When did UK governments lose their way?

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Labour will not introduce PR - it would mean that they, just like the Conservatives, would never be able to gain a majority ever again. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, despite the fact that the left of the party are keen on the idea. As for jobs before entering politics, our current and last two prime ministers all had jobs outside politics first. Not sure about Theresa May off the top of my head. There are far more MPs with prior work experience than you might think, despite appearances to the contrary.

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

I think Starmer is probably genuine but he should stick to what he truly believes in, not what he thinks some groups want to hear.

Mollygo

Thanks. Should have been like this.

I like your graphic, Mollygo, but for me it says that the person with the biggest disadvantage, the fewest inches, get the biggest boost to achieve equity.

Now apply that principle to the people with the least advantages in our society and see where it gets you. Imagine suggesting that the poorest in society need a larger share of society's resources to achieve equity and see how the objections come flooding in...

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

Sadly, that does not make her destruction of the post war consensus and her cult of individual self interest and denial of 'society' any more admirable or a model to copy.

A young chap in Question Time audience said. "I can't see what's different between conservatives and "Labour Party "I don't know who to vote for and I shouldn't have to feel like that" says a lot of what young people think about the state of politics in this country now.

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

Sadly, that does not make her destruction of the post war consensus and her cult of individual self interest and denial of 'society' any more admirable or a model to copy.

I didn't say it did. Not everyone voted for her government.

But you got what it said on the tin.
Unlike so many politicians.

Callistemon21

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

Sadly, that does not make her destruction of the post war consensus and her cult of individual self interest and denial of 'society' any more admirable or a model to copy.

I didn't say it did. Not everyone voted for her government.

But you got what it said on the tin.
Unlike so many politicians.

Oh, I forgot
I'm not supposed to address you in any way.

But if you answer and misinterpret my posts then it's necessary occasionally.

MaizieD

Mollygo
Thanks. Should have been like this.
I like your graphic, Mollygo, but for me it says that the person with the biggest disadvantage, the fewest inches, get the biggest boost to achieve equity.

Now apply that principle to the people with the least advantages in our society and see where it gets you. Imagine suggesting that the poorest in society need a larger share of society's resources to achieve equity and see how the objections come flooding in...

Whoever said that objections wouldn’t come flooding in. Of course they would.
People would defend their right to keep what they have and argue that others were getting a bigger share of handouts.
But equality doesn’t make things better for every one. It’s like the % pay rises. 1% of a large salary can be worth more than 10% of a small salary but the outcry from the top earners . . .

Probably lost the way when the Attlee government lost office and was replaced by Churchill who played piquet a lot of the time.

Mollygo

MaizieD

Mollygo
Thanks. Should have been like this.
I like your graphic, Mollygo, but for me it says that the person with the biggest disadvantage, the fewest inches, get the biggest boost to achieve equity.

Now apply that principle to the people with the least advantages in our society and see where it gets you. Imagine suggesting that the poorest in society need a larger share of society's resources to achieve equity and see how the objections come flooding in...

Whoever said that objections wouldn’t come flooding in. Of course they would.
People would defend their right to keep what they have and argue that others were getting a bigger share of handouts.
But equality doesn’t make things better for every one. It’s like the % pay rises. 1% of a large salary can be worth more than 10% of a small salary but the outcry from the top earners . . .

So you are completely resigned to our current state of inequality?

MaizieD
So you are completely resigned to our current state of inequality?

Please don’t misinterpret my posts.
I’m no more resigned to our current state of inequality than you are, presumably. I just think equality is the wrong word here, just as it is in teaching.
If I taught all the children in my class exactly the same the brightest and the poorest would not benefit equally.
The strategy is to give each child what they need end up the best they can be, which usually means more support for the less able whilst supporting the needs of the middle and more able group.
Where would you start? What do you think the (whichever) government should do?

Mollygo

MaizieD
So you are completely resigned to our current state of inequality?

Please don’t misinterpret my posts.
I’m no more resigned to our current state of inequality than you are, presumably. I just think equality is the wrong word here, just as it is in teaching.
If I taught all the children in my class exactly the same the brightest and the poorest would not benefit equally.
The strategy is to give each child what they need end up the best they can be, which usually means more support for the less able whilst supporting the needs of the middle and more able group.
Where would you start? What do you think the (whichever) government should do?

I’ve read your post twice Mollygo, and I think you’ve misrepresented what you meant. Do you mean the most advantaged and least advantaged children, rather than the brightest and poorest - surely being bright isn’t dependent on level of poverty, it’s the opportunity the poorest have that is limited?

One of the first things I would do in government is to restart the Surestart and Communities First initiatives, and widen eligibility.

I'm perfectly happy to not quibble over the difference between equity and equality, Mollygo.

How would you go about achieving a more equitable society?

One of the first things I would do in government is to restart the Surestart and Communities First initiatives, and widen eligibility.

The problem for me is, desirable as these initiatives are, that at the end of it the poor would still be poor and less able to access the resources and advantages available to those with more wealth.

Firstly, I apologise, I should have said brightest and least able rather than poorest. It was never meant to be a comment on their financial viability.
Re how would I make it a more equitable society?
Better brains than mine have struggled with that, and I don’t know how to do it. There needs to be a way to improve things for the poorest and the not so poor that wouldn’t immediately be hijacked by those with the time and resources to skim off an unwarranted share. e.g. building reasonable cost houses for first time families, which are snapped up by those who don’t need them and sold on at inflated prices. But I don’t know how to do that.

Surestart and Community First. I thought Community First was a charity. I didn’t know it was anything to do with the government.
I regretted the closing of Surestart, but the Family Hubs that are set up in many places weren’t just a rebranded Surestart. They cater for a wider range of ages and offer a wider range of support to children and parents.
Our SENDCO and children’s mentor direct parents both in school and preschool towards the help they need and there is always information on the website and our local FB page. The idea that there was nothing after Surestart is misleading and in some places, it was no longer meeting the needs of the poorest families, so something had to be done.

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

She was so nice that she went on to make a fortune helping to sell cigarettes to third work countries. All heart was Thatcher…

There needs to be a way to improve things for the poorest and the not so poor that wouldn’t immediately be hijacked by those with the time and resources to skim off an unwarranted share.

It really all boils down to economics, doesn't it?

In a way it's about the wealthy effortlessly creaming off more and more wealth from the less wealthy because the political system is more geared to allow them to acquire more and more than it is to a more equitable distribution of wealth.

I wouldn't particularly want to start by crudely taking excessive wealth from one sector to redistribute, but I would like to see them have fewer opportunities to cream off that wealth. Progressive taxation, closing tax avoidance loopholes, equalising tax across the different income streams, curbing excessive executive pay. Curbs on profiteering...

And of course, I would want to see more put into public services and fairer pay deals for working people at lower levels.

I'm reading Joseph Stigliz's ;The Price of Inequality' and it's fired me up. I haven't got to his suggested solutions yet; I'm sure they'll be interesting.

Maybee70 Thatcher was also involved with lobbying the Saudi Arabians to sell them British fighter jets. There were also allegations of payment of large bribes by BAE in order to secure the contracts. Some years later, following investigations BAE paid a fine of nearly £300 million.

Son Mark was an international "fixer" and involved in weapons deals between South Africa and the Saudis, and was a consultant for Cementation who were trying to get a contract worth 300 million to build a university in Oman. Mts Thatcher flew out to Oman to lobby on behalf of Cementation

Here's an extract from the journal Arabian Business concerning the lobbying

Senior advisors to Mrs Thatcher, who was prime minister 1979 to 1990, believed her son’s business dealings were “driven by greed” and his mother’s attitude towards them “conveyed a whiff of corruption”, according to The Guardian.

Her principal private secretary Sir Clive Whitmore said, “Mark was driven by greed and reluctant to pass up any opportunity,” according to the biography.

Another of her private secretaries, Robin Butler, who served in 1984, claimed that competing bidders for a Cementation construction deal in Oman had complained that Mrs Thatcher used her influence with the Sultan of Oman to help the company that Mark was working for win the contract.

Butler said: “He thought that Mrs Thatcher’s behaviour in Oman had conveyed a whiff of corruption, though she might not have regarded it as such. She had wanted to see Mark right. She sought the deal for Mark. She excluded everyone from her talks with the Sultan. Mark was dealing with Brigadier Landon, who was the Sultan’s go-between. She behaved in the most peculiar way. I suspected the worst.”

These deals were subject to investigation by the National Audit Office. The 20 year period before the papers are released is long gone. The papers for the Cementation deal are not being released until 2053!

Mark Thatcher’s net worth £60 million? Euan Blair considerably more.

Grany

A young chap in Question Time audience said. "I can't see what's different between conservatives and "Labour Party "I don't know who to vote for and I shouldn't have to feel like that" says a lot of what young people think about the state of politics in this country now.

That’s cos they haven’t looked into it, they google everything else so maybe show more interest and google political stuff.
So many young just aren’t interested enough but moan if they don’t like things.A lot can’t be arsed to vote either.

Mollygo

Firstly, I apologise, I should have said brightest and least able rather than poorest. It was never meant to be a comment on their financial viability.
Re how would I make it a more equitable society?
Better brains than mine have struggled with that, and I don’t know how to do it. There needs to be a way to improve things for the poorest and the not so poor that wouldn’t immediately be hijacked by those with the time and resources to skim off an unwarranted share. e.g. building reasonable cost houses for first time families, which are snapped up by those who don’t need them and sold on at inflated prices. But I don’t know how to do that.

Surestart and Community First. I thought Community First was a charity. I didn’t know it was anything to do with the government.
I regretted the closing of Surestart, but the Family Hubs that are set up in many places weren’t just a rebranded Surestart. They cater for a wider range of ages and offer a wider range of support to children and parents.
Our SENDCO and children’s mentor direct parents both in school and preschool towards the help they need and there is always information on the website and our local FB page. The idea that there was nothing after Surestart is misleading and in some places, it was no longer meeting the needs of the poorest families, so something had to be done.

Communities First was a Welsh initiative, aimed at addressing poverty. It wasn’t perfect, but did make impact. It was closed in 2018 because Westminster funding of the Welsh Government meant it was no longer affordable.
I think one of the best ways of addressing poverty is through very local schemes aimed at specific communities, and the funding available to Local Authorities throughout the UK now means that these services are extremely limited, because they only have funds to provide core activity.
The same issues apply to funding for family support schemes, the services have to be gate kept because the funding is so limited that they are unable to develop initiatives with financial implications. In England, is the total allocation from Westminster protected to the level it was under SureStart?

The problem is that inequality goes deeper than something which can be overcome by a few mitigations. It's systemic and is perpetuated by inheritance. If the little sperm which has produced you happens to have been made by the Duke of Westminster, you're always going to have an advantage.

More equal educational opportunities, healthcare and initiatives such as Sure Start are a good place to start, but it's a bit like battling the wind and waves in a storm compared with being in an indoor swimming pool.

Maizie I read 'The Price of Inequality' and agree with you that it's essential reading for anybody interested in structural inbalance (inequality).