631, medicine has come along way since 1947. For instance, not only do we give newly developed but more expensive drugs, to those with varying degrees of illness but we provide resources for those who have disabilities - either from birth and developed through life - that are way beyond what was available in 1947 and, as @brad45 has suggested in #1632, it has meant that many of those who would have ceased to be a productive member of society in 1947, have been able to be productive, for their own good as well as the country's. I think there is a case for arguing that treatments can be expensive because there are parts of the world (principally the US) who have an almost entirely private health system, where drug companies know they can charge the earth because the patient has no bargaining power.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Churchill regarded the NHS as a first step towards National Socialism (as though there was any link between Hitler and socialism). More recently, Javid and his calls for changing for GP appointments and A&E visits would just be the start of a slippery slope and was something Attlee never envisaged.. I am aware that the last Attlee government introduced charges for opticians and dentists, but only with the greatest reluctance.

But the rights Attlee introduced for workers amounted to very little compared to what exists today. Ever since the Attlee Government, successive Governments both Labour and Tory have added more workers' rights and required more and more legal responsibilities to employers to a point that would be totally unrecognizable from a standpoint of what Attlee's Government left.

True, but you have to start somewhere. The Attlee government laid the foundations on which others have built. No foundations, no building. We are at risk of underestimating the task that his government had, to rebuild the country, now deeply in debt thanks to largely fighting a war largely with just the help of our Commonwealth friends until the Japanese made a strategic mistake, and Hitler overreached himself. Yet they made a more significant impact on the life of the nation since at least 1870, 1846, perhaps ever. I would also add that with a few exceptions (Butler being one, Macmillan another) social reforms put into law from the Blue benches do seem to have been done with reluctance. I certainly don't see anyone with their vision on the current government benches, most are too busy looking after themselves.

Interesting background on the NHS at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsand...ple-wait-any-longer-how-labour-built-the-nhs/

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But surely that is a good thing.

Well of course it's a good thing that the Attlee Government introduced free healthcare. I'm not trying to challenge that. I was challenging the people who were claiming that Attlee was far to left of and would be shocked by the views of Lee Anderson and many Tories today on social issues.

The point is that Attlee brought the health service from - basically nowhere - to something that was great but far smaller than what we see today. Similarly on rights for workers, he brought about improvements in workers rights that fell far short of what we have today. It seems to me reasonable to deduce, as you do, that what Attlee was doing was first steps and he therefore probably would have supported going a bit further. But you can't deduce that he would have supported what exists today - which is basically unrecognisable compared to what his Government left in 1951.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Churchill regarded the NHS as a first step towards National Socialism (as though there was any link between Hitler and socialism).

I think there you need to distinguish between the concept of free health care and the idea of running it as a single centralized organization. The Tories in 1945 were not opposed to introducing free healthcare. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto for the 1945 election stated:

The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.

We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.

The difference with Labour was that the Conservatives favoured doing this using something more like the model you see today in most European countries, with healthcare being delivered by more locally controlled/privately run hospitals etc. (And I'd argue that comparing the UK with the European experiences suggests that with hindsight, the Conservatives' approach may well have been better).

 

[Typhoon]

Anderson making the news again

A legal firm said it has been instructed to pursue libel proceedings against the recently-appointed Conservative deputy chairman after he “made defamatory allegations of bribery”.

Bindmans LLP said its client, Michael Hollis, considered remarks that Lee Anderson made about a planning application submitted in his name to be defamatory.

Mr Hollis’s solicitors said the Ashfield MP had “refused to remove” the Facebook post and so had chosen to instigate the “first steps towards a libel claim against him”.

In a statement published on its website on Monday, the firm said: “On February 1, 2023, Mr Anderson made defamatory allegations of bribery against a local man, Michael Hollis, who runs a food bank charity.

Mr Hollis is outraged by this allegation and, after Mr Anderson refused to remove his post, has taken the first steps towards a libel claim against him.

“Mr Anderson claimed in a Facebook post published to his 35,000 followers that money had changed hands in brown envelopes in relation to a planning application made by Mr Hollis.

“Mr Hollis is outraged by this allegation and, after Mr Anderson refused to remove his post, has taken the first steps towards a libel claim against him.”

Mr Anderson’s social media post included a screenshot of a planning application made in Mr Hollis’s name, referring to a property in Silverhill Lane, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.

It was listed as a valid application on December 12, 2022, with a decision due by February 6.

If the intention was for him to distract from the activities of HMG, he has succeeded. Bindmans are no soft touch.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news...vid=bb599345b8a140b88bd3eb355464860f#comments

 

[nw1]

Anderson ranting on about the rail strikes:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1624711571795574787

Basic message (not what he said, but essentially what he appears to mean): "We've been through Covid, we've lost our Queen, so you plebs should all just put up and shut up. Meanwhile us Tory MPs can do what the hell we want".

It's alright for him to live on £84,000 a year and claim £200,000 in expenses of course. It's alright for us taxpayers to fund all that. It's alright for him to pretend to understand the less-well-off working-class while implementing policies and spouting opinions which disadvantage them.

The real "despicable man" (which he uses to describe Lynch) is Anderson. He is so ridiculous, he comes across almost like a parody. If a comedian was to invent a reactionary right-wing comedy character, they would probably be very, very like Anderson!

 

[Broucek]

The whole issue about people not being able to budget properly is, quite simply, ludicrous. People who are in receipt of benefits are already acutely aware of the necessity to stick to a budget.

Actually, it varies. I know quite a few people on low incomes and/or benefits and some manage their money as wisely as they can while others really don't. (Of course you have the same variats can be seen for people on higher incomes, albeit the consequences of overspending tend to be less severe.)

Theoretically, one might hypothesise that people on lower incomes are - on average - LESS good at budgeting on the basis that, on average, they are likely to have worse maths skills and impulse control.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Theoretically, one might hypothesise that people on lower incomes are - on average - LESS good at budgeting on the basis that, on average, they are likely to have worse maths skills and impulse control

And equally one might hypothesise that those on lower incomes are better able to budget because they're on lower incomes and they know that every penny matters.

 

[jon0844]

Just like your home will have a base load for electricity you can't really reduce further, most people will have a certain level of spending they can't easily reduce. If you earn more, chances are your bare minimum to survive is going to be similar - but you have a degree of safety margin.

There are many other factors to consider, like having dependents or only one income, which is why even someone on a supposedly decent salary could be struggling too (and, yes, using food banks as a result) and so people like 30p Lee are truly awful people.

But in any case, when people look down on the poor because they might dare to own a flat screen TV or subscribe to Sky, they should pause and consider if we want a society where people are just expected to survive and nothing more.

We might also then begin to see why people might turn to drugs and alcohol, commit crime and suffer mental health conditions that all put a drain on our society and makes it worse for everyone.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Just like your home will have a base load for electricity you can't really reduce further, most people will have a certain level of spending they can't easily reduce. If you earn more, chances are your bare minimum to survive is going to be similar - but you have a degree of safety margin.

There are many other factors to consider, like having dependents or only one income, which is why even someone on a supposedly decent salary could be struggling too (and, yes, using food banks as a result) and so people like 30p Lee are truly awful people.

But in any case, when people look down on the poor because they might dare to own a flat screen TV or subscribe to Sky, they should pause and consider if we want a society where people are just expected to survive and nothing more.

We might also then begin to see why people might turn to drugs and alcohol, commit crime and suffer mental health conditions that all put a drain on our society and makes it worse for everyone.

Yes. All of that.

The other point around "just surviving" that irritates me is that occasionally someone generally on the right will produce a breakdown of what it costs to live, and "demonstrate" that there's no need for food banks. A slightly more scientific version of 30p Lee, if you like. But these analyses only ever include the day-to-day costs of living. There's never anything to account for occasional but necessary major expenditure - a new sofa, a new mattress, that sort of stuff

 

[Broucek]

Yes. All of that.

The other point around "just surviving" that irritates me is that occasionally someone generally on the right will produce a breakdown of what it costs to live, and "demonstrate" that there's no need for food banks. A slightly more scientific version of 30p Lee, if you like. But these analyses only ever include the day-to-day costs of living. There's never anything to account for occasional but necessary major expenditure - a new sofa, a new mattress, that sort of stuff

That's often the worst of it. Those who are good at budgeting can easily be thrown by a broken washing machine (even a repair is often £100+) or even unexpected new shoes for a child.

I know a lot of people on a local estate who are in this bracket. The local vicar (who lives on the estate) is very good at helping people to find cheap replacements (freecycle, ebay and the like).

(Of course there are also people who run into trouble becasue of avoidable, unwise decision-making but it's impossible for a top-down benefits system to spot the difference!)

 

[ainsworth74]

But in any case, when people look down on the poor because they might dare to own a flat screen TV or subscribe to Sky

The flat screen TV one amuses me, good luck finding a traditional CRT type TV these days! Even second hand they're on the rare side and likely no cheaper (or possibly more expensive) than a second hand flat screen. Though I think they've mostly moved on from TVs to smart phones these days. Though of course the same responses apply. Could be from before they were reliant on benefits, could have been a gift, could be second hand, etc etc, it isn't necessarily the case that they've just blown all their benefits on one phone.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Anderson ranting on about the rail strikes:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1624711571795574787

Basic message (not what he said, but essentially what he appears to mean): "We've been through Covid, we've lost our Queen, so you plebs should all just put up and shut up. Meanwhile us Tory MPs can do what the hell we want".

Ok, I'm calling you out on this. I've just watched the video and as far as I can see your paraphrasing him as "you plebs should all just put up and shut up. Meanwhile us Tory MPs can do what the hell we want" is an outright lie on your part. At no point in the quoted video does Lee Anderson say anything remotely like that. Could you please either retract that, or point me to some source in which Anderson does actually say roughly what you've just quoted?

It's alright for him to live on £84,000 a year and claim £200,000 in expenses of course.

Not this old chestnut again! Presumably, the £200K is for expenses actually and necessarily occurred and invoiced, such as paying his office staff, and he personally doesn't benefit from this at all. So, nothing to see here (unless you know otherwise)? Same as for all MPs of all parties.

The real "despicable man" (which he uses to describe Lynch) is Anderson.

Now I'm totally with you there. Anderson should not have said that. 'Despicable man' is outright abuse and it's not acceptable for an MP to use that kind of language. If you'd confined your remarks to pointing that out, I would have fully agreed with you. (I do think Anderson is quite correct to say that Mick Lynch is basically holding the country to ransom, but that doesn't justify abusive language)

 

[nw1]

Ok, I'm calling you out on this. I've just watched the video and as far as I can see your paraphrasing him as "you plebs should all just put up and shut up. Meanwhile us Tory MPs can do what the hell we want" is an outright lie on your part. At no point in the quoted video does Lee Anderson say anything remotely like that. Could you please either retract that, or point me to some source in which Anderson does actually say roughly what you've just quoted?

I didn't say he actually said that. But that, in my view is, essentially, the meaning conveyed by him ranting on about the strikes.

By contrast, he doesn't share in others' pain. He is off holidaying in Uruguay.
To be quite frank I am sick of right-wingers moralising about people who go on strike. Sorry.

I am not lying. It was supposed to be a form of satire. I will admit that I am not the world's best satirist but it wasn't a "lie". I didn't say he said exactly that, but in my opinion that is the meaning behind it. (However, moderators, if you feel my post is a bit questionable feel free to delete it).

 

[WizCastro197]

I didn't say he actually said that. But that, in my view is, essentially, the meaning conveyed by him ranting on about the strikes.

By contrast, he doesn't share in others' pain. He is off holidaying in Uruguay.

To be quite frank I am sick of right-wingers moralising about people who go on strike. Sorry.

Of all places one can choose to go on Holiday, why did he choose Uruguay?

I didn't say he actually said that. But that, in my view is, essentially, the meaning conveyed by him ranting on about the strikes.

I completely agree, every remark made by any Tory, has that underlying tone which you stated in an above post.

 

[dosxuk]

Presumably, the £200K is for expenses actually and necessarily occurred and invoiced, such as paying his office staff, and he personally doesn't benefit from this at all. So, nothing to see here (unless you know otherwise)? Same as for all MPs of all parties.

You might like to ask Jared O'Mara about whether he personally benefitted from his attempted expense submissions...

Jared O'Mara: Former MP jailed over £52,000 fraud to pay drug debt

An ex-MP who tried to claim £52,000 of taxpayers' money to help fund a cocaine habit has been jailed for four years.

Jared O'Mara sent fake invoices to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), the body which regulates MPs' business costs and pay.

He was thousands of pounds in debt to a drug dealer, his trial heard.

O'Mara, who quit the Labour party about a year after being elected as Sheffield Hallam MP, was convicted of six counts of fraud.

Sure, he was caught out with what was a pretty blatant attempt at fraud, but I doubt he is far from the only MP to have expensed things which are for his own benefit.

 

[Typhoon]

Anderson ranting on about the rail strikes:

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1624711571795574787

Basic message (not what he said, but essentially what he appears to mean): "We've been through Covid, we've lost our Queen, so you plebs should all put up and shut up. Meanwhile us Tory MPs can do what the hell we want".

It's alright for him to live on £84,000 a year and claim £200,000 in expenses of course. It's alright for us taxpayers to fund his extravagant lifestyle and his holidays in Uruguay. It's alright for him to pretend to understand the less-well-off working-class while implementing policies and spouting opinions which disadvantage them.

However he did say

Most people in this country, even Labour Party voters, are not some rabid revolutionary who want to bring the country ...

He might even admit that not all Labour Party members own a copy of Das Kapital and Starmer isn't a secret Stalinist next. (A comment not to be taken seriously.)

Theoretically, one might hypothesise that people on lower incomes are - on average - LESS good at budgeting on the basis that, on average, they are likely to have worse maths skills and impulse control.

They are also less likely to be able to cope with a sudden event as they won't have savings - remember the Amigo Loans 'Mum, there is no hot water', 'The boiler is on the blink again' or, as has recently happened to my old school, it is taken over my a new academy, meaning new uniform for, maybe, a couple of kids. They find it more difficult to cope with change. They might have a Disney + subscription on the grounds that the parent or parents know that their situation is grim and just want to bring some distraction into their kids lives. There is also peer pressure amongst kids, to have this that and the other. When I was a kid it might be a yo-yo or a hoola-hoop (even Subbuteo) now it will be an X-box or a smart phone, and, sadly, kids can be very tough on others. I had it at school, it was not nice, I hated it, and I can understand why parents try to ensure their kids are not the odd one out. It can be relentless. Schools don't always help, arranging residential visits and events here, there and everywhere, there is pressure to be part of it. Some schools (normally selective ones round here) imply it is compulsory. The question parent's face is 'Are you going to say no?'

 

[Broucek]

I completely agree, every remark made by any Tory, has that underlying tone which you stated in an above post. (emphasis added)

One of the things I like about this forum is that, although people come from different places on the political spectrum, the debate tends not to excessively partisan - a rarity in today's world where anger and missunderstanding are a key part of the business model for news and social media.

There are good and bad MPs in all the main parties (I make no judgement on the relative proportions in each) surely?

 

[birchesgreen]

One of the things I like about this forum is that, although people come from different places on the political spectrum, the debate tends not to excessively partisan - a rarity in today's world where anger and missunderstanding are a key part of the business model for news and social media.

There are good and bad MPs in all the main parties (I make no judgement on the relative proportions in each) surely?

I think the good ones in the Tory party seem harder to find now since the purgings.