If a future Argentine junta were to seize the Falklands/Malvinas again I very much doubt we could pull off a second South Atlantic reclamation job.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we no longer have the ships or the aircraft to attempt a second Falklands expedition.
I can see us playing support roles - as with France in West Africa - but share @Arethosemyfeet's concerns about vainglorious geopolitical adventures. Blair got us into those with grim results.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I wouldn't put it past Starmer to sabre-rattle.
What a Trump in the White House, Starmer in Number 10 scenario would look like, I don't know. If it's Biden then belligerence may be on the cards. It wasn't just Bush Senior and Bush Junior who were inclined to intervene abroad. Obama dropped more than his fair share of bombs and drones.
Trump would go after Iran. He'd expect us to go with him and withdraw US funding from NATO if European countries didn't dance to his tune.
Things are pretty scary and precarious whoever gets into The White House.
The conflict in Ukraine doesn't look like it's going to be resolved any time soon. There's every chance also of escalation in the Middle-East.
Then there's China and Taiwan.
Belize and Brunei pale into insignificance against that background but any 'little local difficulty' can become a geo-political football.
Starmer's going to have to stabilise things pretty quickly. I don't think he'd leap on the first sabre-rattling bandwagon that hurtles by but the prospect is there, undoubtedly.
More deep shit.
Sir Keir will just have to ring them up, remind them that he used to be the DPP and it will be sorted.
If a future Argentine junta were to seize the Falklands/Malvinas again I very much doubt we could pull off a second South Atlantic reclamation job.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we no longer have the ships or the aircraft to attempt a second Falklands expedition.
I can see us playing support roles - as with France in West Africa - but share @Arethosemyfeet's concerns about vainglorious geopolitical adventures. Blair got us into those with grim results.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I wouldn't put it past Starmer to sabre-rattle.
What a Trump in the White House, Starmer in Number 10 scenario would look like, I don't know. If it's Biden then belligerence may be on the cards. It wasn't just Bush Senior and Bush Junior who were inclined to intervene abroad. Obama dropped more than his fair share of bombs and drones.
Trump would go after Iran. He'd expect us to go with him and withdraw US funding from NATO if European countries didn't dance to his tune.
Things are pretty scary and precarious whoever gets into The White House.
The conflict in Ukraine doesn't look like it's going to be resolved any time soon. There's every chance also of escalation in the Middle-East.
Then there's China and Taiwan.
Belize and Brunei pale into insignificance against that background but any 'little local difficulty' can become a geo-political football.
Starmer's going to have to stabilise things pretty quickly. I don't think he'd leap on the first sabre-rattling bandwagon that hurtles by but the prospect is there, undoubtedly.
More deep shit.
Ok, I’ll correct you. We have the ships and the personnel to achieve (never mind attempt) a second Falklands.
It’s totemic, it’s the line in the sand on cuts. I’ve served there as part of it.
If a future Argentine junta were to seize the Falklands/Malvinas again I very much doubt we could pull off a second South Atlantic reclamation job.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we no longer have the ships or the aircraft to attempt a second Falklands expedition.
I can see us playing support roles - as with France in West Africa - but share @Arethosemyfeet's concerns about vainglorious geopolitical adventures. Blair got us into those with grim results.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I wouldn't put it past Starmer to sabre-rattle.
What a Trump in the White House, Starmer in Number 10 scenario would look like, I don't know. If it's Biden then belligerence may be on the cards. It wasn't just Bush Senior and Bush Junior who were inclined to intervene abroad. Obama dropped more than his fair share of bombs and drones.
Trump would go after Iran. He'd expect us to go with him and withdraw US funding from NATO if European countries didn't dance to his tune.
Things are pretty scary and precarious whoever gets into The White House.
The conflict in Ukraine doesn't look like it's going to be resolved any time soon. There's every chance also of escalation in the Middle-East.
Then there's China and Taiwan.
Belize and Brunei pale into insignificance against that background but any 'little local difficulty' can become a geo-political football.
Starmer's going to have to stabilise things pretty quickly. I don't think he'd leap on the first sabre-rattling bandwagon that hurtles by but the prospect is there, undoubtedly.
More deep shit.
Sir Keir will just have to ring them up, remind them that he used to be the DPP and it will be sorted.
If a future Argentine junta were to seize the Falklands/Malvinas again I very much doubt we could pull off a second South Atlantic reclamation job.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we no longer have the ships or the aircraft to attempt a second Falklands expedition.
I can see us playing support roles - as with France in West Africa - but share @Arethosemyfeet's concerns about vainglorious geopolitical adventures. Blair got us into those with grim results.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I wouldn't put it past Starmer to sabre-rattle.
What a Trump in the White House, Starmer in Number 10 scenario would look like, I don't know. If it's Biden then belligerence may be on the cards. It wasn't just Bush Senior and Bush Junior who were inclined to intervene abroad. Obama dropped more than his fair share of bombs and drones.
Trump would go after Iran. He'd expect us to go with him and withdraw US funding from NATO if European countries didn't dance to his tune.
Things are pretty scary and precarious whoever gets into The White House.
The conflict in Ukraine doesn't look like it's going to be resolved any time soon. There's every chance also of escalation in the Middle-East.
Then there's China and Taiwan.
Belize and Brunei pale into insignificance against that background but any 'little local difficulty' can become a geo-political football.
Starmer's going to have to stabilise things pretty quickly. I don't think he'd leap on the first sabre-rattling bandwagon that hurtles by but the prospect is there, undoubtedly.
More deep shit.
Sir Keir will just have to ring them up, remind them that he used to be the DPP and it will be sorted.
Sorry, that's way off message.
He'll remind them his dad was a tool maker.
Hee hee.
It is very annoying when Starmer repeats certain things but there is a reason. I'll leave it for others to decide if it's a good reason.
The key messages that Starmer wants to get across about himself include his background and professional history. Polling shows that there remains a significant number of people who do not know what Starmer's father did or his former role in charge of prosecutions. For those of us who follow these things it wears very thin, very quickly (we must all have heard it thousands of times now) but we are not the target.
If a future Argentine junta were to seize the Falklands/Malvinas again I very much doubt we could pull off a second South Atlantic reclamation job.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we no longer have the ships or the aircraft to attempt a second Falklands expedition.
I can see us playing support roles - as with France in West Africa - but share @Arethosemyfeet's concerns about vainglorious geopolitical adventures. Blair got us into those with grim results.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I wouldn't put it past Starmer to sabre-rattle.
What a Trump in the White House, Starmer in Number 10 scenario would look like, I don't know. If it's Biden then belligerence may be on the cards. It wasn't just Bush Senior and Bush Junior who were inclined to intervene abroad. Obama dropped more than his fair share of bombs and drones.
Trump would go after Iran. He'd expect us to go with him and withdraw US funding from NATO if European countries didn't dance to his tune.
Things are pretty scary and precarious whoever gets into The White House.
The conflict in Ukraine doesn't look like it's going to be resolved any time soon. There's every chance also of escalation in the Middle-East.
Then there's China and Taiwan.
Belize and Brunei pale into insignificance against that background but any 'little local difficulty' can become a geo-political football.
Starmer's going to have to stabilise things pretty quickly. I don't think he'd leap on the first sabre-rattling bandwagon that hurtles by but the prospect is there, undoubtedly.
More deep shit.
Sir Keir will just have to ring them up, remind them that he used to be the DPP and it will be sorted.
Sorry, that's way off message.
He'll remind them his dad was a tool maker.
Hee hee.
It is very annoying when Starmer repeats certain things but there is a reason. I'll leave it for others to decide if it's a good reason.
The key messages that Starmer wants to get across about himself include his background and professional history. Polling shows that there remains a significant number of people who do not know what Starmer's father did or his former role in charge of prosecutions. For those of us who follow these things it wears very thin, very quickly (we must all have heard it thousands of times now) but we are not the target.
AFZ
I get the repetition of simple phrases but he really didn't like it when the debate audience laughed at him for saying it did he? I think there's a fairly thin skin there unfortunately. Still, come Friday morning we'll all find out whether he's up to it or not I guess.
Saw an interview with an independent standing against Starmer in his constituency. Apparently while knocking on doors the independent found out that a decent amount of voters either don’t know he is their MP or don’t know their MP is PM.
There is a small chance he may be voted out but only small.
Saw an interview with an independent standing against Starmer in his constituency. Apparently while knocking on doors the independent found out that a decent amount of voters either don’t know he is their MP or don’t know their MP is PM.
There is a small chance he may be voted out but only small.
I would laugh for... really quite a long time if that happened. Not likely to, of course, but one can dream.
Absolutely, while conveniently forgetting that his father was the sole owner/proprietor of The Oxted Tool Co.
Why doesn't KS remind us he himself spent 6 months of his gap year working on the factory floor? Could it be that it might expose the inconvenient truth that his father owned the company, thus his promoted image of his father as the looked down on horny-handed son of toil is a myth?
In so-called blue collar circles toolmakers command great respect because they are very skilled: to have been a toolmaker and then founded and operated your own toolmaking company is a traditional Tory success story.
Absolutely, while conveniently forgetting that his father was the sole owner/proprietor of The Oxted Tool Co.
As above, I think what his father does is largely irrelevant, but I don't see why you think the fact that he was a sole trader (apparently because he found it difficult to get on with his coworkers) is significant.
'Authentocrat positioning' (good phrase, can I borrow it?) has long been a feature of political parties, both left and right.
A lot of the posh kids selling 'Seychellist Workah' outside the Students' Union when I was a callow yoof would affect working-class accents or that kind of cod 'right-on' accent you hear from time to time.
Other more mainstream parties have their equivalents.
Overall, Sir Ed Davey has performed quite well in this campaign, even though he's has to resort to 'It's A Knockout' style stunts to grab attention. Yet I know at least one Lib Dem who thinks he's overdone the 'I was a carer for my Mum ... I've got a son with disabilities ...' thing.
Few recent Labour politicians have had horny-handed sons of toil credentials. Yet the spotlight is always on what their parents did for a living or what school their kids attended.
Our hearts must surely bleed for Sunak though. Going without Sky TV as a child. I would have thought that was a positive advantage ...
'Authentocrat positioning' (good phrase, can I borrow it?) has long been a feature of political parties, both left and right.
Obviously younger people doing it is one thing, but it's different when it's being used - as here - to cover up a lack of policies that actually help the working class.
Labour politicians have done it for decades. It's not just a rebellious posh kids thing, nor a Starmer thing.
Nor is it confined to the Labour movement. Actors affecting 'mockney' or West Country folk affecting 'mummerset' or northerners trying to sound more 'northern'.
John Peel trying to sound as if he was from Liverpool.
Yes. It's gone on for decades and to the same extent too. Westminster has always drawn from a narrow coterie, irrespective of political party.
Hampstead Socialism is a thing.
I'm sure we've got it aboard Ship too.
(Ducks below parapet)
That doesn't mean, of course, that you can only be a Labourite if your Dad was a miner or steelworker.
I had a very Conservative work colleague who was always banging on about how many Labour MPs sent their kids to private schools or who had been to one themselves.
I don't regard that as a deal breaker. We need the Tony Benns.
Starmer's shifty though. He'll be in for a bumpy ride. He'll get it from both sides and won't be able to do right for doing wrong.
Oh I know how this goes. If you're middle class you're guilty of an ill-defined but clearly "bad" Champagne Socialism. If you're working class you're guilty of "politics of envy".
I file that pile of bullcrap along with "virtue signalling" - an accusation I parse as "I'm so empathy challenged that I can't imagine that someone might actually genuinely care about an oppressed group to which they do not belong".
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd never accuse anyone disadvantaged or working class of 'the politics of envy.'
Nor would I say that all Labour politicians, activists or supporters should all come from working class backgrounds. As I've said, we need the Tony Benns.
So, no, that's not how this goes.
FWIW I have a lot of time for much of what Wilson did and stood for. These things aren't binary.
'Virtue signalling' is a thing too. It's not confined to any particular ideology either, whether left, right and centre. There are equivalents in any special interest group, whether political, religious artistic, sporting or whatever else.
But yes, of course, terms like 'Champagne Socialist' or 'Virtue Signalling' can be used in the way #KarlLB describes.
Oh I know how this goes. If you're middle class you're guilty of an ill-defined but clearly "bad" Champagne Socialism. If you're working class you're guilty of "politics of envy".
I file that pile of bullcrap along with "virtue signalling" - an accusation I parse as "I'm so empathy challenged that I can't imagine that someone might actually genuinely care about an oppressed group to which they do not belong".
Oh I know how this goes. If you're middle class you're guilty of an ill-defined but clearly "bad" Champagne Socialism. If you're working class you're guilty of "politics of envy".
I file that pile of bullcrap along with "virtue signalling" - an accusation I parse as "I'm so empathy challenged that I can't imagine that someone might actually genuinely care about an oppressed group to which they do not belong".
I am working class and I have never been guilty of the politics of envy.
Oh I know how this goes. If you're middle class you're guilty of an ill-defined but clearly "bad" Champagne Socialism. If you're working class you're guilty of "politics of envy".
I file that pile of bullcrap along with "virtue signalling" - an accusation I parse as "I'm so empathy challenged that I can't imagine that someone might actually genuinely care about an oppressed group to which they do not belong".
I am working class and I have never been guilty of the politics of envy.
Absolutely, while conveniently forgetting that his father was the sole owner/proprietor of The Oxted Tool Co.
As above, I think what his father does is largely irrelevant, but I don't see why you think the fact that he was a sole trader (apparently because he found it difficult to get on with his coworkers) is significant.
Being a sole trader doesn't mean you work alone, it means there are no shareholders, it is all in your name. I can't understand why KS doesn't celebrate the fact that his father was a successful entrepreneur: on the one hand he wants us to applaud him as a humble manual worker, on the other he seems ashamed that he (to use an old-fashioned expression) made something of himself.
Oh I know how this goes. If you're middle class you're guilty of an ill-defined but clearly "bad" Champagne Socialism. If you're working class you're guilty of "politics of envy".
I file that pile of bullcrap along with "virtue signalling" - an accusation I parse as "I'm so empathy challenged that I can't imagine that someone might actually genuinely care about an oppressed group to which they do not belong".
I am working class and I have never been guilty of the politics of envy.
Nor has almost anybody else. That's the point.
I guess that's why Labour is putting VAT on education.
Absolutely, while conveniently forgetting that his father was the sole owner/proprietor of The Oxted Tool Co.
As above, I think what his father does is largely irrelevant, but I don't see why you think the fact that he was a sole trader (apparently because he found it difficult to get on with his coworkers) is significant.
Being a sole trader doesn't mean you work alone, it means there are no shareholders, it is all in your name. I can't understand why KS doesn't celebrate the fact that his father was a successful entrepreneur: on the one hand he wants us to applaud him as a humble manual worker, on the other he seems ashamed that he (to use an old-fashioned expression) made something of himself.
He has mentioned that his associates looked down on him because he was a toolmaker. Would other working class people be looking down on him ?
Absolutely, while conveniently forgetting that his father was the sole owner/proprietor of The Oxted Tool Co.
As above, I think what his father does is largely irrelevant, but I don't see why you think the fact that he was a sole trader (apparently because he found it difficult to get on with his coworkers) is significant.
Being a sole trader doesn't mean you work alone, it means there are no shareholders, it is all in your name. I can't understand why KS doesn't celebrate the fact that his father was a successful entrepreneur:
Rodney Starmer started work as a toolmaker in a factory. Due to being a difficult individual he ended up being self-employed, originally making tools to order in his garden shed, and then later renting a railway arch where again he worked alone.
It's not impossible to find these things out if you cast your net slightly wider than Guido and the like.
to have been a toolmaker and then founded and operated your own toolmaking company
There are plenty of people operating as contractors from within limited companies with a single employee. That doesn't make them PWC.
Someone once observed that the difference between the UK and the US is that if an American sees someone driving a Rolls Royce, they are likely to think, 'Hey, perhaps I ought to set up my own business and if I work hard enough, I may eventually be able to afford one of those ...'
A British person would think, 'Look at that rich bastard in that Rolls Royce ...'
Ok, I laughed but don't agree with the premise. The American Dream is largely illusory and social mobility is lower there - and here- than in most OPEC countries.
It was interesting, though, how an American priest reacted when I told him what my younger daughter's boyfriend does for a living. He sprays bodywork on cars, a skilled and reputable trade.
'Hey, perhaps he'll work his way up and one day be able to own and run his own garage.' Rhymes with Far...
Like as if he has to have that particular aspiration.
This country's obsession with class and status is rather different to that, but it's still there.
The fact that we are even having a conversation about Starmer's dad and whether he set up as a sole trader because he was an awkward bugger or because he was some kind of evil running dog of capitalism demonstrates that.
The fact that we are even having a conversation about Starmer's dad and whether he set up as a sole trader because he was an awkward bugger or because he was some kind of evil running dog of capitalism demonstrates that.
No, this wasn't the point at all. It was the implication that he was a lot more prosperous than Starmer made out because he "operated (his) own toolmaking company".
Sigh…seriously one can do better as a wage slave sometimes if prepared to put up with rubbish rather than sticking out one’ neck. It may have been that Old Man Starmer rather than being “ difficult” would not put up with any shit from the boss. We’ve all been there & done that.
The thing is there are several models of business, some bad (according to socialist philosophy), some good and some in between.
One person wants to set up a toolmaking business, goes to daddy for a low-interest loan and rents a workshop, buys the right gear, hires staff who he pays the least he can get away with and then lives an easy life on the profits. Socialism would class this as evil capitalism, barely better than a big multinational conglomerate making tools.
Another person works making tools for someone, and decides he wants the freedom to work their own way and sets up their own business. Spends most of the day in the workshop making tools, does well at it and hires a few more staff and takes on an apprentice or two. Works hard, takes home a bit more than the best paid employee but is in it for the joy of making tools and freedom to work as they want. Some socialists would accept this as a valid business model, providing skilled and well paid work without anyone getting filthy rich off someone elses labour; others would still call it private enterprise and less than ideal.
A group of toolmakers get fed up with working for capitalists, and set up their own workers cooperative to make tools, sharing the risks and sharing profits. This would be in line with socialism, and generally seen as the best business model.
To the best of my knowledge, ie: from the little detail I've seen reported, Starmer's dad falls into the middle of those versions of "owning a toolmakers factory". That would only be a problem for the most extreme "no private enterprise at all" groups of socialists, most wouldn't object to that at all unless he'd starting underpaying staff and cutting safety to increase his financial returns and hang out at the golf club rather than put in an honest days work.
In the end it does not matter since this should be about Starmer the man rather than whether Labour heavies think he has sufficient cred to be a suitable PM.
…lives an easy life on the profits … Works hard, takes home a bit more than the best paid employee but is in it for the joy of making tools and freedom to work as they want … hang out at the golf club rather than put in an honest days work.
It’s this kind of fetishisation of hard work and toil, with the associated disdain for “the easy life”, that means I could never be a true socialist.
Because, and I mean this with all my heart, FUCK work.
I may never get to be one of the ones who get to hang out at the golf club all day rather than pissing away my life toiling at shit I don’t care about or want to do, but if one side is offering me the slight possibility of being able to achieve that goal while the other side is saying nobody should ever be allowed to do it then it’s a no brainer as far as I’m concerned.
…lives an easy life on the profits … Works hard, takes home a bit more than the best paid employee but is in it for the joy of making tools and freedom to work as they want … hang out at the golf club rather than put in an honest days work.
It’s this kind of fetishisation of hard work and toil, with the associated disdain for “the easy life”, that means I could never be a true socialist.
I don't think all schools of socialism adopt the same attitude towards work.
Comments
Sir Keir will just have to ring them up, remind them that he used to be the DPP and it will be sorted.
It wasn't meant to be a joke. I suspect he will be reminding us till the day he conks out.
Ok, I’ll correct you. We have the ships and the personnel to achieve (never mind attempt) a second Falklands.
It’s totemic, it’s the line in the sand on cuts. I’ve served there as part of it.
He'll remind them his dad was a tool maker.
Hee hee.
It is very annoying when Starmer repeats certain things but there is a reason. I'll leave it for others to decide if it's a good reason.
The key messages that Starmer wants to get across about himself include his background and professional history. Polling shows that there remains a significant number of people who do not know what Starmer's father did or his former role in charge of prosecutions. For those of us who follow these things it wears very thin, very quickly (we must all have heard it thousands of times now) but we are not the target.
AFZ
I get the repetition of simple phrases but he really didn't like it when the debate audience laughed at him for saying it did he? I think there's a fairly thin skin there unfortunately. Still, come Friday morning we'll all find out whether he's up to it or not I guess.
Change. Change. Change.
He's going to have to act quickly on that one otherwise it's, 'Plus ca change ...'
Sorry, don't know how to type a cedilla or squiggly thing on my phone ...
There is a small chance he may be voted out but only small.
I would laugh for... really quite a long time if that happened. Not likely to, of course, but one can dream.
It only matters what his father did if authentocrat positioning is more important than policies.
Absolutely, while conveniently forgetting that his father was the sole owner/proprietor of The Oxted Tool Co.
Why doesn't KS remind us he himself spent 6 months of his gap year working on the factory floor? Could it be that it might expose the inconvenient truth that his father owned the company, thus his promoted image of his father as the looked down on horny-handed son of toil is a myth?
In so-called blue collar circles toolmakers command great respect because they are very skilled: to have been a toolmaker and then founded and operated your own toolmaking company is a traditional Tory success story.
As above, I think what his father does is largely irrelevant, but I don't see why you think the fact that he was a sole trader (apparently because he found it difficult to get on with his coworkers) is significant.
A lot of the posh kids selling 'Seychellist Workah' outside the Students' Union when I was a callow yoof would affect working-class accents or that kind of cod 'right-on' accent you hear from time to time.
Other more mainstream parties have their equivalents.
Overall, Sir Ed Davey has performed quite well in this campaign, even though he's has to resort to 'It's A Knockout' style stunts to grab attention. Yet I know at least one Lib Dem who thinks he's overdone the 'I was a carer for my Mum ... I've got a son with disabilities ...' thing.
Few recent Labour politicians have had horny-handed sons of toil credentials. Yet the spotlight is always on what their parents did for a living or what school their kids attended.
Our hearts must surely bleed for Sunak though. Going without Sky TV as a child. I would have thought that was a positive advantage ...
Good gaff mind.
Obviously younger people doing it is one thing, but it's different when it's being used - as here - to cover up a lack of policies that actually help the working class.
Nor is it confined to the Labour movement. Actors affecting 'mockney' or West Country folk affecting 'mummerset' or northerners trying to sound more 'northern'.
John Peel trying to sound as if he was from Liverpool.
Not to the same extent, which was evident even to the studio audience of the day.
No, it really won't.
Harold Wilson was the master of it - beer and pipe when the public/cameras were around, brandy and cigars when they weren't.
Hampstead Socialism is a thing.
I'm sure we've got it aboard Ship too.
(Ducks below parapet)
That doesn't mean, of course, that you can only be a Labourite if your Dad was a miner or steelworker.
I had a very Conservative work colleague who was always banging on about how many Labour MPs sent their kids to private schools or who had been to one themselves.
I don't regard that as a deal breaker. We need the Tony Benns.
Starmer's shifty though. He'll be in for a bumpy ride. He'll get it from both sides and won't be able to do right for doing wrong.
I don't envy him.
Sure, and "Hamstead Socialism" is definitely not on offer, which is not something you could say about Wilson.
I file that pile of bullcrap along with "virtue signalling" - an accusation I parse as "I'm so empathy challenged that I can't imagine that someone might actually genuinely care about an oppressed group to which they do not belong".
Nor would I say that all Labour politicians, activists or supporters should all come from working class backgrounds. As I've said, we need the Tony Benns.
So, no, that's not how this goes.
FWIW I have a lot of time for much of what Wilson did and stood for. These things aren't binary.
'Virtue signalling' is a thing too. It's not confined to any particular ideology either, whether left, right and centre. There are equivalents in any special interest group, whether political, religious artistic, sporting or whatever else.
But yes, of course, terms like 'Champagne Socialist' or 'Virtue Signalling' can be used in the way #KarlLB describes.
It's all down to context.
This.
1000% this.
Nor has almost anybody else. That's the point.
He's alluding to an accusation that has been levelled at the left by those on the right.
Not that all working class people are left-wing of course, any more than all middle-class people are right-wing.
Being a sole trader doesn't mean you work alone, it means there are no shareholders, it is all in your name. I can't understand why KS doesn't celebrate the fact that his father was a successful entrepreneur: on the one hand he wants us to applaud him as a humble manual worker, on the other he seems ashamed that he (to use an old-fashioned expression) made something of himself.
I guess that's why Labour is putting VAT on education.
He has mentioned that his associates looked down on him because he was a toolmaker. Would other working class people be looking down on him ?
Rodney Starmer started work as a toolmaker in a factory. Due to being a difficult individual he ended up being self-employed, originally making tools to order in his garden shed, and then later renting a railway arch where again he worked alone.
It's not impossible to find these things out if you cast your net slightly wider than Guido and the like.
There are plenty of people operating as contractors from within limited companies with a single employee. That doesn't make them PWC.
I assumed Price Waterhouse Coopers, but I could be wrong.
In this case, it used to, but they’re quite clear it doesn’t now. It’s a company called PWC.
In much the same way as we should probably always write Fabbrica Italiana Automobili di Torino…
I did wonder whether it was one of those situations but couldn't be arsed checking.
A British person would think, 'Look at that rich bastard in that Rolls Royce ...'
Ok, I laughed but don't agree with the premise. The American Dream is largely illusory and social mobility is lower there - and here- than in most OPEC countries.
It was interesting, though, how an American priest reacted when I told him what my younger daughter's boyfriend does for a living. He sprays bodywork on cars, a skilled and reputable trade.
'Hey, perhaps he'll work his way up and one day be able to own and run his own garage.' Rhymes with Far...
Like as if he has to have that particular aspiration.
This country's obsession with class and status is rather different to that, but it's still there.
The fact that we are even having a conversation about Starmer's dad and whether he set up as a sole trader because he was an awkward bugger or because he was some kind of evil running dog of capitalism demonstrates that.
No, this wasn't the point at all. It was the implication that he was a lot more prosperous than Starmer made out because he "operated (his) own toolmaking company".
😂 ‘my dad was a rubbish toolmaker’ would have been a different story certainly!
Also, for much of the time he was the sole mechanic working there.
I rather think Rodney Starmer’s Oxted Tool Co business was a similar setup.
I can’t find an online source I feel able to trust for further information, and many are paywalled.
One person wants to set up a toolmaking business, goes to daddy for a low-interest loan and rents a workshop, buys the right gear, hires staff who he pays the least he can get away with and then lives an easy life on the profits. Socialism would class this as evil capitalism, barely better than a big multinational conglomerate making tools.
Another person works making tools for someone, and decides he wants the freedom to work their own way and sets up their own business. Spends most of the day in the workshop making tools, does well at it and hires a few more staff and takes on an apprentice or two. Works hard, takes home a bit more than the best paid employee but is in it for the joy of making tools and freedom to work as they want. Some socialists would accept this as a valid business model, providing skilled and well paid work without anyone getting filthy rich off someone elses labour; others would still call it private enterprise and less than ideal.
A group of toolmakers get fed up with working for capitalists, and set up their own workers cooperative to make tools, sharing the risks and sharing profits. This would be in line with socialism, and generally seen as the best business model.
To the best of my knowledge, ie: from the little detail I've seen reported, Starmer's dad falls into the middle of those versions of "owning a toolmakers factory". That would only be a problem for the most extreme "no private enterprise at all" groups of socialists, most wouldn't object to that at all unless he'd starting underpaying staff and cutting safety to increase his financial returns and hang out at the golf club rather than put in an honest days work.
In the end it does not matter since this should be about Starmer the man rather than whether Labour heavies think he has sufficient cred to be a suitable PM.
Seems that the die is already cast
She used to have Tory sympathies but no longer.
Just happens that local MP is not only Labour but a university educated British-born person of colour.
It’s this kind of fetishisation of hard work and toil, with the associated disdain for “the easy life”, that means I could never be a true socialist.
Because, and I mean this with all my heart, FUCK work.
I may never get to be one of the ones who get to hang out at the golf club all day rather than pissing away my life toiling at shit I don’t care about or want to do, but if one side is offering me the slight possibility of being able to achieve that goal while the other side is saying nobody should ever be allowed to do it then it’s a no brainer as far as I’m concerned.
I don't think all schools of socialism adopt the same attitude towards work.
(with apologies to Jerome K Jerome)