Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

In thinking that Left = Good and Right = Bad has gone too far?

297 replies

WilmaFlintstone1 · 17/05/2022 16:25

A few things have made me pause in the last few days and I realised I have become increasingly irritated by the Left vs Right discourse,

Take the recent spat between Lee Anderson and Jack Monroe. Now neither of them covered themselves in glory but I don’t think demonising him because he is Tory and praising Jack because she is a Lefty is right. They both have deep flaws and neither is getting it right.

The Margaret Thatcher statue is another thing. Why are people pelting it with eggs? Firstly in a country where there are food shortages it’s immoral to be doing this. Secondly I am not getting the wholesale glee with which certain commentators are reporting it. The very woke lot being all “hey, people are selling eggs by the statue” to wholesale amusement. I just keep thinking “FFS get over yourselves.”

Now I hated Margaret Thatcher BUT she was the first female PM which was in itself a massive step forwards. I am not about to go pelting her statue with eggs, yes I’d rather the investment has been put into local services in that community but pelting a statue with eggs won’t change that.

Its become as though some people will pass any behaviour because it’s Lefties sticking it to the Right.

For removal of all speculation I’d probably consider myself a Lefty and they tend to get my vote…for what that’s worth in my heavily Blue area Grin

isn’t it possible that there are deep flaws both sides?

OP posts:
TheScenicWay · 17/05/2022 22:09

@SoManyQuestionsHere ask anyone who work in schools and with kids and they can tell you any number of stories of parents who don't take care of their kids. It's not everyone's primal urge to ensure their dcs have food, unfortunately. I do believe that salaries are too low as well, which cause families to struggle.

SamReiver · 17/05/2022 22:10

SoManyQuestionsHere · 17/05/2022 22:04

Yeah, and, so THIS is why I am, always have been, forever will be a fucking leftie:

The odd psychopaths aside: NO it is not, has never been, will never be parents who let kids go hungry!

Parents risk their lives, sacrifice their happiness, fight tooth, claw and nail, to preserve their young.

It's not even a choice or "human" nature as such - this is what millions of years of evolution have primed us to do. And by "us" I mean "humans, domestic cats, and sloths alike!".

It's primal instinct!

So much for the question in the OP: right wingers lend themselves to the "bad" image because they come out with shit such as "parents let their kids starve".

And I say this as - see previous posts - a lefty who critically engages with my own side.

You’re saying how it should be, not how it is. There have always been parents who’ll spend the shopping money on drink and cigarettes.

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:10

@SoManyQuestionsHere yeah agree. Also there's such a cognitive dissonance there. So you have these governments - Thatcher, Cameron, May, Johnson (I'm not including major, he was more of a straight economic fuckup) - on the one hand preaching self sufficiency then on the other hand passing legislation that restricts people's ability to support themselves or indeed to have meaningful self determination. It's nonsensical.

SamReiver · 17/05/2022 22:14

pointythings · 17/05/2022 22:03

@SamReiver the narrative of the feckless unemployed person who wastes their money on alcohol and cigarettes at the expense of their children is a right wing trope as old as time. It's been very nicely weaponised by the current Tories - well done, you fell for it.

Fact is, Thatcher's reforms meant an end to affordable rented housing and some of the highest housing costs in Europe as a proportion of income. Then there were several decades where there was no minimum wage - remind me, who abolished that?

Of course it is a parent's responsibility to feed their children, but I know too many people - most working! - who do not smoke, drink, go out etc. and still need food banks. So stop it with that crap, please.

I didn’t fall for it, I saw it lived out through school friends and neighbours.

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:16

@SamReiver a couple? Who measures economic means in multiples of two? I mean yeah two people on minimum wage have a (pre tax) income of £36k. A group of four friends on minimum wage has a pre tax income of £72k. A village of a hundred people on minimum wage has a pre tax income of £180k. You could amuse yourself forever multiplying £18k but it doesn't tell you anything.

1Week · 17/05/2022 22:20

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:16

@SamReiver a couple? Who measures economic means in multiples of two? I mean yeah two people on minimum wage have a (pre tax) income of £36k. A group of four friends on minimum wage has a pre tax income of £72k. A village of a hundred people on minimum wage has a pre tax income of £180k. You could amuse yourself forever multiplying £18k but it doesn't tell you anything.

It would give you a rough idea of a household income surely.

Obviously 2 people working to run 1 household is better than 2 people working to run households. The village thing is irrelevant.

SamReiver · 17/05/2022 22:22

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:16

@SamReiver a couple? Who measures economic means in multiples of two? I mean yeah two people on minimum wage have a (pre tax) income of £36k. A group of four friends on minimum wage has a pre tax income of £72k. A village of a hundred people on minimum wage has a pre tax income of £180k. You could amuse yourself forever multiplying £18k but it doesn't tell you anything.

The ONS measure household income. It’s quite common for a household to have two adults in it.

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:24

This is a mistake though isn't it.

Household composition is for individuals to decide. Wage determination is a separate matter, not based around a random notion of household composition.

SamReiver · 17/05/2022 22:26

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:10

@SoManyQuestionsHere yeah agree. Also there's such a cognitive dissonance there. So you have these governments - Thatcher, Cameron, May, Johnson (I'm not including major, he was more of a straight economic fuckup) - on the one hand preaching self sufficiency then on the other hand passing legislation that restricts people's ability to support themselves or indeed to have meaningful self determination. It's nonsensical.

You think the state has placed limits on your ability to support yourself?

It educated you to age eighteen. It provides roads, the rule of law and infrastructure throughout your life. It’s simply not tenable to blame the state if you can’t support yourself in the UK.

SkiingIsHeaven · 17/05/2022 22:27

The loonies should give their eggs to the food bank if they are not eating them.

Socialists are supposed to support those less fortunate or in need.

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:27

Take home after central taxation on NMW is £15632. Deduct another £1200 council tax for actual take home of £14432. Not very much, is it?

SamReiver · 17/05/2022 22:30

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:27

Take home after central taxation on NMW is £15632. Deduct another £1200 council tax for actual take home of £14432. Not very much, is it?

If you are struggling to get by on minimum wage what’s stopping you from earning more?

You are giving the impression here that it’s not your own responsibility.

SoManyQuestionsHere · 17/05/2022 22:32

@Dauncets, same basic principle as always!

See also:

  • Abortion: "no, we don't think you should be allowed to have one - but, no, we also don't see how we should put the social safety structures into place to help you avoid the choice between termination and poverty!"
  • Education: "get one if you want a better job! But also: take out loans to pay for it. And also: we tell EVERYONE this, so the comparative advantage of your degree is highly inflationary, but you'll still have to pay these loans back, and that's sort of also your fault! Because ... reasons!"
  • Health: "It's basically your own responsibility to look after yourself, and you're a miserable failure if you don't (also: it's totally your fault)! But we are totally pro free-market, though, and if that happens to mean that the most affordable food / entertainment options are also the least healthy ones, we'll blame you for picking them, getting fat and developing diabetes. We'll also pontificate to you about why don't you just go for a walk in the park. As though you could afford to live anywhere near a park that's reasonably safe to take a stroll in. But that's also your fault"

I could go on!

1Week · 17/05/2022 22:33

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:24

This is a mistake though isn't it.

Household composition is for individuals to decide. Wage determination is a separate matter, not based around a random notion of household composition.

That's part of the consideration when you compose your household though.
You need to work x hours a day to afford to live, and you need to look after kids for 24 hours a day. 24 + x is impossible for one person, so its either a couple scenario or benefits from tax.
You either save for old age or illness or someone else pays for you, family or tax payers.

Of course the details are complicated but at root that's what's required, politics is the fight about the details of how we afford to live. How much we put into the pot and how much we take out.

Extremely complicated in a modern advanced society

SoManyQuestionsHere · 17/05/2022 22:35

To be fair: the student loans / inflationary value of degrees / tuition fees situation is sort of New Labour's fuck-up originally. Point still stands.

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:37

I personally support myself just fine Sam M8. But I recognise that the successive shades of neoliberalism we've had in charge of the UK culminating in us literally printing money for the past fifteen years have brought us gradually to the point we are now where earnings are devalued in both real and actual terms while assets are grossly overvalued. This kind of wonky economic setup does make it more difficult for people to be self sufficient as can be seen by the billions we are all collectively spending on in work benefits for millions of employees whose wages are just not worth enough.

cluecu · 17/05/2022 22:38

One of my issues with Thatcher is that she didn't seem to understand that not everyone is born into or brought up with the tools to know how to make their situation better. There are all sorts of social and psychological reasons as to why people can be trapped.

She was fortunate in many more ways other than simply financial. It's not always as simple as working harder or making the right choices. That's often a privilege that's given or not given before you're even born

Fluval · 17/05/2022 22:42

SamReiver · 17/05/2022 22:30

If you are struggling to get by on minimum wage what’s stopping you from earning more?

You are giving the impression here that it’s not your own responsibility.

There are about 2 million people in the UK working for minimum wage (or less). Do you think they could all simply find new, higher paying jobs if they just had a little more get-up-and-go?

And if that did happen, who’s going to do all of the now-vacated minimum wage jobs?

Kendodd · 17/05/2022 22:44

Not read thread but wanted to pick up one point.
We don't have food shortages in the UK we have poverty. Children going hungry in a land of plenty. That is a political choice.

1Week · 17/05/2022 22:47

cluecu · 17/05/2022 22:38

One of my issues with Thatcher is that she didn't seem to understand that not everyone is born into or brought up with the tools to know how to make their situation better. There are all sorts of social and psychological reasons as to why people can be trapped.

She was fortunate in many more ways other than simply financial. It's not always as simple as working harder or making the right choices. That's often a privilege that's given or not given before you're even born

Honest question - who is responsible for the giving of that privilege?

The complex dynamics of state, of subculture, of parents and individuals means we can't say who or what is failing to 'give' it. It's not really a privilege, in my mind, if that is so.

How can we ensure that everyone is equally fortunate in that regard? I can't see how it can be done

Dauncets · 17/05/2022 22:48

@SoManyQuestionsHere agree with all of that. These fuckers pass legislation that puts people in invidious situations and then castigates those same people for being in the place designated for them.

They're going to have to watch themselves though. People are getting angry and there's only so far you can distract them with divide and conquer when they're working full time but can't put their heating on or buy petrol. There is, hopefully, a tipping point where people will realise that they themselves are neither incompetent nor feckless but that their government probably is.

SoManyQuestionsHere · 17/05/2022 22:51

@cluecu, that's precisely what I meant by "they need us one in thousands to keep the fairy tale alive".

Yes, I was born and raised working-class. Yes, I now make 4x as much and more than my parents ever did, combined, at their best.

Yes, I'm a "rags to riches" story, and as such, I am successful.

But also: yes, I worked hard. In fact, I've worked my arse off. Much more so than my colleagues who went into it all with a head-start. But A LOT of it was also just sheer, dumb luck: I am clever! I was fortunate to have parents who prioritised education for me and my siblings. I lucked the hell out when I had a teacher who told them "you must have her take A-levels and go to uni, she's destined for it", and when my parents took that advice. I was even more lucky when I was pretty accidentally "talent spotted" by a major corporation that would never, typically, have recruited from the 3rd tier uni I attended.

I'm one of those "self-reliance, taking responsibility" poster children. And, yes, I've worked myself to near death to be what I am today - but 90% of it was STILL sheer dumb luck.

THAT is why I don't buy into the narrative!

1Week · 17/05/2022 22:53

Fluval · 17/05/2022 22:42

There are about 2 million people in the UK working for minimum wage (or less). Do you think they could all simply find new, higher paying jobs if they just had a little more get-up-and-go?

And if that did happen, who’s going to do all of the now-vacated minimum wage jobs?

What's the age profile of people working for NMW, do we have stats on people who work NMW all their lives?
I don't have much beef really with young people in their first working years being on MNW. It makes sense when you're inexperienced and just learning skills.

That's a different scenario of course to being 35 and supporting children etc and still trapped in NMW. And don't get me started on gig economy, alright as a short term side thing but not nearly good or secure enough as a main job.

TheScenicWay · 17/05/2022 22:58

@SoManyQuestionsHere I do believe that hard work pays, some luck of course. I mean, it's down to luck that any of us are even alive, but coming from an immigrant community with our own battles as well as racism to deal with, I firmly believe that hard work counts for a hell of a lot.

Fluval · 17/05/2022 22:59

1Week · 17/05/2022 22:53

What's the age profile of people working for NMW, do we have stats on people who work NMW all their lives?
I don't have much beef really with young people in their first working years being on MNW. It makes sense when you're inexperienced and just learning skills.

That's a different scenario of course to being 35 and supporting children etc and still trapped in NMW. And don't get me started on gig economy, alright as a short term side thing but not nearly good or secure enough as a main job.

A good question that I’d also be interested in knowing the answer to, but have been unable to find myself.

Swipe left for the next trending thread