Unions threaten 'biggest strike since 1926'

[The Feral Underclass]

Union leaders today warned the government that pushing through a rise in the public sector retirement age to 65 could provoke the biggest industrial action since the General Strike of 1926.

Industrial action by eight unions protesting to the plan was only narrowly averted before the general election by the promise of talks. Alan Johnson today apologised to unions at the TUC conference in Brighton for the failure to consult them on that occasion.

Dave Prentis, the leader of Britain's biggest union, Unison, and Mark Serwotka, the leader of the public and commercial services union, said they now had a further five unions, 13 in all, prepared to ballot for strike action if the government forced through a mandatory higher retirement age.
With talks due to resume on reforming public sector pension provision in September, the row could flare up again embarrassingly at the Labour party conference in two weeks' time.

In a seemingly conciliatory conference speech this morning, Mr Johnson told delegates that attempting to force a change on the public sector this spring was a mistake.

He said: "I fully accept that our approach was wrong," before going on to insist that further changes would be "discussed and negotiated" with the trade unions.

Mr Johnson mooted a "change in the retirement at 60 ethos", "giving individuals a choice about when they retire - be it 60 or 65, or later", but warned the whole scheme must be "capable of withstanding the demographic changes that are bound to have a radical effect on pension provision."

But a senior Whitehall source insisted that "the status quo was not an option" and that it was "unsustainable, both fiscally and in the eyes of the taxpayers, for the public sector not to do the same" as private sector workers, who retire at 65.

Union leaders reacted with fury. Mr Prentis warned that 13 public sector union bosses had last night agreed a united front and would "take industrial action to protect pensions".

He pointed out that the successful ballots in March for industrial action would have brought out around 1.5 million public sector workers, making it the biggest stoppage since the 1926 General Strike. With 13 unions now agreed, he said, 3m public sector workers could strike.

Mr Prentis said: "I have never known such anger in 30 years of union negotiating life. The government's policy in chaos."

The government has suggested phasing in a new retirement date between 2013 and 2018. But Mr Prentis said categorically: "A shift in date of when it kicks in is not sufficient."

There were also signs that while the unions put on a united front, they were attempting to play up apparent divisions between government ministers.

Two dates - of September 18 and September 21 - have been suggested for a resumption of talks, but Mr Prentis said: "Alan [Johnson] has played for time today. There's no commitment beyond a commitment to negotiate.

"[But] John Prescott is making it clear that Alan Johnson's talks won't apply to local council workers."

Mr Prentis asked who was in control of the talks - Mr Johnson, a former union leader; Mr Prescott, who looks after local authority affairs; or David Blunkett, the actual work and pensions secretary.

Mr Serwotka, who represents job centre staff already angry at plans to privatise some of their functions, said the unions were in favour of a "choice" of retirement dates, but warned the government would be "frankly mad" to take on 13 unions with more than 3 million members across the public sector, including the NHS and fire services.

While stressing a desire to negotiate, Mr Prentis and Mr Serwotka both said they foresaw no problems in obtaining strike ballot authority for strikes, whether one-day or indefinite.

He said: "13 unions were united last night at the fringe [meeting]. We are united. There will be no divide and rule.

"The fire, health and public sectors will all be affected. If the government impose a higher age [of retirement], in my view a strike is inevitable."

The 13 unions agreeing to act in concert are the NUT, AUT, Prospect, NATFHE, GMB, FBU, ATL, FDA, Amicus, Unison, NASUWT, POA and the T&G.

The Royal College of Nursing, traditionally less militant than some of the other unions, has also expressed support.

Separately from the specific issue of the public sector retirement age, the whole issue of pension reform is under review, with a report by Adair Turner due in November.

This morning he told the TUC that there were many problems with the TUC position of making private pension provision mandatory on employers, not least that studies showed it would reduce cash wages over time.

He also revealed that an entire chapter of his review would be devoted to investigating a phased retirement window, allowing people to work part-time on a partial state pension while deferring full retirement.

The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/unions/story/0,12189,1569881,00.html)

[James]

only 1 in 10 belong to a union.
Not all unions will support it.
Not all union members of those unions taking action, will take action.

This shall not be a mass movement: but could have massive consequences.
Look at the fuel protests today: an utter failure partly because the public want stablity, and partly because the police have new powers.

Ultimately such action requires mass public support. I'm not convinced the unions will get it. The government certainly would not tolerate it.


Especially when we take into account the changing population: UK has an ageing population. Its a serious problem: more so in the future.

[The Feral Underclass]

Assuming your statistic is right, let's say there is a mazimum of 20 Million working people in Britain that's 2million people who will potentially go on strike. That's what I define as a mass movement.

Your analysis on what working class people want is founded in what? Personal experience? What experience would that be?

The oil demonstrations were unsuccesful, but so what? All demonstrations are unsuccesful, that doesn't mean anything.

Anyway, neither of us can say what working class want or desire, we can only stipulate. We will have to wait and see what happens.

[slim]

Fortunaltely the number of working people in the UK is around 35 million. That nearly doubles the turnout previously thought.

Also, this union trouble in coincidence with the fuel protests may spark a bit more resentment against the government. I hope we can use these two events to our advantage and spread the word in this time of tension.

Do chara,

Slim. HRA. Sil Anmachadhra.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

I don't like to be the pessimist here, but I think the Trade Union bureaucracy uniting in a general strike is somewhat optimistic.

Of course they are going to talk left at the TUC, that's where all the most active trade unionist members are, but when push comes to shove they will just sell the workers out like they always do to preserve the traitorous Labour party and preserve their own well paid positions.

However if the rank and file push them enough - it could happen!

[bolshevik butcher]

Well it might not jsut be members that strike. Would you go to work i there was strike on about an issue you really cared about? They could all always do a prison guard and phone in sick as well.

Actually this does look like an issue where the unions seem pretty united on for once.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 12:00 PM
This shall not be a mass movement: but could have massive consequences.
....
Ultimately such action requires mass public support.
Well, this is a good question; a general strike is not the kind of thing a labor bureaucracy can call at will.

But if they're talking this militant there must be a fair bit of pressure from below.

[James]

Assuming your statistic is right, let's say there is a mazimum of 20 Million working people in Britain that's 2million people who will potentially go on strike. That's what I define as a mass movement.

At a basic level: 2 million is the biggest number being discussed. Then take away the members who will not strike. Indeed, entire unions might not get involved. Some have only "voiced support".

True that is a big movement: i used the wrong word.
It will be amazingly outnumbered by the rest of the population. The rest not just being "upper class" people.
Also, the opposition is most likely going to have massive media support, turning more people against the strikes.

When was the last time such action took place? Exactly: the modern population has never done it before. It requires great confidence from the union leaders to think it possible again.
It could also be argued that such action hasn't been "tolerated" by the majority since the 20s.


Your analysis on what working class people want is founded in what? Personal experience? What experience would that be?

The population in general is what i was talking about. I'd just like to make that clear.
Generally, the population wants stability. Thats why they don't constantly go on strike.
Look at the fuel protests: whilst alot of people do think the price is far too high and did generally support the cause of the protesters, they were not willing to get militant.

It failed.

Look at the one or two places where the protests did try to get militant: the police crushed them.


So this is what "the evidence suggests". I may well be wrong. I see NO evidence which supports the counter argument. Non what so ever.

Personal experiance supports this. Granted i'm no darling of the working classes: being a white middle class student: but from my experiance of everyday life: no one is militant. People don't really care.
Especially students!

Of course though i could well be wrong. If though such massive strikes do take place, then i'll go out, buy a hat, and eat it.


The oil demonstrations were unsuccesful, but so what? All demonstrations are unsuccesful, that doesn't mean anything.

I see. I honestly don't see why you typed that.
You make no point what so ever.
Hardly anyone turned up. Indeed: no one turned up in many cases.

My point was two fold: the fuel protest showed, one the public simply didn't support it (even though they "agreed with the cause"), and two, the police have the power to crush any such action.
Especially when the public don't agree with the action being taken.

Also, the vast majority of interviews suggested that people just wanted life to carry on - "got to take the kids to school" etc etc. Of course this might be media biased, but i think if you argue that then you are simply clutching at straws.


Anyway, neither of us can say what working class want or desire, we can only stipulate. We will have to wait and see what happens.

I agree.
But i don't think it will happen. Thats my opinion.






More importantly though, you ignored my point regarding the ageing population. Beyond minor issues such as MP pay: i fail to see how these union leaders can build support for what they propose. The media will expose the lack of logic behind any such strike action.

The article that you posted stated:
a senior Whitehall source insisted that "the status quo was not an option" and that it was "unsustainable, both fiscally and in the eyes of the taxpayers, for the public sector not to do the same" as private sector workers, who retire at 65.


This is the MOST IMPORTANT issue regarding this. Not the state of the unions, or the english working classes. But the actual economics behind the problem. If they can propose a valid workable alternative: then i could see massive support behind them. I for one would certainly be supporting them!
Untill this happens though, they are simply a vain, ignorant reaction, trying desperatly and loudly to prevent an inevitable process.

[Guest1]

Yes, the unions are wrong, and they should just call off the general strike, accept the inevitable and go home.

Stability! Stability! Stability!

How progressive of your holiness.

This is no protest, this is a general strike of historic proportions. One which could easily spill beyond the boundries of simple retirement age. This is precisely the reason why the bureaucrats are very shaky about allowing general strikes to occur, let alone calling them and organizing with 12 other unions to prepare them. Because general strikes are like opening a shaken bottle, you can't really control it. This could spark debates within the union movement, and further discredit blair's new labour initiative.

I think you need to rethink some of your prejudices about strike action. Workers' strikes should always be supported, though there is nothing wrong with discussing tactics. It seems to me it's not tactics you have a problem with, but the strike itself. That's a big problem, especially if you're not a worker yourself.

[James]

Its not the strike as a tactic that i have a problem with.

Its the "goal" that i have issues with.


What do you propose as an alternative to raising the age of retirement?
We have an ageing population.

[James]

"The UK has an ageing population. This is the result of declines both in fertility rates and in the mortality rate. This has led to a declining proportion of the population aged under 16 and an increasing proportion aged 65 and over.

In every year since 1901, with the exception of 1976, there have been more births than deaths in the UK and the population has grown due to natural change. Until the mid-1990s, this natural increase was the main driver of population growth. Since the late 1990s, although there has still been natural increase, net international migration into the UK from abroad has been an increasingly important factor in population change."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6


The UK has an ageing population. The population grew by 7 per cent in the last thirty years or so, from 55.9 million in 1971 to 59.8 million in mid-2004.

Population growth has not occurred evenly across all age groups, however. The proportion of the population aged 65 and over has increased, but the proportion below the age of 16 has generally decreased over the last thirty years. The percentage of people under age 16 fell from 25 per cent in mid-1971 to 19 per cent in mid-2004. Over the same period, the percentage of the population aged 65 and over increased from 13 per cent to 16 per cent.

The older population is ageing. Within the population aged 65 and over, the proportion of people aged 85 and over has increased from 7 per cent in mid-1971 to 12 per cent in mid-2004.

Over the last three decades, the median age of the UK population rose from 34.1 years in mid-1971 to 38.6 in mid-2004. This ageing is primarily the result of past trends in fertility, although recently declines in mortality rates especially at older ages have been playing a major role.

Population ageing will continue during the first half of this century, since the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will increase as the large numbers of people born after the Second World War and during the 1960s baby boom become older. The working age population will fall in size as the baby boomers move into retirement and are replaced by the relatively smaller generations of people who have been born since the mid-1970s.


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=949



"Your" solution? So far: go on strike.
Can't you see what i've been getting at? It is just illogical. Such action would also be exposed as being illogical. The result would be massive public hostility to any such strike.


Also worthy of attention is a report from Age Concern, in which it claims:
‘The Economic Contribution of Older People’ demonstrates how a rise of just a third of a percent per year in workers from 50 to 69 will be more than enough to meet the economic challenge of the ageing population. This increase would add a massive, additional £63 billion to economic output by 2021 than if employment rates remain static.3
http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/about_1677.htm

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:41 AM
"Your" solution? So far: go on strike.
"Solution" to what? The "problem" that people are living too long? That's only a problem from the viewpoint of the capitalist class, which would prefer that people kick the bucket, or be sent to a glue factory (in the UK you'd say knacker's?) or something when we're too old to work and produce profits anymore.

The wealth exists to provide retirement benefits. Wealth created by increasing productivity of labor. That productivity could be used to shorten the workweek; instead the bosses are seeking to lengthen the work-life.

Screw that. The only problem is a problem of social priorities. The solution, short of revolution, is to force the bosses to cough up the money for social benefits including retirement. A massive strike, if it can be organized, is a good start.

I wonder if you're projecting your own attitudes onto the "general public." I know all attempts to roll back retirement benefits in the U.S. have been massively unpopular, despite the fact that the many good arguments against this haven't been widely publicized.

[chebol]

Were the Bolsheviks a majority of the working class?
No, but they had their support.

James' arguments are everybody's best reasons for not joining the labour party. The are the arguments of what Aneurin Bevan called "a dessiccated calculating machine". To lead (or, these days, to sympathise with) the Labour Party, you need to rmove your heart, and replace it with an abacus.
To quote Ny, who, yes, was a member of the party, but brooked no bollocks:
"He has the lucidity which is the by-product of a fundamentally sterile mind. He does not have to struggle... with the crowded pulsations of a fecund imagination. On the contrary he is almost devoid of imagination."

How, in all your imaginative little world, did you imagine the workers of this world achieved the gains they have made already? By legislating for it? By asking nicely? By calculating whether or not they were part of a union that represented more than half of Labour voters in Bethnal Bow and Green and west Yorkshire simultaneously?
Poor fellow, he suffers from files.

James has an argument with the goal. What is the goal? That people should work less. James disagrees. People, in his statistically enhanced opinion, should work MORE. Perhaps if we instituted a Dickensian model of industrial relations, he would be happier. That way people would die before they got old enough to bother government coffers with such follies as pensions, let alone think about social change.

Of course, I fully expect (and predict) that his tune will turn on it's head when labour is out of government. This is not because the objective reality has changed, but because an opportunist always acts in the most predictable way. Last resort (never used)- stand out on a limb.

For such an "educated" type, he shows remarkable lack of imagination. One might expect, for example, that his attack on the relative productivity of the ageing working class be accompanied by a similar dossier on the degree of profit extracted by Capitalist profiteering off the sweat of so many brows.

But no! Such a well educated labour lad wouldn't stoop to such a level. No! Best to place the blame where it must surely lie- with those ignorant types who do so get in they way of everyone else by arguing for welfare, social rights, democracy, minimum wage, etc.

Hell, I don't remember the majority of Britain coming out for the Labour Party recently. Best abolish it for being an unnecessary hindrance to the smooth functioning of the market.

Otzovist swill! Grow up, grow a heart, and get on the picket lines.

I share your disbelief that the unions will all come behind this. BUT THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RULED BY HEARTLESS MACHINE-MEN SUCH AS YOURSELF FOR TOO LONG.

THE GOAL??????
OVERTHROW THE WHOLE FUCKING LOT.
HOW?
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY- INCLUDING A GENERAL STRIKE FOR MINIMAL GAINS. A STALE CRUST IS BETTER THAN A BOOT IN THE MOUTH.

Twp!

[bolshevik butcher]

On your oppisition to the labour aparty, all the otehr side parties like ssp, are basically formed to influence the labour aprty. None of them ever expect to get into power. Also remmebr that the bolsheviks were part of the mensheviks who were in general a rpetty wishywashy lot. And the bolsheviks were also part of the parliemnt se tup in russia. However they kept there workers pweor stance. Maybe having good peopel in the labour party isnt sutch a bad idea, if they gain influence and convert people. As the labour aprty is the biggest source of working class power the msot 'marxist thing to do' would be to join them. As he said in the communist mainfesto that communists dont set up there own groups, they operate woithin the current movement.

[James]

"Solution" to what? The "problem" that people are living too long? That's only a problem from the viewpoint of the capitalist class, which would prefer that people kick the bucket, or be sent to a glue factory (in the UK you'd say knacker's?) or something when we're too old to work and produce profits anymore.

The wealth exists to provide retirement benefits. Wealth created by increasing productivity of labor. That productivity could be used to shorten the workweek; instead the bosses are seeking to lengthen the work-life.

Screw that. The only problem is a problem of social priorities. The solution, short of revolution, is to force the bosses to cough up the money for social benefits including retirement. A massive strike, if it can be organized, is a good start.

I think you are right: it is case of social priorities. There does need to be an extra investment from company profits back into the "system".
I'm not convinced that such a strike would do it though. Why? Because of what i pointed out. It depends on how the unions go about it; they need to prevent themselves from becoming alienated.

The issue of course is how business can be made to do it. So far its public sector unions threatening this strike action. Its the private sector though with the massive wealth. The police have more powers now to destroy strikes. Companies can lay off workers freely: or simply leave the country.

I honestly don't think the unions are in a position to be so agresive, due to their declining membership.



I wonder if you're projecting your own attitudes onto the "general public." I know all attempts to roll back retirement benefits in the U.S. have been massively unpopular, despite the fact that the many good arguments against this haven't been widely publicized.

My views regarding the general public were highlighted by supposed 3 day militancy, which turned out to be a massive flop (and also the decline in TU membership).

[James]

Were the Bolsheviks a majority of the working class?
No, but they had their support.

You are honestly comparing the current social, economic and political environment of pre-soviet russia with modern day england?

Indeed, i find it amazing that you even would compare the historical context of the two countries.

Or are you are really cool marxist who claims history simply doesn't exist?


How, in all your imaginative little world, did you imagine the workers of this world achieved the gains they have made already? By legislating for it? By asking nicely? By calculating whether or not they were part of a union that represented more than half of Labour voters in Bethnal Bow and Green and west Yorkshire simultaneously?
Poor fellow, he suffers from files.

I must say, this intrigues me further.
What do you consider to be these gains may i ask?

How do you think any of the progressive change has accured in modern britain?

The labour party has brought through a list of progressive change. Do we really have to have this debate again? Don't you get bored of it? I certainly do. Infact, i am too bored of it. If you must, go on my profile, find my posts, scroll back till you come to my post where i listed the labour party achievements.

O let me guess though, you actually think that all 12 of britains armed marxists will usher in a revolution?




But no! Such a well educated labour lad wouldn't stoop to such a level. No! Best to place the blame where it must surely lie- with those ignorant types who do so get in they way of everyone else by arguing for welfare, social rights, democracy, minimum wage, etc.

Oh, you would be refering to labourite legislation i believe.
Or do you think the minimum wage was brought in by you and your fellow armed revolutionaries?


Hell, I don't remember the majority of Britain coming out for the Labour Party recently. Best abolish it for being an unnecessary hindrance to the smooth functioning of the market.

Ah! flippancy. Terribly nice.


THE GOAL??????
OVERTHROW THE WHOLE FUCKING LOT.
HOW?
BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY- INCLUDING A GENERAL STRIKE FOR MINIMAL GAINS. A STALE CRUST IS BETTER THAN A BOOT IN THE MOUTH.

gee, well, good lluck to you. I predict that you will not have achieved this, this time next year. Or at all for the forseeable future.




Anyhow, i recognise the whole profit argument. Strikes though will be ignored/crushed by the larger corporations. If they can't do this, they will leave the country. Heathrow demonstrated this.
Smaller corporations will be crushed by the strikes, as the directors sell off the company and retire on the money you are talking about.

A better solution would be to apply less direct action. The media for example could easily be manipulated to attack more obvious high profile profit companies. This requires public attention, and support. Its the general method used to attack companies such as macdonalds. They now use "real chicken" in their nuggets! Image is everything don't you know.

Or alternatively a few unions could go on strike, send a few companies under, and achieve bugger all.

Age concern also have their solution, which is worth considering. I posted the link earlier.
Of course though it doesn't "bring down capitalism", so it won't gain the support of you and fellow 14 year old, RAGE fans.
But capitalism isn't going to end in england for the forseeable future.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't?

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

Why is it amazing to compare pre-soviet Russia to the UK? Its historical context that proves that you don't need a majority to cause change. I wonder why you are so biting in your arguement?

Look, any union action is great. Whatever these workers want, they ought to get (within reason, don't take that literally).

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:11 PM
I think you are right: it is case of social priorities. There does need to be an extra investment from company profits back into the "system".
I'm not convinced that such a strike would do it though. Why? Because of what i pointed out. It depends on how the unions go about it; they need to prevent themselves from becoming alienated.
That's a question of tactics....not goals as you were pointing out a minute ago.

[chebol]

Ah, yes. James, the ultra-cool labourite who can use- flippancy? yes. flippancy- to make fun of his opponents.

My 'fellow 14 year old rage fans' must be getting a bit long in the tooth my cynical friend. (Why is it that some people can't argue politics here without trying to make out that their opponents are young and immature? Surely arguing with the organ grinder is more useful than throwing peanuts at the monkey? More so when the monkey isn't there. Ie. Address the issues, don't throw stupid, and incorrect, insults).

So, to the meat of it.

Labour legislation. Yes. You're right. Most of these things were put into effect by Labour legislation. And, why, pray tell, did Labour legislate to get these things done?
Because they were put under pressure by the working class (Labour members and not, comrade).
So, how has progressive change taken place? People have fought for it. If noone had fought for a minimum wage, if workers hadn't gone on strike, braved government violence and starvation, do you seriously think that Labour would have been willing, or even able, to pass anything?

Your approach is one of glorifying the Labour party. Labour has made great gains in the past. But they were gains for the working class, and were won by the working class.
If Labour now turns on the workers, they have every right and responsibility to fight back.

Why (as you've avoided the question) can't pensions be granted from the age of 50? At a higher rate? They can, you know. The money is there, but the Government is unwilling to redistribute wealth fromn the rich to the poor.

Rather, your glorious New Labour team wants to give more labour power t the rich, and take away wealth from the poor. Hell of a way to be progressive, which ever way you look at it.

Nuggets?
Nuggets to you mate. You think having "real chicken" makes it any less exploitative. Grow a brain. (Flippancy alert!)

Goals. Mate, I want to see the overthrow of Capital. Right? End of story. I don't think anybody's 12 "perfectly programmed revolutionaries" are going to do that. If I did, I wouldn't be in support of a strike, because it wouldn't be necessary.

But you don't usher in an age of socialism by waiting for Blair to legislate it. You get off your arse and fight.

I'm under no illusions that this strike, should it go ahead, will bring about the cataclysmic end of capitalism. Would be nice, but has a snowball's chance in hell.

But what do you suggest? Can't win, best give in, Labour knows best, workers should shut up and do as they're told.

What's important isn't just knowing what side of the class-divide you're on, butty, but who's there with you.

[chebol]

Clenched fist, you need to read more on the history of the RSDLP, and more of Marx's opinions on working alongside those "gentlemen". Your post makes little sense.

I will agree that having good people in the Labour party is a good thing. What needs to be asked is 1. are there enough to bring about any meaningful change, and 2. might they not be more useful outside the party?

[James]

That's a question of tactics....not goals as you were pointing out a minute ago.


Scrolling up it becomes clear that i'm having several conversations with different people. The unions stated no positive action - any goal. They only stated their objection to the raising of retirement age. Neither did they offered any solution. Their only opinion was that it was wrong, so would go on strike. They are united on being against the raising of the age, but i expect their solutions will be different (we shall have to wait and see regarding this aspect of the argument). Without further development, this action will result as i predicted earlier on: utter failure and public contempt.

+ + +


Why is it amazing to compare pre-soviet Russia to the UK? Its historical context that proves that you don't need a majority to cause change. I wonder why you are so biting in your arguement?

You are confused as to what i meant by historical context of the two countries. At the moment they are completely different. To argue otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking.

+ + +


Ah, yes. James, the ultra-cool labourite who can use- flippancy? yes. flippancy- to make fun of his opponents.

Look at your comments. I was repling on a similar level.
If you want to take the high ground, then you are going to have to drop this whole "James is a die hard labourite".

I simply stated that labour was the main way for left wing change to occur.
I made my case in another thread.
I'm not going to let you depict me as a party partisan though.



Labour legislation. Yes. You're right. Most of these things were put into effect by Labour legislation. And, why, pray tell, did Labour legislate to get these things done?
Because they were put under pressure by the working class (Labour members and not, comrade).
So, how has progressive change taken place? People have fought for it. If noone had fought for a minimum wage, if workers hadn't gone on strike, braved government violence and starvation, do you seriously think that Labour would have been willing, or even able, to pass anything?


So yes: labour was the way it was made possible. Of course with pressure from the grass roots. Thats how the labour party works.


Your approach is one of glorifying the Labour party.

No it isn't.
Its the only way the change will occure though. Its simply pointing out facts.

I don't glorify them.
How do i glorify them?


Labour has made great gains in the past. But they were gains for the working class, and were won by the working class.
If Labour now turns on the workers, they have every right and responsibility to fight back.

True


Why (as you've avoided the question) can't pensions be granted from the age of 50? At a higher rate? They can, you know. The money is there, but the Government is unwilling to redistribute wealth fromn the rich to the poor.

The government couldn't redistribute the wealth. They don't have the mandate. It wouldn't even pass through the house.


Rather, your glorious New Labour team wants to give more labour power t the rich, and take away wealth from the poor. Hell of a way to be progressive, which ever way you look at it.
I fail to see the relevance.



Nuggets?
Nuggets to you mate. You think having "real chicken" makes it any less exploitative. Grow a brain. (Flippancy alert!)

Wow, you managed to completely miss the point.
I was pointing out the power of the press, and the importance of image.

You need to "get with the times".



Goals. Mate, I want to see the overthrow of Capital. Right? End of story.
Go on strike and simply say that.
I garuntee you shall fail amazingly. As well as manage to alienate yourself.

I'm afriad current britons arn't revolutionaries like you.

spare me the "but i'm the vanguard of the revolution". If you really want to think that, be my guest.
Lets see what you have achieved this time next year.


But what do you suggest?

being sensible about it for one.
I've stated the importance of image and the press. Use these weapons, as well as being as broad as possible. Even if this means being "less radical".


Can't win, best give in, Labour knows best, workers should shut up and do as they're told.

nice spin.

[chebol]

You fail to show any sign of distinguishing between historical circumstances and historically verifiable rules of social behaviour and change. This colours your view of the TUC threat to strike. There is evidence that the issue would receive mixed support- and the media will naturally play a role in opposing any such action as a general strike.
Their reaction already, however, shows that the TUC is in fact more media-savvy than you are, as they have already raised the injustice of the planned pension change before the matter has come to a head. Now, if it comes to a strike, it is because the Government has refused to compromise.

However, compromise they will (or appear to), and buy off different unions, or sections of them (particularly their leadership). It's happened before and will again- it's a Labour modus operandi. It happened, funnily enough, in 1926.

However, while a strike may not bring about pension reform, it does give extra strength to the union movement in the negotiation of a better 'reform'- one that doesn't hurt workers. It is this part of the equation that you dismiss, as you have no sense (outside, I'm sure, of theory) of the political force of the organised working class.

The media will inevitably vilify a strike. The media is owned by corporations and capitalists whose interests are threatened and damaged by strikes. But strikes ARE in the interest of workers. Without them, without the people themselves using their power, odious examples of humanity pick up their power, and use it do dubious ends.

The only reason there even is a Labour party is because workers haven't the courage and clarity of vision to take the power into their own hands, a situation maintained especially by Labour, whose very existence is threatened when people decide that, not only do they disagree with labour pulling the wool over their eyes, but their going to do something about it.

Marxists aim to help in the removal of that wool. At times it has been useful to work within labour parties, when there was a real chance of effecting change. At the moment (and for the past several decades), the reality is that such things aren't possible. The left needs to regroup outside of labour to put forward an alternative position to the neoliberal agenda being foisted upon their constituency by "New" labour.

Your misunderstanding of the role of Labour reflects your misunderstanding of politics. Labour was created by the workers of Britain to acheive change. Workers used labour to acheive change. Labour did NOT acheive change "with grass-roots support". The Labour Party was the tool of the working class. This tool has now been wrenched from their hands by the bourgeoisie, and is used against them, but many still maintain their faith, their illusion, that Labour is the "working class party".

In order to effect change, one can now no longer effectively use the Labour Party. It is necessary to build a new mass workers party, that fights for workers rights, and aims not merely to beg for crumbs from the capitalist table, but to take over the table, or bring it down and erect a new one. The real mandate lies in the people. All (!) that needs doing is reminding them of that, and determining a line of march...

Your analysis is caught in the simplistic trap of neoliberal economics because you haven't the imagination to think outside of it. It threatens your beautiful stability. Unfortunately for you, the real threat to stability lies in capitalism itself.

Re. nuggets. I think you missed the point.
Get with the times. It's better to live on next to no pay in shit conditions so long as you're selling REAL chicken. Perhaps you could advise KFC to pay in the IMAGE of money, to make everything work better.

You fail to see the relevance????
I'll spell it out to you. You make people work more- companies profit more. People work less (or not at all) and get money anyway- companies profit less. Government makes people work longer, same deal. Government solves problem by taking money off companies to help people work less and have more money. Companies don't like it so they go away. Some threaten economic blackmail and violence. People and government take over companies' assets and keep them running. They find that, actually, if their not trying to make such a HUGE profit, noone has to work very much at all, and still lives very comfortably, thank you very much. Companies try to sue from Washington, get laughed at and noone cares becasue now the people run things. Simple.

Well, it is.




Until you get it, the companies are laughing all the way to the bank (which they likely own).

[James]

True, they have had it on their agenda for sometime now, but what i was refering to how they go about trying to achieve change (i.e. redirecting company profits into pensions).

It is my opinion, which of course may well be wrong - but it is my opinion, that they would be far more succesful by not being directly aggressive and confrontational. At least not yet.
Whilst they have had it on their agenda, they havn't pushed it to the extent and the way that i think they should have, and should do.
My example of macdonalds was similar to to the starbucks approach. That is, a PR campaign in addition to disruptive direct action.
The PR campaign addresses the issue which the direct action is tring to change. Its a dual process. However, the real success comes through the PR campaign, as it tackles the companies/governments in a liberal capitalist manor, i.e. harming their public image, which reduces their business.

The example of Macdonalds: the workers going on strike would not have got changes in the sort of food they sell. The PR campaign however makes it the companies best interest to change.

You favour the threatening stick, which is fair enough, it is your opinion.
I favour the above carrot method, in addition to a smaller threatening stick.

Starbucks, and its freetrade, also highlights how it can be succesful (i'm not going to even pretend that it is terribly succesful: but i find it more succesful than your method) to a degree. This is where "goals/aims" comes into it. I'm sorry, but i think there is absolutely no chance of significant socialist change, for some time. Maybe i'm a pesimist, but it is my opinion. Therefore, i focus on how to change the system, within capitalism.

I believe in having smaller, achievable goals: which once achieved, further goals are targeted.

Here is where we arrive at the utlimate ideological crossroads. No doubt you consider me to be misguided, opportunist, counter productive: a friend of the capitalists. However, i think that the method/ideology that i support has the greatist chance of success. The successes that it will achieve shall then act as the foundations for actual significant socialist change - the sort of change which i think you believe to be achievable today.

So its a fundamental difference in opinion. Here we have a deadend. I appreciate that you think me to be wrong; but that is the nature of conflicting opinions. Each thinks the other to be fundamentally wrong.



Your misunderstanding of the role of Labour reflects your misunderstanding of politics.

I'm in favour of the view of labour discussed by Benn in Arguments for socialism, ch. 1 (The inheritance), Penguin books, 1980.

[James]

Here is an example, page 3 of latest Private Eye.
Say Camelot was the target.

The following needs to be made as public as possible (via TV adverts, flyers, rallys, indeed - strikes, letters to (wide range of) newspapers, newspaper articles, petitions etc etc)

1999 - 2004, lottery sales declined.
retailers get £246m: compared to previously £258m.
donations to "good causes" has dropped 12%

HOWEVER, the amount kept by the company in 2004/5 was an increase on the amount kept in 1990/2000 of 17%.


The PR fun you could have with these figures is endless. Especially the fact that "good causes" are involved.