Anything Political

[Brew 5,481]

32 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

t was a great start.. all on the wage of a miner..

 

If memory serves me right, miners were quite well paid and certainly more than average. 

[DJ360 6,760]

Miners pay probably was above average.. whatever that means.. but it certainly didn't reflect what underground jobs in mines involved.  And, certainly up until maybe 1970 at the earliest, there was no shortage of vacancies in coal mining, so that 'good pay' was there for those who wanted it.

[benjamin1945 16,282]

Miners were def well paid............when i Managed shops for Marsdens as a Teenager in the 60s i was earning something like a 'Tenner' a week and my old schoolmates down the ;Pit' were on nearly double that............but i wouldnt never have swopped with them......always felt sorry for them down the 'Pits'.....

[Stuart.C 497]

I must have grown up in luxury compared to some as we had not only an outside toilet, 2 steps from the back door with inclusive Izal toilet paper, but we also had an inside, upstairs toilet.

 

And also in Winter the luxury of ice on the insides of the leaded light draughty bedroom windows, probably resulting from using paraffin (PInk) heaters to heat the house.

[philmayfield 6,275]

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth but it’s stamped EPNS.

[Jill Sparrow 10,398]

We didn't have an outside loo when I was a child. The loo was upstairs, next to the bathroom. No tin bath hanging on the wall, either.  School friends at Berridge thought it was very posh as most of them had an outside loo and no bathroom. When they came round for tea, the first place they wanted to go was upstairs to the loo and then wash their hands in the bathroom. Izal loo paper and Palmolive soap but Sunlight for washing clothes!  My father was a sheet metal engineer, a skilled man having completed his apprenticeship (either side of the war years) but there was little to spare. My mother didn't go out to work.

[mary1947 2,107]

Just read post about miners pay, they maybe did get paid well but would you like to do the job they did?

 

Talking about pay yes i started as an apprentice hair stylist we were ruled by the wages council, you had to work a 3 year apprenticeship  the wages council told our employer what they should pay and when we could have a rise. Also they told the employer when we could have our holidays, you worked for a whole year before you could have any holidays, and you could only have 2 Saturdays off in one year, you had to call all staff above you Mr ? or Mrs?  wagers start £1 10/-  after 3 years you then had to do 2 years as a Improver after the end of 5 years you were fully qualified and your wage's  a grand total of £5 00 a week for working 44 hours.        Then you had folks coming up to you OH!!!!  I'm going out to-night can you do my hair?  but they never wanted to pay you. 

OH!!! just rememberd my mum and dad had to pay £75 00 which they did not have so my aunt lent the money to them.

 

 

NOW????? is it not about time that we all should be on a decent livng wage?

 

Yes I will vote but all the parties are coming up with all the normal rubbish as normal,   LETS have some NEW rubbish Please.

[Brew 5,481]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

here was no shortage of vacancies in coal mining, so that 'good pay' was there for those who wanted it.

True enough, but from 1968 when Clifton pit closed the last four mines where some distance away from Nottingham so not easily accessible.

[Oztalgian 3,395]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

True enough, but from 1968 when Clifton pit closed the last four mines where some distance away from Nottingham so not easily accessible.

Babbington pit did not close until 1986, as did Hucknall No 2 pit Babbington was within the city boundary. Linby closed in 1988, Gedling closed in 1991 and Calverton in 1993. All could be accessed by public transport even if it took some time.

[Brew 5,481]

I'd forgotten about Babbington but yes. public transport was there but, as you say, took some time, most lived close by

[Beekay 5,261]

When I worked at Bestwood colliery, I had to catch 3 buses to get to work. A 39 to Canning circus, then 43 to Bulwell market, followed by a Makemson's to the pit.

Whilst training, it was a 39 then a Trent bus to Hucknall further education centre. On pit week, it was walk up to Hucknall no.1. If the weather was fine, and the 44 came first, I would go right to the terminus at Bulwell Hall then walk over the railway past Bonemill and carry on to the pit.(Bestwood)

[DJ360 6,760]

The latest from Jonathan Pie.

As ever, a warning if you don't like a bit of choice language.

 

 

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,395]

12 hours ago, Beekay said:

When I worked at Bestwood colliery, I had to catch 3 buses to get to work.

Didn't the MGO B8 from Huntington Street go right past Bestwood pit. Mind you it was a bit of a Tour de Notts on that one.

[Oztalgian 3,395]

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The latest from Jonathan Pie.

Thanks DJ. This guy is as good a satirist as I have seen in a long time.

If you take away the sweary bits he reminds me of David Frost

[Brew 5,481]

A bit long..............

 

In a lazy Sunday morning, a quick look at Labours manifesto and a few observations.

 

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Starmer (look at me in shirt sleeves ready to go to work), and the Labour party are now pursuing polices Thatcher would approve of.

 

His continuous use of ‘change’ is becoming a mantra without meaning. The ‘tough choices’ he is also fond of quoting means continued Osborneism. 

 It makes much of ‘stabilising the economy’ by ‘tough spending rules’ - sounds like austerity to me. Building business partnerships - sounds like the disastrous PFI plan to me. And In the whole of the manifesto the word inequality appears only once.

 

There is a commitment to build 1.5 million new homes but fails to say they will be built by private investors with no mention of affordability, and the housing market is an acknowledged driver of inequality.

No tax increases or VAT… yippee, but I’d keep a careful eye on petrol, car, fags and booze plus other forms of indirect tax.

 

Quote:

the wording of the income tax pledge leaves some room for measures that would increase income tax revenues, or for reform to parts of income tax, if desired. i.e. there is a degree of obfuscation there.

 

Labours commitments will be paid for by closing tax loopholes and avoidance schemes, an idea tried many times before and is limited to legal loopholes. The amount raised is not known and so uncertain at the moment. The illegal ones are virtually untouchable. 

A temporary windfall tax on energy is proposed but will go to the treasury and in no way benefit those who struggle to pay their bill.

 

Taxing private schools will raise £1.5 billion a lot of money but in reality, won’t make a lot of difference.

 

There is an increase in public spending of £5 billion – but not until 2028 – 29!  and directed to health and education. Money for FE, prisons and the courts are looking a bit iffy to say the least.

 

A plan for 40,000 extra NHS appointments and operations – a week! But doesn’t say when… using Labours own figures, even if achieved, it’s less than the annual growth in demand.

 

Major reforms in adult social care (note only reforms are mentioned), but doesn’t say how or when or how much is set aside. Quite how they propose to achieve this without raising taxes, borrowing or cutting services is not  stated.

 

There is nothing other than criticism of the way education is funded, it's a mishmash of rhetoric and an acknowledgement the current system does not work. The dog whistle promise of free breakfasts (there are over 10 million in school), is a bit of a catch without money taken from elsewhere. A promise of 6500 new teachers is mostly pie in the sky with no indication where they will come from. There were 13000 fewer teachers recruited than the target for 2023/4.

 

They will change the current apprenticeship levy with a Growth and Skills Levy. Whether that is more than just a name change remains to be seen.

 

Starmer claims he has changed the Labour party to service working people, the truth is he has courted big business and the ultra-rich, just like the Tories, to the point where Unison, Uk’s biggest union has considered the ‘New Deal for Working People’ and refused to endorse it. It is abundantly clear the unions are, by their silence, not happy bunnies at the moment.

 

To reduce poverty there is an implication that the minimum wage will rise. Probably true and will be a net benefit to the government. No cost, reducing benefits payments and an increase in tax return.

 

Benefite and universal credit are to be ‘reviewed’, I doubt the results will be to our liking. There is no mention of reversing the cuts they pledged to do in the past.

 

Note the much vaunted promise ‘the NHS is not for sale’ has been dropped and there is no mention in the manifesto of anything that rules out cuts to the health service. What there is, in plain view, that most seem to miss is the intention of bringing in more privatisation by ‘using private health care capacity’.

 

Starmer, or his acolytes it seems are susceptible to a little pressure from lobbyists and quite capable of a U turn, the £38 billion Green deal a prime example.

Polly Billington (candidate and environment guru) chaired a meeting between Labour’s shadow climate change chief Kerry McCarthy and representatives from the energy, manufacturing and transport industries in January.

 As a lobbyist, Billington was there to connect high-powered industry reps with McCarthy in the run-up to an election that Labour is expected to win. McCarthy, Billington and the business leaders spent time discussing Labour’s policy programme and priorities – including its much-trumpeted ‘Green Prosperity Plan’. which, strange to say, was later reduced from £38 billion to less than half that over the next five years.

Billington is also the candidate for East Thanet, a newly formed constituency as well as Senior Adviser at the PR lobbying firm Hanover Communications - in their election planning team. As the founder of UK100 I'm not sure how she squares the circle of being a lobbyist AND a candidate.

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,760]

 

Before I make a detailed response, I'll just say that for me, THE most important outcome of the election is to kick the current version of the Tory party into the long grass, for a very long time. I'm pretty sure you agree that they are hopeless, self serving, corrupt and incompetent. The only party currently capable of doing that is Labour, and whilst I'm not exactly ecstatic about Starmer or his policy vacuum, I'll risk a vote for them at this point.

I recall when Labour won in 1993, their initial economic stance was to stick with the Tory 'fiscal rules'.  I thought at the time it was largely window dressing to shut the right wing press up, but I also worked out that whilst the shape of the economy left little room for manouvre, Labour differed in intent.

Subsequently they did pretty well and were only really tripped up by Blairs idiotic stance on Iraq, and the World Economic Crash, which you have to admit was caused by people who had much more in common with the Tories than with Labour.

 

You make a lot of valid points, but you also say that a lot is unclear..and on those points, you speculate in ways which support your basic small c conservatism.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Starmer (look at me in shirt sleeves ready to go to work), and the Labour party are now pursuing polices Thatcher would approve of.

 

Possibly. But Thatcher's actual early policies were benign c.f. current Tory, especially re: public services.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

His continuous use of ‘change’ is becoming a mantra without meaning.

 

No more so than Sunak's 'Stick to the plan' and 'Jam tomorrow'

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

The ‘tough choices’ he is also fond of quoting means continued Osborneism. 

 

That is your interpretation.  We'll have to see.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

It makes much of ‘stabilising the economy’ by ‘tough spending rules’ - sounds like austerity to me. Building business partnerships - sounds like the disastrous PFI plan to me.

 

You might say that.. Or you might see it as the inevitable 'window dressing' which any left of centre party is obliged to engage in to get the support of the UK foreign or Govt controlled owned media.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

There is a commitment to build 1.5 million new homes but fails to say they will be built by private investors with no mention of affordability, and the housing market is an acknowledged driver of inequality.

No tax increases or VAT… yippee, but I’d keep a careful eye on petrol, car, fags and booze plus other forms of indirect tax.

 

You might be right. I'd see the housing issue more in terms of changes to planning law, which the Private Sector have been pushing for.

Indirect taxation.. again.. maybe.

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

Labours commitments will be paid for by closing tax loopholes and avoidance schemes, an idea tried many times before and is limited to legal loopholes. The amount raised is not known and so uncertain at the moment. The illegal ones are virtually untouchable. 

 

So it shouldn't be attempted?

 

17 hours ago, Brew said:

There is nothing other than criticism of the way education is funded, it's a mishmash of rhetoric and an acknowledgement the current system does not work. The dog whistle promise of free breakfasts (there are over 10 million in school), is a bit of a catch without money taken from elsewhere. A promise of 6500 new teachers is mostly pie in the sky with no indication where they will come from. There were 13000 fewer teachers recruited than the target for 2023/4.

 

So roughly on a par with the meaningless promises we have endured for the last 14 years, whilst being royally 'shafted' by the Tories. You know very well, and have said more than once, that manifestos aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

It's also becoming more and more evident over time, that much of the UK electorate take a very superficial view of electoral promises, which is why the 'bidding war' betweeen Con and Lab is reduced to a series of 'soundbytes', which on the Con side at present smack of increasing desperation. We witnessed a similarly undignified spectacle when Corbyn was leader, except that his spending commitments and objectives were far less extreme than painted by the UK Tory owned media.

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Taxing private schools will raise £1.5 billion a lot of money but in reality, won’t make a lot of difference.

 

It will please me.  I have no particular objection to private schools, but see no reason why those who can afford them should get a 'tax break'.  I could say much more about this topic.. but not here.

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

There is an increase in public spending of £5 billion – but not until 2028 – 29!  and directed to health and education. Money for FE, prisons and the courts are looking a bit iffy to say the least.

 

Reinforcing the 'steady hand' message, that it will take more than 5 years to sort out the Tory mess.

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

A plan for 40,000 extra NHS appointments and operations – a week! But doesn’t say when… using Labours own figures, even if achieved, it’s less than the annual growth in demand.

 

Linked maybe to plans by Streeting to utilise Private Sector Capacity.  Some interpret that as more Privatisation, but in my view, just an expansion of very common existing practice. So long as it remains free at the point of delivery, I'll tolerate it short term.,. though the NHS does need reform, but not as proposed by Reform.. IYSWIM...

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Major reforms in adult social care (note only reforms are mentioned), but doesn’t say how or when or how much is set aside. Quite how they propose to achieve this without raising taxes, borrowing or cutting services is not  stated.

 

Means testing? I don't know.. but the outcome can't be worse than Johnson's massive lie when he claimed to have a solution..which sank without trace...

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

There is nothing other than criticism of the way education is funded, it's a mishmash of rhetoric and an acknowledgement the current system does not work. The dog whistle promise of free breakfasts (there are over 10 million in school), is a bit of a catch without money taken from elsewhere. A promise of 6500 new teachers is mostly pie in the sky with no indication where they will come from. There were 13000 fewer teachers recruited than the target for 2023/4.

 

I'd need to read that. I will later.. but the Academy system is clearly very flawed and divisive. The free or at least very cheap breakfasts thing already exists in many schools and is a good way of improving attendance, punctuality and 'in school' performance, as well as helping poorer parents.

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

They will change the current apprenticeship levy with a Growth and Skills Levy. Whether that is more than just a name change remains to be seen.

 

Precisely..but it's clear that leaving Skills Training to the whim of employers and 'the market' does not..and never has.. worked.

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Starmer claims he has changed the Labour party to service working people, the truth is he has courted big business and the ultra-rich, just like the Tories, to the point where Unison, Uk’s biggest union has considered the ‘New Deal for Working People’ and refused to endorse it. It is abundantly clear the unions are, by their silence, not happy bunnies at the moment.

 

True.  Let's see what happens.  I would welcome a 'push' from the left, including Unions, Greens and Lib Dems, so long as it doesn't end up splitting the Labour Party in the same way that the Right has split the Tories. What we really need is a broad left wing coalition to start dismantling the Neolib consensus.

 

Small aside:  Me, from elsewhere:

 

Quote

I'd argue that it is 'unfettered' Capitalism as demanded by Neoliberalism, which is the main problem.
We were getting quite good at what might be termed 'social democracy'...broadly benefitting from capitalism, but curbing it's worst excesses.. until Thatcher launched the Neolib project here. It's been downhill since.
I see little hope until the left pushes back against Neolib and the only UK party I see moving that way is the Greens.

 

and:

 

 

Quote

 

stevec67 said:

The bizarre thing is that Neoliberalism is everybody's bogeyman. The recently elected far right Italian mp was railing against it only this week. It seems to be used as a blanket term to define "everything I don't like" but I like and share your definition of "unbridled capitalism" .

  (Me) I take your point, but I'd argue that what you describe is lazy rhetoric, of the same type which uses 'socialism', 'communism' and now 'woke', as a catch all critique of all opposition, but particularly liberal opposition.
Neoliberalism is a very clear ideology, essentially based on an extreme adherence to private sector, low tax, small state, deregulated economy, sold to the poorer echelons of society via the false promise of 'Trickle down'.
As KS points out, even if its original motives were benign, it has become quite simply a device used by 'big money' to subvert and undermine democracy.
But what really grinds my gears ....is that unlike 'socialism', 'woke' etc, neoliberalism is not a term bandied about much by the ' hoi-polloi' or by politicians and political commentators.. and that is a major part of the problem. Neolib is a pretty much hidden dynamic. Hidden in plain sight.. as it were.

 

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

To reduce poverty there is an implication that the minimum wage will rise. Probably true and will be a net benefit to the government. No cost, reducing benefits payments and an increase in tax return.

 

Fair enough.

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Benefite and universal credit are to be ‘reviewed’, I doubt the results will be to our liking. There is no mention of reversing the cuts they pledged to do in the past.

 

Whose liking is 'ours'?

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Note the much vaunted promise ‘the NHS is not for sale’ has been dropped and there is no mention in the manifesto of anything that rules out cuts to the health service. What there is, in plain view, that most seem to miss is the intention of bringing in more privatisation by ‘using private health care capacity’.

 

I've already covered that above. Whilst I understand the suspicions.. 'using (existing) private health capacity', is nothing new.  You already pointed out mental health somewhere above. The whole 'Targeted Lung Health Check' programme and no doubt many others are already 'outsourced'.

 

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Starmer, or his acolytes it seems are susceptible to a little pressure from lobbyists and quite capable of a U turn, the £38 billion Green deal a prime example.

Polly Billington (candidate and environment guru) chaired a meeting between Labour’s shadow climate change chief Kerry McCarthy and representatives from the energy, manufacturing and transport industries in January.

 As a lobbyist, Billington was there to connect high-powered industry reps with McCarthy in the run-up to an election that Labour is expected to win. McCarthy, Billington and the business leaders spent time discussing Labour’s policy programme and priorities – including its much-trumpeted ‘Green Prosperity Plan’. which, strange to say, was later reduced from £38 billion to less than half that over the next five years.

Billington is also the candidate for East Thanet, a newly formed constituency as well as Senior Adviser at the PR lobbying firm Hanover Communications - in their election planning team. As the founder of UK100 I'm not sure how she squares the circle of being a lobbyist AND a candidate.

 

However distasteful... you can see that as 'corrupt'.. (which it isn't.. unless you can demonstrate that money changed hands) or as simple pragmatism.  Rab Butler.. politics as 'the art of the possible' type stuff.

 

Starmer isn't an ideologue..far from it and in that sense he's pragmatist.

[Jill Sparrow 10,398]

Out and about in Sutton this morning, I took particular notice of the political flavour of posters in windows and gardens. They seem to be split equally between Reform and Independent. I was somewhat surprised, I must say.

[philmayfield 6,275]

Whoever you vote for Starkers will be in for 5 years, make a complete hash of it and then it’s back to the Tories. 

[DJ360 6,760]

Well obviously.. to re-work a saying about computers...

To err is Labour.. but to really foul things up, you need the Tories ...

[DJ360 6,760]

Haven't  seen any posters here, but I'd be very suspicious of anyone claiming to be 'independent'. Rather like patriotism..it is frequently  the last refuge of the scoundrel 

That said.. I got a leaflet from the 'English Constitution Party'.

Not sure what to make of them. Never heard of them.

I'm certainly in favour of the rule of law, defending our rights, etc.. and especially defending our Parliament, our Independent Judiciary etc.. but it all looks a bit wooly beyond that:

www.EnglishConsitutionParty.com

 

 

[DJ360 6,760]

1 hour ago, philmayfield said:

Whoever you vote for Starkers will be in for 5 years, make a complete hash of it and then it’s back to the Tories. 

 

I wouldn't  be so sure. Reform will be content to see the Tories ousted by Labour..  But then  Labour will become their next target  and it will take some nifty footwork, and some collaboration  with Lib Dems and Greens to both fill the policy vacuum which allows such populism space to grow, and to provide meaningful alternatives to Farage's far right drivel.