Following the general election, we heard claims from local (and national) Labour politicians that the result was a "landslide" and was "overwhelming."
It was nonsense, of course, with the Starmer Government elected on a third of the vote, with 40% not bothering to register a vote at all.
They lost millions of votes compared to what a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party achieved.
As we said at the time, Starmer’s "massive" majority was built on sand.
One of his first acts was to cut access to the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners, and it was all downhill after that.
The Government’s ratings nosedived, and Starmer’s personal standing went through the floor.
Thankfully, the dreadful Starmer is gone, replaced by Andy Burnham, who has taken some baby steps in the right direction.
Burnham, according to opinion polls at the time of writing, has displaced Reform, pushing them into second place.
Reform are, of course, mired in controversy over the growing scandal about where these grifters get their millions.
But the warning signs are there, with Labour on only 28% of voting intentions, which is 6% less than in the general election, itself a historic low for a party forming a government.
Looking back to the last election in the pages of the Clydebank Post, locals were saying their concerns were the NHS, the cost of living crisis, education, social care, and widespread poverty facing families and the elderly.
The young were also getting a raw deal as they were faced with precarious work, lack of affordable housing, student debt, etc.
So what can we tell from Burnham’s intentions so far?
One of his major pronouncements is tackling the social care crisis.
Although this is a devolved matter applying to England, it is a burning issue in Scotland, and the outcome will affect us too, no doubt.
If he is serious, he will need to acknowledge that social care has become a cash cow for the privateers.
The real contradiction in Burnham’s stated intentions is so-called defence.
As the Guardian headline stated: "Streeting says Burnham government will prioritise military over other spending."
The Streeting in question is, of course, the new Defence Secretary who was welcoming the privateers into our health service when he was in charge of that department.
He will team up with the new Chancellor, warmonger-in-chief, John Healey, the previous Defence Secretary until last month, before quitting over military spending not going fast enough.
Healey and Streeting’s aim is to raise military spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, hitting 3% by 2030.
At present, the arms bill is approximately £ 80 billion a year, which will be funnelled into the pockets of the arms manufacturers, here and in the US.
That figure is already the fifth largest in the world, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and it is to deter a Russian invasion, a fantasy given Putin can’t even take care of Ukraine.
And Burnham wants to continue to fund the slaughter in Ukraine by pouring in billions like his predecessor did.
As for the claimed job creation, CND studies have shown the job multiplier is far higher if these funds were invested in our public services.
Advocating for expanding military industry merely means promoting job losses elsewhere.
The projected increase, at current figures, would add around £27bn a year to that already swollen total.
In fact, the actual cost would be still larger, since GDP will likely rise over the next decade.
Contrast this with the political rows about the funding of vastly smaller sums to help people with electricity bills, to cap bus fares or assist pubs.
An enormous price will be paid for the arms race.
The main source of funds is likely to come through an attack on wages, pensions, and benefits, along with the NHS, education, etc.
Advocates for expanding the military-industrial complex, as we see daily in the mass media by the brass hats and right-wing politicians, are attempting to soften up opposition to war.
We need a smaller military to defend our country, rather than getting involved in forever wars through overseas bases in foreign countries where we have no right to be.
If the road that is advocated by Healey and Streeting is followed, whatever hopes people had with the advent of Burnham will prove illusory.
His bubble will burst, and he will end up as unpopular as Starmer, as the wishes of these people interviewed in Clydebank after the last election will be dashed.
This will lead to a government of the far right.
To combat such a horror, the trade union movement needs to campaign in the workplace and our communities on the bread-and-butter class issues, tax the super-rich and scrap Trident, fund the NHS, public housing, tackle the cost of living crisis through price controls and higher wages and benefits, and rebuild our public services.
The money is there; it’s just in the wrong hands.
Welfare not Warfare.
Share