When did UK governments lose their way?

There is a huge difference between the politicians who genuinely try to serve the public and those who claim to represent the majority but saying "this is the people's priority" or worse still trying to set some of the people against others by targeting a group which are "enemies of the people", with the support of the gutter press.

Mollygo

Callistemon21
There are politicians of both types in all parties and always have been, but yes, serving the people whom they represent is often forgotten as more of those in power seem to be self-serving now.

It certainly seems like that. Evidence in the news about one, then another.
Or did we just not know before, because we didn’t have access to all the information.

Well, that's a good point Mollygo and yes, before social media a lot could be hushed up.

In the old days people "respected their betters" until they found out they weren't actually better and were probably worse!

Callistemon21
There are politicians of both types in all parties and always have been, but yes, serving the people whom they represent is often forgotten as more of those in power seem to be self-serving now.

It certainly seems like that. Evidence in the news about one, then another.
Or did we just not know before, because we didn’t have access to all the information.

Casdon

NanaDana

I agree with many contributors here, who have pointed out that we are now in the era of "Professional Politicians", who throughout their political education, apprenticeship and eventual appointment to an executive position, have experienced an existence which has consistently been sheltered from everyday life and work. Many of them therefore have neither an understanding of nor any meaningful working relationship with the population they are supposed to represent. I think that this trend has accelerated during the last couple of decades in particular. With this inevitably inward-looking environment, is it any wonder that so many of those who hold positions of power often appear self-serving and "entitled" ? I'm not saying that I remember the days when politicians were genuinely the servants of the people, but I do recall when at least some of them appeared to be, and moreover, had some practical experience of everyday life and work. Many of these delicate hot-house plants we have nowadays, selectively bred in a rarified atmosphere, and institutionally insulated from the realities of society, simply aren't fit for purpose.

Some of the Labour shadow cabinet have got to where they are through the school of hard knocks though, which is good to see.

There are politicians of both types in all parties and always have been, but yes, serving the people whom they represent is often forgotten as more of those in power seem to be self-serving now.

NanaDana

I agree with many contributors here, who have pointed out that we are now in the era of "Professional Politicians", who throughout their political education, apprenticeship and eventual appointment to an executive position, have experienced an existence which has consistently been sheltered from everyday life and work. Many of them therefore have neither an understanding of nor any meaningful working relationship with the population they are supposed to represent. I think that this trend has accelerated during the last couple of decades in particular. With this inevitably inward-looking environment, is it any wonder that so many of those who hold positions of power often appear self-serving and "entitled" ? I'm not saying that I remember the days when politicians were genuinely the servants of the people, but I do recall when at least some of them appeared to be, and moreover, had some practical experience of everyday life and work. Many of these delicate hot-house plants we have nowadays, selectively bred in a rarified atmosphere, and institutionally insulated from the realities of society, simply aren't fit for purpose.

Some of the Labour shadow cabinet have got to where they are through the school of hard knocks though, which is good to see.

MaizieD

^As an old lady I am beginning to find the constant opposition parties whinge approach annoying - it detracts from the messages for me anyway. Delivery is important?^

What do you think opposition parties should do, ronib? Enthusiastically back the government?

No of course not MaizieD. I think a calmer delivery with an analytical/forensic approach would pay dividends.
My son explained to me that the generations 18 to 40 years feel so let down by the current administration and even Conservatives are depressed
by the government, there’s a new low distrust of all politicians.

Callistemon21

I'm sure he was a thoroughly decent man, ronib, but nicknamed Sunny Jim Callaghan because of his head in the sand approach to the mounting disasters and chaos in the country.
As a young Mum, I remember those days well.

Jim Callaghan's government was nothing like the disaster that Thatcher's turned out to be.

As an old lady I am beginning to find the constant opposition parties whinge approach annoying - it detracts from the messages for me anyway. Delivery is important?

What do you think opposition parties should do, ronib? Enthusiastically back the government?

I agree with many contributors here, who have pointed out that we are now in the era of "Professional Politicians", who throughout their political education, apprenticeship and eventual appointment to an executive position, have experienced an existence which has consistently been sheltered from everyday life and work. Many of them therefore have neither an understanding of nor any meaningful working relationship with the population they are supposed to represent. I think that this trend has accelerated during the last couple of decades in particular. With this inevitably inward-looking environment, is it any wonder that so many of those who hold positions of power often appear self-serving and "entitled" ? I'm not saying that I remember the days when politicians were genuinely the servants of the people, but I do recall when at least some of them appeared to be, and moreover, had some practical experience of everyday life and work. Many of these delicate hot-house plants we have nowadays, selectively bred in a rarified atmosphere, and institutionally insulated from the realities of society, simply aren't fit for purpose.

Callistemon21

Were you there?

I was just remembering. Others have explained it in detail.

I'm sure he was a thoroughly decent man, ronib, but nicknamed Sunny Jim Callaghan because of his head in the sand approach to the mounting disasters and chaos in the country.
As a young Mum, I remember those days well.

Callistemon21 it all happened when I was young and busy with living so don’t have any bad memories of Jim Callaghan whereas subsequent prime ministers used to really grate. Hadn’t realised what a fundamental disaster Jim Callaghan was. Must look him up.
As an old lady I am beginning to find the constant opposition parties whinge approach annoying - it detracts from the messages for me anyway. Delivery is important?

Jim Callaghan died in 2005, so he’s unlikely to be returning… and David Miliband is no longer an MP, and has an important role elsewhere. I was sorry he went though, I liked him.

Bring back Jim Callaghan
You have to be joking!

Even the SNP joined the Tories and others in a vote of no confidence in his Labour Government
And - biggest shock of all - my father didn't vote Labour in the subsequent election after a lifetime of Labour membership 😲

Bring back Jim Callaghan…. Or for me David Miliband is the obvious choice!

In 1977 PM Jim Callaghan quietly and efficiently dealt with an Argentinian threat to invade the Falklands.

"Operation Journeyman was a Royal Navy operation in which a naval taskforce was secretly sent to the Falkland Islands in November 1977 to prevent an Argentine invasion.

The operation was ordered by James Callaghan after a party from the Argentine Air Force landed on Thule and constructed a base with barracks and a concrete helicopter landing pad. They set up a weather station, a radio station, and a flagpole from which the Argentine flag flew.[1][2] This prompted fears of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands. The United Kingdom's Foreign Office states that prompt action against the Argentines prevented a more serious attack.[3] The force, planned under heavy security, was commanded by Captain Hugh Balfour, the commanding officer of the frigate HMS Phoebe, which was accompanied by the nuclear submarine HMS Dreadnought, the frigate HMS Alacrity, and two auxiliaries, RFA Resurgent and RFA Olwen in support.[4] The Argentines rapidly became aware of the taskforce's presence, but their forces remained on Thule and Callaghan decided against the use of force to evict them.

The 1977 rules of engagement were: "Commanding officers and aircraft captains are to respond to any aggression with tactful firmness and are to exhibit a determination to meet any escalation, though not to exceed that already carried out by the enemy."

"All use of force must be governed by the principle of using only the minimum force necessary to achieve the aim." Such force must be used only until it was evident "that the immediate aim is being achieved, and must in no way be retaliatory".

The submarine commander was told: "If you are attacked with [anti-submarine] weapons by [Argentine] forces, you are to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life."

They also set up a 50-mile (80 km) security zone and any ships entering would be told that they must identify themselves and state their plans.[1] Classified documents relating to Operation Journeyman were released in 2005."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation Journeyman

A few years later Margaret Thatcher insisted on cutting naval defense on the Falklands, despite strong warnings of the risk.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-warned-defence-cuts-falklands

I had a look for information about the Falklands war.
According to Lord Carrington's papers (released under the 30 yrs rule) the government was. 'surprised' by the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands because they'd not taken much interest in what was going on there. Negotiations over the contested territory had lapsed. The Argentinian president had been losing popularity and saw trying to take the islands as a way of regaining support. The British had withdrawn a naval vessel from the area so he took advantage of the lack of naval protection.

The sinking of the Belgrano was outrageous.

Were you there?

Argentina regularly ratttled sabres over the Falklands and each time diplomats dealt with it. Thatcher was losing popularity which is why she went to war. And then lied about the timing of the sinking of the Belgrano.

Callistemon21

MayBee70

I used to put old newspaper down on the utility room floor because I had an old incontinent dog. After the war I put down a newspaper ( it must have been the Observer because that’s the only paper I bought back then) and saw an article which said that Argentina were threatening to reclaim the Falklands. It hadn’t registered with me at the time. So the invasion wouldn’t have been a complete shock to the government at the time.

The Falkland Islands have never actually belonged to the country of Argentina. They were claimed by a Spanish colony at one time, a colony that later on became Argentina.

I can’t remember the article because it was obviously a long time ago so it must have said they were going to invade the Falklands. Either way the government at the time must have known that something was going to happen.

Ah yes. Working in a hospital during this time people who had waited the 4 hours just got moved into another waiting area. So not quite as good as it appeared. Also under Blair hospitals actually closed down. Maternity hospital in a north west resort closed. Children's A&E was shifted to a town in another county. Not all great

I have just two words, Louella:
Stafford Hospital

MayBee70

I used to put old newspaper down on the utility room floor because I had an old incontinent dog. After the war I put down a newspaper ( it must have been the Observer because that’s the only paper I bought back then) and saw an article which said that Argentina were threatening to reclaim the Falklands. It hadn’t registered with me at the time. So the invasion wouldn’t have been a complete shock to the government at the time.

The Falkland Islands have never actually belonged to the country of Argentina. They were claimed by a Spanish colony at one time, a colony that later on became Argentina.

Louella12

Dinahmo

Lovetopaint037

I will be shouted down because of the Iraq war but I believe that Tony Blair gave us the best government in recent years. Hospital waiting times were massively reduced and new ones built although the contracts could have been better. He was a great speaker and highly intelligent. He settled Ireland into peace and overall this country had prestige which it sadly lacks now.

You're quite right. People forget those achievements and just remember the Iraq War. We should remember both.

Ah yes. Working in a hospital during this time people who had waited the 4 hours just got moved into another waiting area. So not quite as good as it appeared. Also under Blair hospitals actually closed down. Maternity hospital in a north west resort closed. Children's A&E was shifted to a town in another county. Not all great.

And let us not forget that Tony Blair embraced private health firms and welcomed them into the NHS

www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/16/health.politics

I’m ex NHS too, and I’m not clear what point you’re making Louella. There is clearly documented information available demonstrating the reduction in waiting lists under Blair, and improvements in the quality of NHS care. I can post the detail if you want it?
Service changes in the name of efficiency and patient safety have been part of the NHS since it started, and services were consolidated during Blair’s tenure for safety reasons - many small A&E units, and maternity units were closed because there were not enough numbers going through them to enable experienced staffing. It saved lives, although it wasn’t popular because people didn’t understand why it was necessary.
Are you saying that the Tories didn’t privatise the NHS when in power, and that healthcare has improved since 2010?

Dinahmo

Lovetopaint037

I will be shouted down because of the Iraq war but I believe that Tony Blair gave us the best government in recent years. Hospital waiting times were massively reduced and new ones built although the contracts could have been better. He was a great speaker and highly intelligent. He settled Ireland into peace and overall this country had prestige which it sadly lacks now.

You're quite right. People forget those achievements and just remember the Iraq War. We should remember both.

Ah yes. Working in a hospital during this time people who had waited the 4 hours just got moved into another waiting area. So not quite as good as it appeared. Also under Blair hospitals actually closed down. Maternity hospital in a north west resort closed. Children's A&E was shifted to a town in another county. Not all great.

And let us not forget that Tony Blair embraced private health firms and welcomed them into the NHS

www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/16/health.politics

I used to put old newspaper down on the utility room floor because I had an old incontinent dog. After the war I put down a newspaper ( it must have been the Observer because that’s the only paper I bought back then) and saw an article which said that Argentina were threatening to reclaim the Falklands. It hadn’t registered with me at the time. So the invasion wouldn’t have been a complete shock to the government at the time.