Keir Starmer, the establishment's chosen representative

Keir Starmer received his knighthood prior to embarking on his political career. As a latecomer to the political arena, he was swiftly elevated by the Establishment and positioned as the leader of the Labour Party with a specific purpose: to uphold the existing order and perpetuate the façade of democracy in this manipulated game of musical chairs.

He is regarded as a reliable and experienced figure, having served as the head of the Crown Prosecution Service and as a member of the Trilateral Commission. He played a key role in the prosecution of Julian Assange and led efforts to remove leftist elements from the Labour Party, initiating a controversial campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and others, whom he expelled based on questionable allegations of antisemitism. 

Isn't the title "Sir" indicative of his status?

As long as we, the chickens, continue to vote for the wolf or the fox, we should not be surprised that we remain vulnerable to being devoured!

Pennies from heaven!

Senior executives at Thames Water, which is in trouble,will be awarded generous'retention incentives' as part of a £3 billion emergency loan arrangement. This financial support it is claimed at helping the utility avoid the threat of renationalisation believe it or not.

The decision to provide these incentives has sparked significant backlash from both customers and environmental groups, who argue that it prioritizes executive compensation over essential infrastructure improvements and customer service. Critics emphasize that such financial rewards for executives come at a time when many households are struggling with rising water bills and service disruptions.

Thames Water, which has been under scrutiny for its management practices and environmental impact, insists that these retention packages are necessary to keep experienced leaders during a critical period. The utility aims to stabilize its operations and implement a comprehensive plan to address its financial challenges, including significant investments in water quality and sustainability initiatives.

As the company tries to navigate this tumultuous period, it faces mounting pressure from regulators and the public to demonstrate accountability and transparency. Stakeholders are calling for a clear commitment to improving service delivery and reducing environmental harm, rather than focusing on executive bonuses that could alienate the very customers they serve.

In response to the outcry, Thames Water has promised to engage more closely with its customers and stakeholders, outlining a roadmap for long-term improvements while addressing immediate financial concerns. Nonetheless, the controversy over executive pay raises important questions about corporate governance and the priorities of public utilities in times of crisis.

The privatization of water services in England is a remarkable exception globally, as 90% of countries manage these operations through state ownership. Notably, it is the sole country in Europe that has transferred its water resources—including pipelines, reservoirs, borehole's, and treatment facilities—to private ownership, primarily held by a mix of sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure investors, and pension funds. This move to place water—a natural monopoly—into private hands contradicted the Thatcherite principles of competition and efficiency. The reality is that there was never a viable option to create competition among companies to enhance service standards, as no alternative water supplier exists to vie for a household's patronage.

A BBC investigation has uncovered that three prominent water companies unlawfully discharged sewage numerous times last year, even on dry days.

The notion that discharging sewage into our waterways can be viewed as permissible under any circumstances is alarming. It highlights the failure of privatized water companies to adhere to the already lenient regulations designed to safeguard our rivers and seas from pollution. These companies have received backing from their Conservative allies, who, in decline to support an amendment to the Environmental Bill that would have imposed a legal obligation on water companies to refrain from discharging hazardous sewage into rivers.

The ongoing crisis of water privatization shows no signs of abating. Recent data obtained by Surfers Against Sewage reveals a significant rise in severe sewage pollution events, reaching a decade-high. In 2024, there were 2,487 such incidents, which is more than double the threshold established by the Environment Agency (EA).     (Sauce: The Canary)

This figure is distinct from the total sewage spill count, which amounted to 3.614 million hours of discharges into our lakes, rivers, and seas in 2024.

The EA had set an objective for water companies to achieve a collective 40% reduction in pollution incidents compared to 2016 levels. However, the reality has been a troubling 31% increase instead.

Over the past thirty years, the private water monopolies in the country, which initially started and operated without any debt, have accumulated £64 billion in borrowings while disbursing over £78 billion in dividends to their shareholders.

Enough is enough – we must reject planned welfare cuts

Keir Starmer's preparations for a key vote on reducing sick and disability benefits are facing a significant amount of internal dissent within the Labour Party. A potential increase in poverty levels is being attributed to the proposed reforms that involve tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) that could potentially deprive hundreds of thousands of vital support.

The situation has intensified after local election results, which resulted in Labour losing a by-election by a narrow margin, leading many MPs to express their fears about voter backlash.

A growing number of Labour MPs, including both seasoned and new members, are voicing opposition to the cuts, citing the need for reforms that prioritise care, compassion, and fairness.

Diane Abbott has been particularly outspoken, drawing parallels between the present situation and past political missteps and requesting that the government reconsider the proposed cuts.

A significant number of MPs, many of whom have historically aligned with party leadership, have signed letters opposing the reforms, signalling a potential shift in party dynamics.

This rebellion appears to be more pronounced than in previous votes, and there are calls among MPs for the government to delay the vote for further consultation. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has defended the reforms, arguing that they are necessary to help people transition into work, but her comments have not alleviated the concerns within the party. As the vote approaches, tensions are expected to rise, making this a crucial time for Starmer's leadership and Labour's approach to welfare policy.

The situation within the Labour Party reflects deep divisions regarding welfare policy, particularly as it pertains to the proposed cuts to sickness and disability benefits. The reforms outlined by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall are seen by many as potentially harmful, threatening the financial support of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including children. The prospect of increased poverty resonates strongly with MPs who are concerned about the party's image and electoral viability.

The letters sent to Prime Minister Starmer from a coalition of MPs reflect a growing urgency for a re-evaluation of the party's stance on these cuts. The fact that even those typically aligned with the leadership are expressing dissent indicates a significant shift in internal dynamics. Reports suggest that up to 80 MPs may be preparing to express their concerns, signalling a potential turning point in how Labour approaches welfare issues.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves' defence of the cuts emphasises a focus on transitioning individuals into work, a stance that aligns with broader government narratives about welfare reform. However, this perspective is met with scepticism from many within the party, who argue that it overlooks the immediate needs of those who cannot work due to disabilities or other barriers.

As the vote on the PIP reforms approaches, the tension within the Parliamentary Labour Party is palpable. There are calls for a delay to allow for further consultation and reevaluation of the proposed changes. If the vote proceeds as scheduled, analysts anticipate that the level of rebellion among Labour MPs could surpass previous instances, reflecting the seriousness of the situation and the stakes involved for both the party's leadership and its broader electoral prospects.

Overall, this moment represents a critical juncture for Labour as it grapples with balancing the need for welfare reform with its foundational principles of supporting the most vulnerable in society. The outcome of this internal conflict could have lasting implications for the party's future direction and electoral success.

Harold Wilson's Labour Party 

Harold Wilson, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during the 1960s and 1970s, was a prominent figure in the Labour Party and a key architect of the post-war welfare state. His government was characterised by a commitment to expanding and strengthening social welfare programmes. Here’s how Wilson and his generation might have viewed the contemporary welfare reforms being proposed, particularly those involving cuts to benefits like Personal Independence Payments (PIP):

Commitment to the Welfare State: Wilson and his contemporaries were strong proponents of the welfare state, believing that it was essential to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in society. They viewed welfare as a fundamental right and a necessary component of a fair and just society. In this context, significant cuts to benefits would likely have been seen as a betrayal of the principles that underpinned the welfare state.

Social Justice: Wilson's generation emphasised social justice and equality. They believed that the government had a responsibility to ensure that all citizens, particularly the disadvantaged and disabled, received the support they needed to lead dignified lives. The proposed cuts to PIP would likely have been viewed as exacerbating inequality and failing to protect those who rely on such benefits.

Economic Context: During Wilson's time in office, the UK faced economic challenges, including inflation and industrial unrest. However, his government sought to address these issues through reforms and investment in social programmes rather than through cuts. Wilson would likely have advocated for a welfare system that adapts to economic realities while continuing to prioritise social support, rather than implementing austerity measures.

Legacy of the Beveridge Report: Wilson and his contemporaries were influenced by the Beveridge Report of 1942, which laid the foundation for the modern welfare state in the UK. The report emphasised the need to combat want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. Cuts to benefits would have been seen as contrary to this foundational vision, undermining the very purpose of the welfare state as a means to address societal issues.

Political Implications: Wilson was acutely aware of the political landscape and the importance of public support. His government aimed to align with the values and needs of the electorate. Given the potential backlash against welfare cuts, he would likely have cautioned against policies that could alienate key voter demographics, particularly those who depend on welfare support.

Calls for Reform with Care: While Wilson and his generation believed in the necessity of a robust welfare state, they also recognised that reforms could be needed to improve efficiency and effectiveness. However, any reforms would have been approached with a focus on maintaining support for vulnerable populations and ensuring that changes were made thoughtfully and compassionately.

In summary, Harold Wilson and his generation would likely have opposed contemporary welfare reforms that involve cuts to benefits like PIP. They would have emphasised the importance of protecting the welfare state, advancing social justice, and ensuring that the needs of the most vulnerable members of society are met. Their commitment to the principles of the welfare state would have guided their response to any proposals perceived as undermining these values.

Historical Context

Historical Context: The Labour Party has a long-standing commitment to social welfare, rooted in its founding principles. The proposed cuts to PIP are alarming to many members, as they believe these changes could undermine the party's historical role as a champion for the disadvantaged. The reference to past political failures, such as Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax, serves as a cautionary tale, reminding MPs of the potential consequences of policies that are seen as punitive or harsh.

Electoral Implications: The recent local election losses, particularly to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, have intensified scrutiny on Labour’s positioning. Many MPs fear that supporting cuts to welfare could alienate key voter demographics, particularly those who rely on benefits. The sentiment among some party members is that Labour must reframe its approach to welfare in a way that resonates with voters, emphasising empathy and support rather than austerity.

Diverging Strategies: There appears to be a split between those advocating for a more centrist approach to welfare reform—emphasising work and productivity—and those calling for a return to a more traditional Labour stance that prioritises support and compassion for the vulnerable. This divergence raises questions about the party's identity and its future direction under Starmer's leadership.

Internal Dynamics: The involvement of a significant number of MPs in opposing the cuts, including many who have previously supported the leadership, indicates a growing rebellion. This internal dissent reflects a broader movement within Labour, where newer MPs, often from left-leaning backgrounds, are challenging the status quo and pushing for a more progressive agenda. Their voices are becoming increasingly prominent as they articulate the concerns of their constituents.

Public Sentiment: The public's response to welfare reforms is a critical factor in this debate. Many voters have strong emotional ties to social welfare programs, viewing them as essential safety nets. The framing of beneficiaries as "scroungers" or "cheats" can be damaging to the narrative Labour wants to project. MPs are aware that public perception can heavily influence electoral outcomes, making it imperative for the party to approach these reforms with caution and sensitivity.

Potential Outcomes: As the vote approaches, various scenarios could unfold. If the party leadership pushes through the cuts despite significant opposition, it could lead to a larger rebellion and even more serious consequences for Starmer's leadership. Conversely, if Labour decides to amend or delay the proposed reforms, it may restore some unity within the party but could also be seen as a retreat from necessary reforms.

Future of Labour's Welfare Policy: This moment represents a crucial opportunity for Labour to redefine its approach to welfare. The party could choose to advocate for comprehensive reforms that prioritise support and empathy while also addressing the need for a sustainable welfare system. This would require a delicate balance, seeking input from constituents and stakeholders to ensure that any changes are both effective and just.

In conclusion, the rebellion over PIP cuts encapsulates broader tensions within the Labour Party about its identity, electoral strategy, and commitment to social justice. The path forward will involve navigating these complex dynamics while remaining responsive to the needs of both party members and the public. The outcome of the upcoming vote will likely have significant implications for Labour's cohesion and its ability to connect with voters in future elections.

What About The Tories

The Conservative Party's stance on welfare reform typically contrasts with that of the Labour Party, given their differing ideologies and approaches to fiscal policy and social welfare. However, whether they would support the specific welfare reforms being proposed by Labour, particularly the cuts to Personal Independence Payments (PIP), would depend on several factors:

Ideological Differences: The Conservative Party generally advocates for welfare reforms that emphasise reducing government spending and encouraging individuals to enter the workforce. They tend to view welfare as a system that should assist those in need while also promoting personal responsibility. Labour's proposed cuts may not align with the Conservative Party's more cautious approach to welfare, especially if those cuts are perceived as harmful to vulnerable populations.

Political Calculations: Support for Labour's reforms would also depend on the political context. If there is significant public opposition to the cuts, the Conservatives might be hesitant to support them, even if they align with their general principles. The potential backlash from constituents who rely on these benefits could influence their decision-making.

Negotiation and Compromise: In some cases, the two parties might find common ground on certain aspects of welfare reform, particularly if discussions focus on the need for sustainability and efficiency within the welfare system. However, any compromise would likely require Labour to modify its proposals significantly to address Conservative concerns.

Public Sentiment and Pressure: The Conservative Party often reacts to public sentiment and pressure from advocacy groups when shaping their policies. If there is widespread opposition to cuts in welfare benefits, the Conservatives may distance themselves from Labour’s proposals to avoid electoral fallout.

Potential for Collaboration: While direct support for Labour's proposed cuts is unlikely, there could be opportunities for collaboration on broader welfare reform initiatives. If both parties recognise the need for sustainable welfare systems that address the challenges faced by the disabled and vulnerable populations, they might engage in discussions about alternative approaches.

In summary, while the Conservative Party may share some goals related to welfare reform, it is unlikely they would support Labour's specific proposals for cuts to benefits without significant changes. The ideological divide and the potential political ramifications of supporting such cuts would likely lead them to take a cautious approach, focusing instead on their own vision for welfare reform.

Implications for the Labour Party

Perception of Compromise: Collaborating with the Conservatives on welfare reforms could be viewed as a significant compromise for Labour, potentially alienating some of its traditional base. Many voters expect Labour to champion social justice and support for the vulnerable. If Labour is seen as aligning with Conservative austerity measures, it could erode public trust and loyalty among its core supporters. Internal Dissent: Such a move could exacerbate existing divisions within the Labour Party. Left-wing members and MPs who advocate for robust welfare support may strongly oppose any collaboration with the Conservatives. This dissent could lead to increased calls for a more progressive agenda and challenge Starmer's leadership.

Electoral Risks: The risk of alienating voters is significant. If Labour is perceived as abandoning its principles in favour of Conservative support, it may face backlash in future elections. This could be particularly detrimental in constituencies where welfare support is a critical issue, as voters may turn to alternative parties like the Liberal Democrats or Reform UK.

The Heavens Reflect Our Labours

"The Heavens Reflect Our Labours"

The motto of the town of Scunthorpe, along with its coat of arms, was proudly displayed on our old school uniforms prior to the merger of Scunthorpe Boys School with the nearby Grammar School . 

I vividly recall the year 1968, particularly the black blazers paired with the green of the Grammar School. During that first morning assembly for Years 2 and 3, there was a sense of chaos that morning as we pushed and shoved each other, as if we were from entirely different worlds. During that time, it was almost a given that the majority of male children would be expected to find their future in the steelworks. I suppose that the children graduating from grammar schools were destined to become the local leaders in the industry, while those of us who did not pass the 11-plus exam and ended up in the local secondary modern schools would find our paths leading to blue-collar jobs in the industry. My formal education imparted a crucial lesson: the distinction between grammar schools and secondary modern schools was merely an exercise in divide and rule. Despite attending different schools, we all shared the same streets and played together on weekends and during holidays.

Comprehensive education in the United Kingdom was largely introduced by the Labour government in the 1960s. The key figure behind this initiative was Anthony Crosland, who served as the Secretary of State for Education and Science from 1965 to 1967. The aim was to create a more equal education system by replacing the tripartite system of grammar, secondary modern, and technical schools with comprehensive schools that would serve all children regardless of their ability or background. The concept gained traction and was implemented in various local education authorities throughout the UK.

Scunthorpe Steelworks Has A Rich And Storied History

A town built upon steel and It's former local commodity iron the crucial ingredient for the world's iron and steel industries, and is primarily used to make steel, which is then utilized in construction, transportation, and other industries.

The steelworks in Scunthorpe began to take shape in the late 19th century. The discovery of iron ore in the 1850s paved the way for the establishment of iron and steel industries. 

The Sheffield family played a significant role in the development of the steel industry in the UK, particularly in Sheffield, which became famous for its high-quality steel production. While the Sheffield family is more commonly associated with Sheffield's steel heritage, Scunthorpe also became a notable center for steel production in the 20th century.

The Scunthorpe steelworks, primarily developed by the British Steel Corporation, became one of the largest steel production facilities in the UK. It was established after World War II, with its roots tracing back to the ironworks that existed in the area. The region's iron ore reserves and its strategic location for rail and shipping contributed to its growth as a steel production hub.

The Sheffield family is often associated with the development of a unique type of steel known as crucible steel, which was produced in Sheffield from the 18th century onwards. This type of steel was known for its high quality and was used in various applications, including cutlery and tools. The family and other local industrialists helped establish Sheffield as a center for steel production, leading to innovations and advancements in metallurgy.

In contrast, Scunthorpe's steelworks emerged later, primarily in the mid-20th century. The area became prominent due to its rich iron ore deposits, which were essential for steel manufacturing. After World War II, the British Steel Corporation was formed, and Scunthorpe became one of its key production sites. The steelworks in Scunthorpe grew rapidly and became one of the largest integrated steelworks in the UK, contributing significantly to the local economy and employment.

The Scunthorpe steelworks underwent various changes and ownerships over the years, including privatisation and restructuring in the late 20th century. Despite facing challenges, including market fluctuations and competition from abroad, the site has continued to evolve and adapt to new technologies in steel production.

Today, the legacy of both Sheffield and Scunthorpe remains significant in the history of the British steel industry, showcasing advancements in engineering and metallurgy that have had lasting impacts on manufacturing. 

The Sheffield family, particularly figures like Benjamin Huntsman in the 18th century, pioneered the production of crucible steel. Their innovations laid the groundwork for Sheffield's reputation as the "Steel City," leading to advancements in tool-making and cutlery.

By the mid-20th century, as the demand for steel grew, the focus of steel production expanded beyond Sheffield. Scunthorpe emerged as a significant player due to its rich iron ore deposits.

This shift was not directly linked to the Sheffield family but rather to larger industrial developments and the formation of the British Steel Corporation in 1967.

During World War II

During World War II, steel production at Scunthorpe played a crucial role in supporting the war effort in the UK. 

The war led to a significant increase in the demand for steel, which was essential for manufacturing weapons, vehicles, ships, and other military equipment. Scunthorpe's steelworks were pivotal in meeting this demand.

To meet wartime demands, steelworks in Scunthorpe were expanded, and production processes were optimized. This included the use of modern techniques and equipment, which had been developed in the years leading up to the war.

The workforce in Scunthorpe adapted to the challenges of wartime production. Many men joined the armed forces, so women and older workers took on roles in the steelworks. This shift contributed to changes in labour dynamics and helped maintain production levels.

The experience gained during the war helped the Scunthorpe steelworks to transition into peacetime production, allowing them to continue to be a major player in the UK steel industry in the following decades.

At Its Peak In The 1970s

At its peak in the 1970s, Scunthorpe Steelworks employed around 30,000 workers. The saying goes that you could reliably set your watch by the moment Scunthorpe changed shifts, as a wave of bicycles would emerge from Appleby Frodingham. The facility was a significant part of the British steel industry during that time, contributing to both local employment and the national economy.

Industrial Action 

The history of strikes in Scunthorpe, particularly related to the steel industry, is significant and reflects broader trends in labour relations in the UK.

One of the most notable events occurred in the late 20th century when the steel industry faced challenges due to economic downturns and shifts in demand. The major strikes during this period often stemmed from disputes over pay, working conditions, and job security.

In the 1980s, the British steel industry underwent substantial restructuring, leading to numerous strikes as workers fought against layoffs and for better wages. The 1980s also saw the impact of privatization, which led to increased tensions between workers and management.

More recent industrial actions have occurred as the industry continues to deal with changing market conditions and competition from abroad, particularly in the face of globalization. Strikes in Scunthorpe have often been supported by broader labor movements and have highlighted issues such as workers' rights and the future of manufacturing in the UK.

Overall, the strike history in Scunthorpe is a reflection of the steel industry's evolution and the ongoing struggle for workers' rights in a changing economic landscape.

In the 1970s, Scunthorpe's steel industry experienced significant labour unrest, marked by unofficial strike actions. These strikes were part of a broader pattern of industrial action across the UK during a period characterized by economic challenges and labour disputes.

Unofficial strikes, also known as "wildcat strikes," occurred without the formal backing of trade unions. In Scunthorpe, these actions were primarily driven by dissatisfaction among steelworkers over pay, working conditions, and job security. The economic climate of the 1970s, marked by inflation and industrial decline, exacerbated tensions between workers and management.

The strikes in Scunthorpe reflected the frustrations of workers who felt that their concerns were not being adequately addressed through official channels. These actions often disrupted production and highlighted the critical role of steelworkers in the local and national economy. The 1970s were a turbulent time for labor relations in the UK, with Scunthorpe's steel industry being a focal point for broader industrial challenges.

During the 1970s, steelworkers in Scunthorpe engaged in unofficial strike actions that included dramatic demonstrations, such as stopping traffic. These actions were part of a broader wave of industrial unrest in the UK, driven by economic difficulties and dissatisfaction with working conditions and pay.

The decision to stop traffic was a tactic used by workers to draw public attention to their grievances and to exert pressure on both the management of the steelworks and the government. By disrupting daily life, the workers aimed to highlight the critical importance of the steel industry to the local economy and to underscore their demands for better wages and job security.

These actions were emblematic of the period's labour struggles, where unofficial strikes often occurred outside the framework of union-sanctioned activities. The steelworkers' actions in Scunthorpe were part of a larger narrative of industrial action during a decade marked by significant economic and social change in the UK.

The 1970s were marked by economic instability, including high inflation and unemployment. These factors put pressure on industries like steel, which were already facing global competition and declining demand.

The relationship between workers and management was strained, with workers feeling that their concerns over pay, job security, and working conditions were not being adequately addressed. This led to a rise in unofficial strikes as workers took matters into their own hands.

These actions often garnered significant media attention, bringing the issues faced by steelworkers into the national conversation. They also highlighted the broader challenges facing the UK's industrial sector during this period.

The most recent strike by Scunthorpe steelworkers occurred in 2019. This industrial action was part of a broader series of protests by workers at British Steel, driven by concerns over the company's financial difficulties and the potential impact on jobs and local economies. The strike was a response to the uncertainty surrounding the future of the steelworks, which had been placed into compulsory liquidation earlier that year. Workers were particularly concerned about job security and the preservation of the steel industry in the region. This period of unrest highlighted ongoing challenges in the UK steel industry, including competition from abroad and the need for government intervention to secure the industry's future. 

Nationalising And Investing Can Save The Industry 

While Scunthorpe Steel faces challenges, its future will depend on a combination of strategic investments, government support, and the ability to adapt to changing market and environmental conditions. The industry's resilience and adaptability will be key to securing its long-term viability.

It is possible to produce virgin steel in furnaces using carbon capture technology, and significant advancements have been made in this area. 

Producing virgin steel in furnaces with carbon capture technology is not only feasible but also a growing focus in the steel industry. With ongoing advancements, pilot projects, and supportive policies, the potential for developing these technologies further is significant.

I believe that relying on the market or private enterprises to develop this technology would not be effective. It is crucial for the well-being of the country and the local community that the government takes decisive action by fully nationalising the steel industry to protect and revitalise Scunthorpe.

The war to end all wars

For many years I have been captivated by the events of the First World War and the profound loss of life associated with it on all sides.  

Approximately 886,000 British soldiers lost their lives during the First World War. This figure includes members of the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Flying Corps.

This figure reflects the devastating human cost of the conflict, which lasted from 1914 to 1918. The British Expeditionary Force and subsequent volunteer/conscript armies faced significant losses in major battles like the Somme and Passchendaele.

The "iron harvest.

"The Battle of the Somme (1916) alone saw 57,470 British casualties on the first day, including 19,240 fatalities. 

It is estimated that about 750,000 British soldiers died during the conflict, and a significant portion of them was never recovered or identified. In recent years, particularly in 2024 and 2025, the remains of British soldiers from World War I have been unearthed, frequently as a result of construction or agricultural activities. Some of these soldiers have been identified and afforded military burials, while others continue to be designated as "Unknown Soldiers," as reported by BBC News. Two unidentified Scottish soldiers who lost their lives in World War One have been interred in France (2024) following the discovery of their remains during the construction of a hospital. War detectives from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were summoned to assist in identifying the two men, believed to have perished during the Battle of Loos in 1915.

The remains of soldiers from the First World War continue to be discovered on farmland and former battlefields to this day, particularly in regions like France and Belgium where some of the most intense fighting occurred. This phenomenon is often referred to as the "iron harvest."

Public perception shifted

As World War I progressed and casualties mounted, public perception shifted dramatically from initial patriotic fervor to widespread disillusionment and anti-war sentiment. This transformation was driven by the scale of losses, media coverage, and societal impacts.

Early in the war, governments tightly controlled information to maintain morale. British media downplayed setbacks and emphasized patriotism, with censors omitting details of military blunders and casualties. For example, the disastrous first day of the Battle of the Somme was initially reported with vague or optimistic framing.

By 1917, soldiers’ letters and returning veterans exposed the grim reality, undermining earlier propaganda. The Central Sikh League and other groups mobilized against colonial policies, reflecting broader discontent.

The war’s end in 1918 left societies grappling with loss and questioning traditional authority. In Britain, veterans and civilians alike criticised leadership, paving the way for political changes like Labour’s rise and demands for social equity.

German casualties

Approximately 2 million German soldiers perished during World War I, though exact figures vary due to incomplete records and differing methodologies. 

German soldiers in World War I endured a harrowing transformation from patriotic enthusiasm to profound disillusionment, shaped by brutal combat, authoritarian military structures, and societal upheaval.

Many German soldiers initially joined the war with nationalist fervor, influenced by pre-war militarism that glorified service and obedience.

Conscription laws ensured mass mobilization, with soldiers subjected to strict discipline and hierarchical control, including physical punishments for insubordination.

By 1918, starvation from the Allied blockade, exhaustion, and awareness of the home front’s disintegration eroded soldiers’ resolve. The sudden armistice in November 1918 shocked troops who had been told victory was imminent, fueling the “stab-in-the-back” myth that blamed civilians and politicians for betrayal.

Despite the armistice, 2,738 German soldiers died on the war’s last day, including Lieutenant Tomas, the last known German casualty

In summary, German soldiers’ experiences reflected the collision of rigid militarism, industrialized warfare, and the collapse of national myths, leaving a legacy of trauma and disillusionment that shaped inter-war Germany.

The First World War reshaped global politics

The First World War (1914–1918) reshaped global politics, economics, and society, leaving enduring lessons that influenced the 20th-century.

Human life is sacred and inviolable. War, which involves the intentional taking of lives, is morally indefensible.

Violence begets more violence. Ethical behaviour requires seeking peaceful solutions to conflicts, and yes, aligning with philosophies such as those of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

The indiscriminate nature of modern warfare often results in civilian casualties and suffering, which some view as unacceptable collateral damage.

The importance of building societies based on mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation rather than conflict and domination is so Important.

Encouraging dialogue, education, and cultural exchange is essential for fostering a global culture of peace and understanding.

George Orwell made an observation regarding the physical stature of policemen after the First World War. In his essay "The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius," Orwell noted that policemen seemed to be "noticeably smaller" than before the war. This comment was part of a broader critique of the societal changes and the decline of certain standards in post-war Britain.

When soldiers returned to Britain after the First World War, their expectations and experiences were shaped by a mix of hope, uncertainty, and the challenges of reintegration into civilian life. 

Many returning soldiers hoped to find stable employment and reintegrate into the workforce, leveraging skills they had acquired during their military service.

The transition was often difficult due to a post-war economic downturn. Unemployment was high, and many veterans struggled to find jobs, leading to disillusionment and frustration.

Soldiers anticipated recognition for their service and sacrifices, expecting gratitude and respect from the society they defended.

While there were initial expressions of gratitude, such as parades and memorials, the long-term support for veterans was often inadequate. Many felt forgotten or underappreciated, especially as economic hardships persisted.

Some soldiers sought understanding and support for the psychological trauma they experienced, known as "shell shock" at the time.  Mental health support was limited, and societal understanding of psychological trauma was minimal. Many veterans suffered in silence, facing stigma and a lack of effective treatment.

Some veterans expected their experiences to lead to social and political change, hoping for a more equitable society. The war did contribute to significant social changes, including shifts in class dynamics and the expansion of the electorate. However, progress was slow, and many veterans felt that their sacrifices did not translate into the societal reforms they had hoped for.

"Homes fit for heroes"

Lloyd George famously promised returning soldiers "homes fit for heroes," raising expectations for improved living conditions and housing after the war.

While some efforts were made to improve housing, progress was slow and insufficient to meet the demand. The housing shortage left many veterans and their families in inadequate conditions, leading to widespread disappointment.

Discontent contributed to social and political unrest, with veterans participating in strikes and protests demanding better conditions and treatment.

Discontent over pay and working conditions led to a police strike (1919) in London and Liverpool, highlighting unrest even among key state workers.

The 1926 General Strike: Though occurring a few years later, was partly rooted in post-war economic difficulties. It involved miners, transport workers, and other sectors, protesting wage reductions and poor working conditions.

In Germany The Spartacist Uprising (1919): Led by the Spartacist League, a Marxist revolutionary movement, this uprising sought to establish a socialist state. It was violently suppressed by the Weimar government.

When capitalists from various nations come into conflict and engage in warfare, it is typically not they who take up arms; rather, they enlist the working classes of their countries to fight on their behalf, in other words workers are used as canon foder.

Patriotism and jingoism

This situation necessitated an appeal to patriotism and jingoism, with politicians traveling across the nation to stoke fervor for the war. A notable figure in this endeavor was Horatio Bottomley, who styled himself as the People’s Tribune, despite being a discredited bankrupt prior to the conflict. In his quest to enlist recruits, he amassed £78,000, which he squandered on racehorses, women, and champagne. For young male workers of military age who resisted the compelling call to arms, young women were tasked with pinning white feathers on them as a symbol of cowardice.

The capitalist class was not content with their workers merely facing bullets and bombs on the battlefields; they also expressed dissatisfaction with the workers' output on the home front. In the UK, there was significant blame directed at munitions workers for the shortages of shells required for the war effort, with accusations that they were preoccupied with drinking in pubs. As a result, restrictions on pub hours were implemented, which remained in effect until the 1990s.

The phrase "The war to end all wars" stands as one of the most ironic statements in history. Rather than putting an end to conflicts, the First World War planted the seeds for future wars. The punitive measures imposed by the Versailles Peace Treaty fostered a deep sense of grievance in Germany, leading to the perception that the nation had been unfairly betrayed. This sentiment was skillfully exploited by German nationalists, including the Nazis, for their own agendas. Additionally, the heavy reparations imposed on Germany resulted in significant economic instability, exemplified by the hyperinflation of 1923, which created a fertile environment for aggressive nationalist movements like the Nazis to thrive. The growing animosity between the Western Powers and the Bolshevik regime foreshadowed the Cold War, which would come to dominate the twentieth century. Although the League of Nations was established with the intention of preventing further conflicts, it proved ineffective, as it failed to address the root cause - competition among capitalist powers for global markets and resources. Within the framework of capitalism, wars are ultimately inevitable.