Sassenach wrote:Like "The Obama Administration" means the cabinet and executive officers of the American Government? I saw on a website "the Callaghan Ministry" (so I thought that was roughly analogous, then, since the office of the Prime Minister itself I have seen referred to as the "premiership", I suppose.)
Without having seen the context it's difficult to comment on the 'Callaghan ministry' thing, but it could have referred either to the ministry during the time of the Callaghan government or to an earlier time when Callaghan was the Secretary of State for a particular ministry. Either way, 'ministry' always refers to a specific department of state rather than the government as a whole.
On Wikipedia, and in other contexts, there is the use of the term "ministry" to refer to a Prime Minister's term of office, eg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... overnmentsIn which case yes, it does actually serve as a synonym for the government under that PM. I guess this comes from the fact that the Prime Minster is themselves a "Minister" (and before they were called PM, they were the "First Lord of the Treasury". )
So it is a bit confusing. A simple(ish?) guide:
HM Government = the government
The [PM's name, possibly numbered for multiple/non-consecutive terms] Ministry = the government of that PM at the time
Premier = Prime Minister (the PM is the now official title in the UK, "Premier" is our generic term for a head of government in any )
You once said that a lot of trade unionists aren't all that socially progressive, just economically (you didn't put it like that but I took away from it that that's what you meant).
I don't remember what I said, but that's a pretty fair description of reality. Trade unionists tend to be authentically working class, which distinguishes them from the leadership elites of most left-wing parties that notionally exist to serve their interests. You won't find many more socially conservative people than the old-school working classes. The Labour party (and I assume the Democrats and other progressive parties) is a loose coalition between working class trade union types who care mostly about the economic interests of their members and middle-class intellectual types who are motivated by their social agenda. The latter have tended to dominate the leadership and control the media, but the former are far more numerous.
I think that is somewhat simplistic and relies a little on generalised stereotypes. I have known working class trade unionists who are also very socially progressive, and middle class non-unionists who are socially conservative. And within the Labour Party, too.
After all, I was brought up in a council house, from a working class family and mainly with friends from the same background. I went to a normal comprehensive school, but for sixth form I went over to the next town, which was far more middle class.
Let's put it this way: It's not that I never saw racism or prejudice among my peers, but it was not until I went to a middle class school that I saw people openly expressing support for the BNP.
For Hacker, the British Nationalist Party were the inheritors of our small but occasionally virulent fascist tradition, going back to the Mosleyites who supported Hitler and bashed Jews in the 30s, and on to "Britain First" and the EDL of today. Now, they also purport to be for the (white, British/English) working classes, but it's striking how many of the leadership of those organisations are also actually from a privileged background.
Also, the earlier comment:
Sassenach wrote:This has left the core Labour vote as benefits claimants, immigrants and public sector workers.
Again, let's see the evidence on that, rather than the stereotype?
For one thing, many immigrants cannot vote in UK general elections, and many people in the "underclass" do not vote. I don't dispute the public sector vote thing, but a lot of professionals like doctors and teachers I know have voted Tory recently. Probably regretting it bitterly now, though.