The Good Old Days

A blast from the past

It's highly unusual for me to quote that renowned journal, Socialist Worker, however now I shall do it for the second time in less that a week.

Anyone who wonders whether or not the less thinking type of unionism that blighted this country for decades has been wholly eliminated by the actions of the Thatcher administration, and the merciful inaction of Blair and Brown thus far, should take a look at this gem.

Fortunately strikes such as the current postal workers' dispute and the recent shenanigans by Bob Crowe and his merry men are now sufficiently rare that for all the inconvenience and disruption they cause it is possible see such neanderthal rubbish as amusing from time to time.

I don't know why I found this particular effort so amusing, just something about the breathless style of the coverage of the posties' misguided actions, as they wreck their own job security. It finally struck me that it came over like a report in the local rag about the local soccer team's latest outing in the lower reaches of the football leagues, with a bit of Sid James 'Carry on at your convenience' style unionism as a bit of an afterthought.

Just to show you how some parts of the union movement have moved with the times:

The last day of the national postal strikes saw a fantastic spontaneous march by 100 postal workers through the centre of Ipswich chanting "What do we want? Fair pay! When do we want it? Now!".

...

Monday's strike saw four deliveries turned away including the weekly delivery of the canteen's food.

Source: Socialist Worker

"What do we want? X! When do we want it? Now!"...for God's sake this is the twenty-first century. Hmm, and I wonder who they will blame their empty bellies on when they finally do get back to work?

It even has the equivalent of the Opta statistics for the game, with 'shots on target' replaced with 'scab numbers'.

On a serious point, I've always despised the language of hate that fuels so much of left-wing rhetoric. As little time as I may have for the Human Rights Act, I do hope one day that a 'scab' takes legal action under it against one of the old-school unions - there seems to be ample cause.

For now, the CWU's campaign to destroy their member's job security Scargill-style continues unabated. Postal services across the continent face a very uncertain future, thanks to the CWU the Royal Mail faces probably the future with even less confidence than their European counterparts.

A Mixed Bag of Results

Winners?

No, not a Rugby World Cup reference, where the gulf of relative performances between England and those of key opponents have brought ever more gloom to those who ride the roller coaster of supporting the men in white, as has every medical bulletin. Rather, I refer to the contrasting pronouncements of the TUC and leader of the ironically named Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, on the subject of the upcoming EU treaty.

Today the TUC did indeed vote to demand a vote on the EU treaty today. I will also say, in their favour that the initial coverage did contain a significant amount of comment from union leaders on the fundamental dishonesty of the government's volte face on the issue.

Over the last few hours however most of the comment I've read makes it sound, much as I had feared, that it may be merely a bargaining position, and that the opposition would evaporate were Broon to give way on his 'Red Line' on the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and through that back door, bring in the increased union powers that the Labour movement know they cannot sell to the British electorate.

BBC News quotes the GMB general secretary, Paul Kenny:

"If we get a referendum and the terms haven't change, it's going to be very difficult to persuade workers to vote for it [the treaty]."

Source: BBC News

Most of the union comment I have read has come from traditionally left of centre sources like the Guardian and the BBC, who probably have similar misguided sympathy for the the Charter, so it's hard to guess what motivates the majority in the union movement. That being the case, I personally give the TUC the benefit of the doubt and welcome their position, and just have to trust that the Prime Minister has the wit to know that to give way on one of his increasingly thin red lines would reduce his credibility from virtually to absolute zero.

Definite Loser

In any case, I suppose that to do the right thing, even for the wrong reason is better to than to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Once again this seems to be what the hapless Sir Menzies Campbell has done.

Having supported a referendum on the proposed Constitution at the last election, and suggested that he may be amenable to one on the reform treaty, he has caved in completely and declared it unnecessary. Nor, this time, was it a return to what may be a relatively principled position on the role of referenda in a representative democracy, the line that the Lib Dems have usually have adopted to ensure that the EU continues to get its way in the face of public disapproval.

As Shane Greer, currently persona pro Iain Dale, and Thunder Dragon have both spotted, Menzies has instead decided to stick rigidly to the party line; that is to say the Labour party line.

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat leader, on Tuesday took the heat off Gordon Brown over the revised European Union constitution, arguing that a referendum on the new treaty was “not necessary”.

...

[Sir Menzies] told the Financial Times the new EU reform treaty was “sufficiently different” from the original constitution to avoid the need for a plebiscite. He said the only case for a public vote would be on a much broader “in or out” question about Britain’s membership of the EU, to prompt a serious national debate on Europe.

Source: The Financial Times

Fortunately it seems to be younger more forward looking Lib Dems who seem to be backing a referendum, as opposed to Campbell, once again pretty much marginalised in the broader debate, who once again has felt the need to follow the old failed approaches to resolving the agonies this country puts itself through over its relations with the EU.

The real beneficiary of Campbell's intervention I suspect may be David Cameron, not Broon, by leaving the Conservatives as the only mainstream party whose leadership backs a public say on the referendum. When you consider how closely he has parroted the Prime Minister's line, after a prolonged period of dithering, it's likely that many will draw their own conclusions over the Lib Dem position, should they ever get the chance to hold the balance in power in Parliament.

As for being the 'real party of opposition'...Sorry Menzies, that has probably just taken a fatal beating.

I've done far too many EU posts of late, so I'm going to place a short ban on the subject here for a while, unless someone suggests something really stupid and insensitive like putting the ring of stars on British passports.

Another Bad Day

A Shaved MonkeyBob Crow

It's not only David Cameron having a bad day. Over at the other end of the political spectrum the union movement has been inflicting some self-inflicted wounds on itself.

The day started with Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, making a completely fatuous comparison between working conditions for migrant workers, and the slave trade. It was idiotic at best, and I suspect to some would be considered offensive had it been uttered by someone who happened to espouse the most moderate of right-of-centre politics.

He was quoted by the BBC:

"This study reveals systematic abuse of migrant workers, which is tantamount to modern day slavery," said TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber.

Source: BBC News

I won't comment on the stupidity of comparing slavery with a system where someone comes of their own volition to accept a paid job which they can leave any time they like, as Croydonian has done an excellent succinct job of doing so already.

Meanwhile in London, public transport been seriously disrupted by a strike by arch-prat Bob Crow's RMT, closing most of the underground system. Let it not be forgotten that the roots of the dispute are that the RMT are seeking assurances over jobs and pensions following Metronet's collapse, assurances that have, erm, been given, and given from the offices of none other than Ken Livingston, hardly a capitalist lackey. Even was this not the case, would the non-specific hypothetical possibility of changes in employment conditions in the distant future ever justify a four day all out strike?

I suspect part of the RMT's behaviour might be simple incompetence. The England football game is on Saturday, and unfortunately it looks like someone at the RMT, whose strikes have an odd habit of coinciding with major sporting fixtures, can't add up properly, as their strike ends on Friday.

There have been a few strikes recently that have had a degree of public sympathy, and there have been signs of sensible modernization of attitudes in a number of major unions. The RMT will be unlikely to see any significant support for today's actions, and in terms of understanding the modern workplace Bob Crow remains stubbornly neanderthal.

Actions like Bob Crow's can only set the union movement back, and diminish any sense in which it might once again be seen as a voice of reason. Judging by government reaction, Mr Crow can rest assured that if there was even the slightest chance of unions receiving new rights under Gordon Brown, that probability has almost certainly become zero as a result of his actions; he'll be able to play his pathetic persecuted minority line for some time to come.

A Dilemma for Gordon?

Part of the fight or false friends?

The pressure on the Prime Minister over the call for a referendum on the resurrected European Constitution continues (and yes I have decided to trust the views of the leaders of the other 26 member states, rather than my own in calling it what it really is).

Union after union is now calling for a demand to be made for a referendum on the treaty at the TUC conference. Initially I was heartened by the news.

As I've highlighted in several other posts I believe that regardless of your views on further European integration it is high time for a public consultation. If you are generally pro EU you should be concerned about the prevailing feeling that the EU is something 'done to' the UK and welcome a chance to make your 'Positive Case for Europe' and seek a vote of confidence. If you are against further integration a chance for your voice to be heard is clearly welcome. The arrival of a new Prime Minister, to whom the public, rightly or wrongly, seem to have awarded a clean slate should be enough to assuage concerns that the people would vote based on factors other than the proposition in front of them.

Unfortunately hearing some of the union leaders interviewed on radio my hopes, I must admit, have turned to fears. They appeared to have little interest in the need of the people as a whole to be consulted on major constitutional issues such as this, and even less in the fundamental iniquity of a government reneging on a clear manifesto commitment that was designed to nullify a potentially damaging issue at the polls. No, they just want the full weight of the social elements of the proposed arrangements to help them strangle British business.

It was abundantly clear that were the Prime Minister to drop his opt out on the charter of fundamental 'rights', with its provisions on rights to strike, support for a referendum would evaporate like Scotch mist. From the little the Prime Minster lets know of his basic instincts I wouldn't put it past him to accept this when weighed against the risks of a referendum. His excuses are already so wafer thin, that I suspect he would judge that he has absorbed almost all the political damage he is likely to take. I suspect that for the four opt outs, that he foolish believes convince the British people that the treaty taking shape is different from the proposed constitution, to become three may be reckoned to be less damaging to him than a full on confrontation with the unions.

There is a very real danger, in my opinion, that the intervention by the unions could be very far from helpful, and could indeed produce an even worse outcome than the Gordon's current plan to raise one finger of the great clunking fist to the British people.

As an aside, I have been wondering about some of the speculation about a snap election in October. Many reasons that it may be a bad idea from the Prime Minister's perspective have been advanced, most notably the state of Labour party finances. I can't help feeling that an important one has been overlooked.

Last time I heard a schedule, the IGC was scheduled to have produced the final shape of the new treaty sometime in October. This would naturally push the issue of the EU and a referendum way up the news agenda.

Would a party really want to be launching a manifesto, when one of the most deceitful manifesto promises of recent times in their last offering to the people was about to come under the spotlight in such a prominent way?