Day 165, punches, politics, poverty, sedition

As parliament is dissolved one of the last acts of the Prime Minister was to convey his support, albeit through the proxy of his daughter and her threatened hunger strike.  This is clearly a stand-out moment in his Premiership.

When was the last PM to be an advocate of beating an employee that had failed to provide an evening meal?  Even Thatcher had the shame to pretend that her (our) employees, the Police, had been attacked by her (our) employees the miners even though the situation was that she had sort of set the Police on the miners.  In effect using the police to beat up the miners by proxy - politicians do a lot of this 'proxy' stuff don't they?  Is that to prevent them being tarred with the shit, a filthy mixture at the best of times?

Putting Thatcher to one side - the case of the nations employees being set against each other is more complex than a biffing over a steak - then how far back do we have to go?

My knowledge of these sort of matters is scant at best, and as usual in these sort of situations I resort to the historical information amassed by watching all thirty-ish (including specials) episodes of Blackadder.  This doesn't really help.  So let's resort to making it up.

The Victorians, they were a feisty lot, often not (never?) particularly bothered about the rights of those employed.  Usually those employed would have been servants, slaves, that nameless grubby bunch down at the mill, etc.  Employees on similar terms to current zero hours contracts, forced or coerced to send their children to Sunday School, for which they had to pay for the privilege, otherwise they wouldn't receive the kindly eye of the employer and they would be out on their ears. Effectively 'you will conform' otherwise we won't employ you, a bit like a smack in the face and a bloody lip, sort of.  Ok, so that comes from my thirty-odd year old memory of reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, a book published in 1914, slightly after the Victorians.

Some other Victorians then?  Well they were a rum bunch, invading other countries, stripping the mineral assets, imposing rules and conventions for social control - religion, bureaucracy, railway timetables.  They also were very vocal about philanthropy, and assisting those from the lower orders by helping tidy up the unhealthy living conditions of the slums, mainly by evicting the residents, knocking the tenements down and building railways in their place, thus it was much cleaner, "the peasants you say? No, they aren't here now, no, no idea where the went, is it important?"

So there we have it, an incisive analysis of the workers right to be punched by their employer.  More power to their elbow. And the former PM agrees, even if he daren't say it himself and has to get his daughter to stick up for his neighbour and bezzie mate, by proxy.


What a rotten lot.