Anyone who has driven a car should know that when we go downhill, we often step on the accelerator instead of the brake.

It's a waste of brake pads to step on the brakes when going downhill.

When stepping on the accelerator downhill, you can use the engine to achieve the braking effect, thus reducing the speed.

So Jim said that braking downhill is a completely correct metaphor.

Bernard said "step on the brakes when going downhill", which made him look more amateur.

The protagonist Jim Huck actually has a prototype to follow.

Jim is most likely the Labour Prime Minister Callahan.

Speaking of Prime Minister Callahan, most people will find this name strange. Most people are unfamiliar with Callahan, not only because Britain is no longer an empire where the sun never sets, but also because Callahan's opponents are too famous. When Callahan's cabinet collapsed, the Labour Party was in opposition, mainly because Margaret Thatcher, the leader of the Conservative Party, was too strong.

If we look at the world instead of the British Isles, it is not difficult to find that the collapse of the Labour Party cabinet is the general trend of the world. At the end of last century, the whole world was turning to the right. How could the Labour Party holding the red flag be immune?

Jim Huck's party

In the play, Jim claimed to have graduated from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). It is almost certain that the Prime Minister is the leader of the Labour Party.

The founders of the London School of Economics are the Weber couple. Mr. and Mrs. Webber are the leaders of Fabian Society. Later, Fabian Society, Independent Labor Party and Social Democratic Union formed Labor Party. Fabian society can be said to be one of the sources of the Labour Party.

At the beginning, Mr. and Mrs. Weber set up LSE in order to train students who changed the world, and strive to improve the whole society by studying poverty and analyzing social inequality. In the play, Chuck was the editor-in-chief of Reform magazine before becoming a minister. It coincides with the reform of LSE and Fabian Society.

Callahan, the prime minister in history, didn't go to G5 University in England like Jim. But Callahan comes from a poor working-class family, and Jim's background is probably similar to Callahan's.

In the play, the Prime Minister was told that he graduated from LSE, which I think mainly implied his party. If you write completely according to Callahan's background, it will become documentary literature.

In real history, Callahan's full name is leonard james callaghan, and people close to him will also call Callahan Jim. This is probably "if there are similarities, it is purely coincidental."

2 Jim's economic crisis

I have watched this TV play twice. I thought it was very interesting when I first saw it. The second time I brushed the drama, I felt that many dialogues in it were extremely horrible, hiding and implying many historical facts.

In the fifth episode of YES, PM, Jim said that he had encountered a serious economic crisis.

As for what the economic crisis is and how it is caused, the play has no explanation.

I guessed the cause of the economic crisis through other episodes.

Yes, PM Part One Episode Two

This scene refers to Jim's previous speech. Jim said, "We can't overdraw any more, and other countries in the world have no obligation to support us."

This sentence implies that Britain has already had a serious trade deficit and international balance of payments imbalance. The pound is no longer the world currency, and the British people must rely on increasing exports and reducing imports to make ends meet.

So Jim Huck's crisis is probably a "pound crisis" caused by "English disease".

Of course, in order to cope with the pound crisis, it is not enough to just cut spending, but also to strengthen macro-control by monetary means.

In order to cope with the pound crisis, Callahan (Jim) will inevitably turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help. Of course, the IMF, an organization that "saves the poor but does not save the poor", will not provide free help to Britain. Compared with before, the economic policy of the British cabinet should be changed. So this scene appeared in the play. As soon as bankers understand Keynesianism, politicians preach the "new monetary theory". At this time, neo-liberal economists, money supply school and Austrian school economists have gradually begun to appear. Even the left-wing Labour Party is considering whether Keynesianism can continue.

3 Jim's relationship with the trade union

In Britain in the last century, the Labour Party and the trade union were the two wings of the working class. Trade unions provide party member and campaign funds for the Labour Party, and the Labour Party provides policy guarantee for the activities of trade unions and the improvement of the treatment of the working class. Although the goals and means of the Labor Party and the trade union are the same, the relationship between the Labor Party and the trade union is not necessarily completely harmonious.

The goal of the trade union is to improve the treatment of workers, and the goal of the Labour Party is to promote the progress and economic growth of Britain. This also laid the groundwork for the infighting between the Labour Party and the trade unions.

It is mentioned in the play that Jim Chuck triggered a strike organized by the trade union.

Jim was a minister at that time, which triggered a strike. Finally, the Prime Minister ordered Jim to solve this matter.

Historically, Callahan's tenure as prime minister did trigger a large-scale strike-"winter of discontent."

In fact, there are several foreshadows in the play "Disgruntled Winter".

Councillors and civil servants want Jim to give himself a raise. Because of the imbalance of international payments, the trade deficit, the devaluation of the pound and inflation, the real purchasing power of the pound is shrinking, so everyone hopes to raise wages to maintain their living standards. But the cabinet's money is limited and it is impossible to meet everyone's salary needs. It also laid the groundwork for the occurrence of "dissatisfied winter" and the collapse of the Labor Party cabinet.

Jim is actually a tragic figure. In the future history, the whole world is turning right, and the left-wing Labor Party will eventually be assimilated by this general trend. The Labour Party under the leadership of Kinnock and Blair gave up its original intention, namely, Article 4 of the Labour Party party constitution, nationalization and collusion with the Conservative Party.

The grey line of grass snake stretches for thousands of miles, talking about the collapse of Jim's cabinet.

In YPM, many details have hinted at the reasons why Jim's Labour cabinet will step down in the future.

First of all, Jim's Labour cabinet gradually lost the support of the emerging middle class in the 1970s.

The middle class in Britain is divided into the old middle class and the new middle class. The old middle class mainly refers to small shopkeepers, small handicraftsmen and rich peasants. The old middle class is actually a petty bourgeoisie in essence, but it has fewer assets. The old middle class is one of the main supporters of the Conservative Party. The new middle class mainly includes well-educated professional managers. Since the 20th century, members of Fabian Society, represented by the Weber couple, have attached great importance to the education of working-class children. Many people in the emerging middle class were poor before. They changed their fate through reading and wanted to improve British society through their own knowledge. In the process of nationalization of enterprises led by the Labor Party Cabinet, the new middle class, as professional managers, has gradually become the leader of the national plan and mastered the right to allocate resources to a certain extent. These people are what we usually call "workers' aristocrats". The new middle class is essentially the proletariat. Although both the old and new middle classes are called middle classes, they are actually two opposing classes.

So the early new middle class was also a die-hard fan of the Labour Party. The children of the new middle class grew up in a relatively rich environment and began to "why not eat minced meat". Even the new middle class can be divided into two categories. A new middle class need not worry about the decline of their children's class, and their children will become "white left" in the future. Another new middle class is worried about the decline of the class, and their children will either decline or maintain the status quo.

Jim is probably not worried about the decline of his children's class. His daughter has the potential of "white left" in the play. Jim's daughter began to pay attention to the protection of wild animals, and Jim's generation was really left-wing and didn't pay much attention to the protection of wild animals. By the same token, Huck's generation of politicians certainly didn't pay enough attention to Bai Zuo's concern for environmental protection and the right to peace. As more "white left" teenagers grow up and have the right to vote, they are very likely to vote for the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (the right wing of the Labour Party split into the Social Democratic Party in the 1980s).

In the 1970s, all major developed countries were gradually deindustrializing. With the transfer of the secondary industry to developing countries, the number of workers in traditional industries has gradually decreased, and trade union members have become increasingly depressed with the decrease of industrial workers. At the same time, more industrial workers began to turn to the tertiary industry such as service industry or non-standard employment (odd jobs). Due to the increasingly dispersed employment of workers, the organization and coordination ability of trade unions is weaker than before. In the face of such great changes. In the 1970s, insiders could only "not know the true face of Lushan Mountain, but only live in this mountain". Later, as Thatcher came to power to form a cabinet, legislation to restrict trade unions seemed wise after the event, which was a fatal blow to trade unions. I have always insisted that "the economic base determines the superstructure". The fundamental reason for the decline of trade unions and trade unions is that the former "world factory" is going to industrialization. Without factories, where is the foundation of the Labor Party and trade unions?