The Glasgow & Edinburgh Branches Blog. Towards a better understanding of the world, in order to change it.
"We need to win the public to our cause and what we must avoid at all costs is alienating them and adding to the book of historic union failures. That is why I have no truck and you should have no truck with overblown rhetoric about waves of irresponsible strikes." (Quote from Ed Miliband's speech)
Ed Miliband, does not say what a responsible strike is, however, this article from the Socialist Standard, September 1977 indicates the realities for the reasons of strikes past, present and future while capitalism exists.
Strikes : An unchanging pattern
MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK that strikes and similar disturbances are caused by laziness, intransigence, stupidity, a willingness to be led, greed, resentment, a want of foresight--in short, for moral failings on the part of employers and their employees, chiefly the latter.
This is odd-because all sorts of people have been involved under different circumstances and at different times - miners, civil servants, policemen, bank clerks, doctors, school teachers, shop assistants. Have they all suffered from lack of fibre? It is even more odd that the pattern does. Not change, repeated again and again since the early days of capitalism, and well recorded. Recently Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South has been reprinted (Penguin 1976). Much of the central part of this book is concerned with the strike in a northern manufacturing town in the mid-1850s.
Although it is not the main theme of the novel, and though Mrs. Gaskell was sympathetic to the workers both in her narrative and in real life, religious and individual issues were more important to her—as they usually were in nineteenth-century novels. Her account, though fictional, is clearly based on her own experience and closely observed.
She describes the by now familiar features workers goaded to strike, the struggle to maintain a standard of living, union leaders trying to keep the issues clear and to hold the reins, some strikers against their union's advice - trying to force the issue by direct confrontation, collision with the police, broken heads, the threat of prison, attempts to make the closure total, employment of foreign labour, (in this case, Irish).
When scientists find in circumstances which are varying a constant pattern they assume an underlying cause. In this case we do not have to carry out research to discover what it is. Discord is at the base of capitalism. A worker will try to sell his labour-power for the best price and in the best possible market. His standard of living depends on it, and with his standards his way of life itself. He cannot live out of society. There, are always blandishments to induce him to spend his money-even, in fact to owe it. The capitalist, on the other hand, his employer, seeks to buy labour-power as cheaply as possible-profits depend on it. These are the seeds of struggle. There is bound to be contention. When it leads to strikes or other conflict then-since capitalism hasn't changed--they are likely to run to type. It has nothing to do with moral dereliction. It has everything to do with the economic and unavoidable nature of, capitalism. C. D.
Labour have been criticising the Liberals assisting the Tories into office, however, this article from the Socialist Standard of November 1977 will recall that Labour have wheeled in their help from time to time.
Lab-Lib: A Rabble
There is AN OLD SAYING that if you lie down with a dog you get up with fleas. No doubt it has dawned on the leaders of the Liberal Party that the idea of projecting themselves as an alternative government to the Labourites and Tories is a non-starter. With thirteen MPs and a discredited minority government, their only way to power is through the side door.
With no ideas to put to the working class, the only alternative to a future in the political wilderness and possible extinction was to do a deal. But, such are the fortunes of opportunism and reformism, they could be cutting their own throats either way. The price they will inevitably pay for "dealing" will be to forfeit the phoney image they have built up over twenty or thirty years that they had distinctive policies and independent ideas. For them to line up openly with one of the parties they have claimed to be so different from can only lose the support of those who had turned to them, having despaired of the other two.
In an effort to have his cake and eat it Mr. Steel, the Liberal leader, sought to pose as champion of the motorist and pledged himself to vote against Budget increases in petrol prices and road tax. He argued that these increases fell outside the arrangement, and as there had been no consultation on them the Liberals were free to vote against them. After the by-election massacre at Stetchford the motorist did not seem to matter so much. A more urgent need instantly asserted itself: avoiding a General Election, with the threat of annihilation. The great and courageous leader had to find a way out while still trying to sound plausible, at least to the gullible. So he discovered that the increases in motoring costs would not be voted on as a separate resolution in Parliament, but would be tied to other proposals; so it might be best to let the thirteen Liberals make up their own minds, and led from behind.
The Labour Government are like drowning men desperately clutching at anything in the agony of their disastrous attempt at running capitalism. Having repeatedly declared against coalition, they turned to the Liberals to survive. The one-time "firebrand" of the Left, Michael Foot, will solemnly sit down each week in consultation with the Liberals to keep his mob in power a little longer, unless the whole thing blows up in their faces. Then they will blame each other and fall back on any feeble excuse to try to save their political hides. There is no expediency too shabby for any of them.
The IMG, WRP, IS and the CP, who urged workers to vote Labour and now go round muttering demands for "socialist policies", get the policies of the Labour Party which they voted for. The policies which these Lefties hold to be Socialist are in fact just as useless and reformist as those of the Labour Party.
When Mr. Steel claims that his deal with the Government will mean no more nationalization in this session of Parliament, is he really silly enough to believe he is saving capitalism? Is he unaware that his own Party, when in power, carried out Acts of nationalization? He only displays his ignorance if he thinks a Labour Government represents any threat to capitalism, or that nationalization has anything to do with Socialism. It is a shame that questions like these never occur to people like Robin Day during those boring mock-interviews on television, like the one on polling day for Stetchford. But of course they would not keep their cushy jobs for long if they did.
Mrs. Thatcher and her Tory tribesmen can get as indignant as they like, but under Heath in l974 they were quite willing to talk coalition with the Liberals. The readiness of the Liberals to co-operate with either of the "major"Parties, shows how little there is of fundamental difference between any of them. In fact, Steel said it is his belief that people "will find the artificial Party battles irrelevant to the problems of the day" (Guardian, 24th March). It is the parties that are irrelevant, Mr. Steel. The problems arise out of capitalist society, and you are all dedicated to its preservation.
For the Tories Mrs. Thatcher said: "We believe in capitalism and democracy". What about the other combinations, Mrs. Thatcher? Capitalism and war? Capitalism and poverty? Capitalism and crises? Capitalism and unemployment? Even Callaghan said in the same report: "I would not like to guarantee that the decline in unemployment will continue in the next few months". None of them can guarantee anything. But while the system lasts the misery and political trading it has always produced will continue.
Enoch Powell pledged not to bring the Labour Government down and abstained on the crucial vote of confidence. Callaghan and Co. had been just as prepared to deal with the Ulster Unionists as they were with the, Liberals. Just to show that they all have the same priorities, seven Liberals voted against cuts in war potentials in the first vote after the deal.
The working class trust any of them at the expense of their own interests. Apart from war-time coalitions when Tories, Labourites and Liberals joined forces with "Communist" support to pull capitalism's chestnuts out of the fire, there have been deals between the Labour Party and the Liberals from the very early days of the Labour Party. The 1924 Labour Government was voted into office on Liberal votes. As early as l9l0 there were electoral "arrangements" between these two reformist Parties.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has one objective, Socialism. This can only be achieved when a majority of the working class reject the squalid expediencies of opportunist politics.
HB
Top management, company directors and top bankers, all have managed to increase their bonuses and perks while workers in lower paid jobs face wage cuts and unemployment. This summary of this article indicates there are others doing very well for themselves.
Investigation by Paul Hutcheon, Sunday Herald 26 Sep 2010
Police chiefs are receiving lucrative housing allowances on top of generous salaries and in some cases bonuses from the taxpayer, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
Chief constables are still receiving an outdated property perk that was taken away from officers who signed up to the service after 1994.
The total bill for the subsidies across the Scottish forces amounts to millions of pounds a year.
The UK and Scottish Governments are set to slash funding for all public bodies, including Scotland's eight police forces.
Plans being drawn up by police bosses to fill the black hole include laying off thousands of civilian staff and moving towards a single force north of the Border.
Les Gray, the chair of the Scottish Police Federation, has already warned ministers that planned cuts of up to 25% could lead to an increase in violent crime.
However, the cuts are coming in spite of police forces spending millions of pounds every year on a perk that was axed for most officers 16 years ago.
Before September 1994, police officers were granted an allowance that contributed to their housing costs.
The then Conservative Government scrapped the handout for new recruits, who had to make do with their salary.
But existing beneficiaries did not lose their entitlement to a rent or housing allowance, which can work out at around £3000 a year for ordinary beat police, and nearly £6000 per annum for chief constables……..
"
The Obama administration is set to notify Congress of plans to offer advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia worth up to $60 billion, the largest U.S. arms deal ever, and is in talks with the kingdom about potential naval and missile-defense upgrades that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more. The administration plans to tout the $60 billion package as a major job creator—supporting at least 75,000 jobs, according to company estimates—and sees the sale of advanced fighter jets and military helicopters to key Middle Eastern ally Riyadh as part of a broader policy aimed at shoring up Arab allies against Iran." (Wall Street Journal, 12 September) RDSocialists can't tell just how everything will operate in a socialist society; one thing they can say is the tremendous amount of social energy used in the protection of private property will be available for other purposes once the common ownership of the means of production is a fact.
In this article from the September issue of Labour Research, claims an annual budget of £9 billion; the general secretary warns there is an alternative, unfortunately, it's an alternative that leaves the working class producing wealth for the profit of the bosses.
One in five justice jobs at risk
