
Why should Labour be seen as the party of the workers? Reform UK will take that off them next
I STARTED working down the pit as a teenager just a year after the miners' strike of the Eighties, where my dad and the rest of the miners in my family took part in the year-long action.
It was a bitter dispute that divided communities as they became pawns in a war played out by Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher.
3
During my first week underground, I expected some of the miners to be hostile towards me as I was the son of a striking miner in a pit where more than 90 per cent of the men worked.
It soon became apparent to me that this was not the case.
Yes, there was still some bitterness, but those I worked with were decent, hard-working men who made me feel part of the mining family.
Fiercely patriotic
Many of them had been involved in the strikes of the Seventies, one of which brought down the Edward Heath government of the day.
As all my new workmates were union members, I thought they would all be ardent Labour-voting trade unionists who would love to bring down a Tory government every time they came to power.
But I was wrong. They weren't that political.
The men I worked with were just decent, hard-working blokes who did an incredibly dangerous job in the harshest conditions to put food on the table and pay the rent.
These men were fiercely patriotic, loved Queen and country, they worked weekends so they could afford a family holiday once a year and they wanted a brighter future for their children — a future that didn't involve their sons or daughters working down the pit or in a factory.
If the next generation does better in life than their parents, then that is progress — the sort of progress the working classes have always aspired to.
The irony is that these are conservative values, yet it was in our DNA to always vote against the Conservative Party as we were Labour-supporting trade unionists.
Farage promised an earthquake & he delivered - Labour are badly bruised & Tories face being brushed aside as opposition
Fast forward 40 years and I found myself as a Reform UK MP who still has a soft spot for the trade union movement and its members as I genuinely believe that the British worker is still the best in the world, and we must do everything we can to protect them.
For me, the union members have never been the problem — it's the union leaders who have taken advantage of their positions to push their own political agendas.
These leaders sometimes treat their members as useful idiots.
I saw it first-hand during the miners' strike where, at Shirebrook Colliery, just down the road from me, the men voted not to strike — but their leaders called them all out on strike.
They were bullied into strike action and violent scenes followed.
It divided a whole community and set family against family, while the union bosses sat back gloating at their divisive achievements.
In 2025, there are many similarities, except this time union leaders are setting their sights on Reform UK as we surge in the polls.
We are no threat at all to working people in the UK.
We are a party of aspiration and hard work. We want people to succeed through hard work, have strong family values and know that there will be opportunities for their children to succeed, and we want people to be proud of our history, heritage and culture.
Some of the union leaders will point to the fact that we voted against the Employment Rights Bill.
Yes, we did, and it's not because we are against workers' rights. We are against what was in the bill.
It was a bill that would cost jobs and deter business owners from expanding.
People need jobs, not an ideology that will cost jobs.
3
It comes as no surprise to me that Reform UK stormed the recent local elections, especially in places like Ashfield, the capital of common sense.
The ex-mining families turned out in their droves to vote for us at the General Election and again at last week's local elections.
Even though many of them will or have been Labour- voting union members, they have decided they will not be used as useful idiots any more.
Why should the Labour Party be seen as the party of the workers?
Reform UK will take that off them next.
My dad is 80 years old and was a fierce trade unionist who took part in three miners' strikes in the 1970s and 1980s.
He voted Labour all his life until his mid-seventies, when he voted for me as a Tory candidate and then, just like many of his old pit mates, voted Reform UK last July.
Union leaders need to wake up and ask themselves: 'Why?'
3
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public sector employment swells to highest level in 14 years
Public sector employment has surged to the highest level in 14 years as Rachel Reeves prepares to unveil a £300bn spending spree this week. Almost 6.2m people were employed in the public sector in March, official figures show, 35,000 more than a year earlier. This is the highest number of public sector employees since December 2011. The figures from the Office for National Statistics came ahead of Ms Reeves's spending review on Wednesday, which is expected to offer big increases to defence and health while squeezing other departments. The Chancellor has raised departmental spending by nearly £400bn since Labour won the election. It comes as economists have warned more tax rises are 'inevitable' in autumn. The figures from the ONS also show that the number of civil servants is the highest since 2006, at 550,000, rising by 6,000 from a year earlier. This helped to push the total figure of central government workers to a record high of 4m, up by 93,000 from a year ago. The ONS said the rise was driven by the NHS, the Civil Service and some local authority schools becoming academies, which changes how their staff are classified in the numbers. While public sector hiring surged, the jobs downturn across the economy deepened as firms grappled with big tax and minimum wage hikes. The number of vacancies fell from 760,000 on average across February to April to 736,000 for the three months to May.


Times
29 minutes ago
- Times
Reeves forced into U-turn over pensioner fuel payments
The U-turn, when it came, was even bigger than expected. Rachel Reeves decided to clear the decks before the spending review by announcing that nine million pensioners would receive winter fuel payments this winter. It was a move born of political necessity and that has little fiscal logic. When the chancellor announced that she was stripping ten million pensioners of the winter fuel allowance next year, she argued that it was fundamental to restoring economic stability. 'This is not a decision I wanted to make,' she said. 'Nor is it one that I expected to make. But these are the necessary and urgent decisions I must make. It is the responsible thing to do to fix the foundations of our economy and bring back economic stability.' On Tuesday, economists point out that the fiscal circumstances are, if anything, significantly worse. The reversal means that a policy intended to save £1.5 billion will now save only £50 million this year, at the expense of huge reserves of public goodwill and political capital. It will only add to pressure on the already ailing public finances. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the decision meant there would have to be tax rises or more cuts to welfare in the autumn budget. 'To suggest the fiscal situation has got a lot better flies in the face of reality,' he said. 'If they are saying this means there will not be any additional borrowing then it follows, as sure as night follows day, that this will mean they will need to raise the equivalent of an additional amount of tax.' It also means that Reeves has crossed another line. She had insisted that she would never make an unfunded spending pledge, arguing that to do so would be 'desperate and reckless'. That is exactly what she has now done, and the detail of how the about-turn will be paid for will be confirmed in the autumn budget. After the announcement on Monday, Reeves found herself trying to argue that she had been right in scrapping the universal payments in the first place while simultaneously trying to justify the change in position. It was not an easy circle to square. The decision was the result of a recognition in both No 10 and No 11 that cutting the allowance had been a mistake, although Reeves would not acknowledge that on Monday. During the local elections in May, Labour activists found the issue of winter fuel coming up again and again on the doorstep. Polling found that the decision was one of the main reasons voters deserted the party, whether they moved to Reform UK or to the Greens. • What to expect in Rachel Reeves's spend, spend, spending review Discussion about a reversal began in No 10 almost immediately, but was denied for weeks by the government. By the time Sir Keir Starmer was confronted over the 'toxic' policy by a succession of angry MPs at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party three weeks ago, it was clear that the position was beginning to shift. However, concern that there was a lack of detail about what would replace the previous policy quickly made clear that the government could not wait long before setting out a replacement. Ministers were determined to introduce a means test to avoid paying 'a few hundred pounds to millionaires', and officials struggled to graft one on to ageing computer systems in the Department for Work and Pensions. Eventually, it became clear that HM Revenue & Customs would have to be used, clawing payments back from wealthier pensioners through the tax system. This meant that a wish to base payments on household incomes had to be abandoned, as the system assesses only individual incomes. Ministers picked a relatively high income, covering three quarters of pensioners, to make sure that no older people in poverty would lose out even at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. Theoretically, this means that the pensioner partner of a millionaire will receive a winter fuel payment of £100 if they have an income below £35,000 themselves, but ministers decided that this was a price worth paying for a rapid solution. For ministers who have spent months defending hugely unpopular cuts, there has been frustration about how much political capital was wasted for such tiny sums of money. • Rachel Reeves's winter fuel cut reversal is a sign of desperation Much of the blame is being pinned on Reeves. It was she who chose to press ahead with a cut long recommended by Treasury advisers but rejected as politically toxic by a succession of previous chancellors. Starmer nodded the decision through, however, despite the clear risk of a severe political backlash. He is said to have been surprised by the scale of the reaction. Ministers will be hoping that the turnaround is enough to quell public anger, which led Labour to slump in the polls. Sharon Graham, head of the Unite union, one of Labour's biggest donors, put it bluntly. 'While this is an important step forward, questions will be asked about how this disastrous decision was made in the first place — the damage may not easily be reversed,' she said. 'Leadership is about choices and the choice to pit workers against pensioners was simply wrong.'


The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Two reasons why the UK has pledged £14b to Sizewell C
Rachel Reeves has approved £14.2 billion in funding for the Sizewell C nuclear power station, with the aim to enhance UK energy security and cut carbon emissions. The Treasury anticipates the project will generate 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships, with £330 million in contracts already signed with local businesses. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband views the plant as crucial for a 'golden age of clean energy abundance,' reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The government plans to invest £2.5 billion over five years in fusion energy research and confirm one of Europe's first small modular reactor programmes to boost the UK's nuclear industry. Campaigners, such as Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C, criticise the investment, estimating the project's full cost could reach £40 billion and warning of potential cost overruns and increased consumer bills.