The Left: Moribund.

[Guest]

We have been promised 'the biggest industrial action for a generation' this coming Wednesday.....for the last few weeks, Trade Union leaders have been issuing all manner of Lear-like threats, so what can we expect on Wednesday?

I'm putting my bet on 'a damp squib'.

The malaise in which the Left finds itself - with the Labour leadership dithering, a la Kinnock, about what to do - is the result of decades of lazy thinking (read:non-thinking) and wilful refusal to face up to the facts of a changing world on the part of its leaders and fellow travellers. The Left knows how to protest (though it knows virtually nothing about EFFECTIVE protest), but - if asked for its solutions to the banking crisis/recession/Eurozone problem - it turns out it hasn't got any; or, if it has, they are old and generally discredited ones (nationalisation, or 'social ownership' as Hattersley termed it when he trying to remove the stigma attached to the n word).

In the 70s, the Left's response to the rise of the new Right was to ignore it and blithely assume that people would never go for such daft ideas: there was no attempt to come up with a saleable alternative to popular capitalism and tremendously popular (and populist) initiatives like council house sales (which may have been a popular policy but was hardly a good one, as it contributed to the present housing crisis). On nuclear power, Leftists allowed themselves to be painted as Luddites until they were forced to abandon this core belief by the fact that popular opinion had decisively moved on.

As far as I'm aware, the only serious solution to our present problems was the one posited by the former Lord Stansgate (Tony Benn to you) in the 70s, when he advocated a withdrawal from NATO and the Common Market leading to a type of 'fortress Britain' economy- which, as he readily admitted, would have led to a dramatic drop in living standards for just about everyone in the UK. This was probably politically impossible in the 1970s; it would certainly be politically impossible now, though our living standards will probably - probably - remain higher under free market capitalism than they would under Benn's system.

So, my prediction is that this Wednesday will represent another humiliation for the Left in the UK, with millions crossing picket lines because they JUST CAN'T AFFORD TO GO ON STRIKE, even though they know they're being royally screwed over by Cameron and Co in re: their pensions.

The bottom line is this: yes, capitalism got us into this mess; but only capitalism is going to get us out.

[ahinton]

We have been promised 'the biggest industrial action for a generation' this coming Wednesday.....for the last few weeks, Trade Union leaders have been issuing all manner of Lear-like threats, so what can we expect on Wednesday?

I'm putting my bet on 'a damp squib'.

The malaise in which the Left finds itself - with the Labour leadership dithering, a la Kinnock, about what to do - is the result of decades of lazy thinking (read:non-thinking) and wilful refusal to face up to the facts of a changing world on the part of its leaders and fellow travellers. The Left knows how to protest (though it knows virtually nothing about EFFECTIVE protest), but - if asked for its solutions to the banking crisis/recession/Eurozone problem - it turns out it hasn't got any; or, if it has, they are old and generally discredited ones (nationalisation, or 'social ownership' as Hattersley termed it when he trying to remove the stigma attached to the n word).

In the 70s, the Left's response to the rise of the new Right was to ignore it and blithely assume that people would never go for such daft ideas: there was no attempt to come up with a saleable alternative to popular capitalism and tremendously popular (and populist) initiatives like council house sales (which may have been a popular policy but was hardly a good one, as it contributed to the present housing crisis). On nuclear power, Leftists allowed themselves to be painted as Luddites until they were forced to abandon this core belief by the fact that popular opinion had decisively moved on.

As far as I'm aware, the only serious solution to our present problems was the one posited by the former Lord Stansgate (Tony Benn to you) in the 70s, when he advocated a withdrawal from NATO and the Common Market leading to a type of 'fortress Britain' economy- which, as he readily admitted, would have led to a dramatic drop in living standards for just about everyone in the UK. This was probably politically impossible in the 1970s; it would certainly be politically impossible now, though our living standards will probably - probably - remain higher under free market capitalism than they would under Benn's system.

So, my prediction is that this Wednesday will represent another humiliation for the Left in the UK, with millions crossing picket lines because they JUST CAN'T AFFORD TO GO ON STRIKE, even though they know they're being royally screwed over by Cameron and Co in re: their pensions.

The bottom line is this: yes, capitalism got us into this mess; but only capitalism is going to get us out.

Interesting thoughts!

It's hard to say what the effect - or, as you suggest, the extent - of next Wednesday's industrial inaction will be; only one thing seems to me to be certain, which is that, whatever does or doesn't happen on that day and whatever its immediate consequences, it is most unlikely to make the slightest difference to the cause for which trade unions are fighting.

But the "malaise" of the Left? It's undeniable, to be sure, but I think that it goes deeper than just that. When asked if she wanted to pull the Conservative party to the right, Margaret Thatcher once said that she wanted to pull all parties to the right; whether and to what extent she can therefore be held responsible for that then happening over a period of years may be open to question, but the fact that all parties have indeed satisfied that particular wish is also undeniable, with the consequence that many people now complain that the differences between the main political parties are far smaller now than they used to be.

Tony Benn's ideas that you mention would certainly have given rise to comparative long-term poverty for the majority of the population of Britain had they been introduced, but then the difference between their effects and those of the current and future pension cuts is one of scale only. Where the "fortress" aspect of his "fortress Britain" economy would have faltered and ultimately failed entirely would have been in its inevitable consequence of Britain's increasing inability to go borrowing from other nations as it would have needed to do. The purpose of fortresses is to keep people out and we had surely learnt years ago that there's nothing "splendid" about "isolation".

As to the suggestion that the sale of local authority housing "contributed to the present housing crisis", I'm by no means convinced. What people who advocate renting rather than purchasing one's home tend to brush aside is the fact that someone has to own the rented property, so many of the problems now visited upon many homeowners (which is what I presume you to mean by the term "housing crisis") would still have been visited upon the landlords, with inevitable consequences for the tenants - and by "landlords" I mean local authorities as well as corporate and private ones. It could equally well be said that there is something of a local authority crisis equivalent to that of the housing crisis, in that these organisations are having increasing demands placed upon them yet are becoming ever more cash-strapped; having to maintain the comparatively vast housing stocks that they used to own would only have served to compound this problem. Ultimately, it's broadly similar to the state "pension" argument; if you can't seize enough tax revenues and can't borrow sufficient funds to enable their continued payment as is now the case, there will have to be compromises simply because, in the wordsof the cliché, "there will be no more money on the table" (or at least not enough of it); likewise, local authorities that can't raise sufficient council tax, borrow sufficient funds or get sufficient top-up assistance from national government will simply be unable fully to finance certain of their commitments.

The Hattersley term (did he really invent it?) "social ownership" was an utter absurdity; what would one have made of its literal opposite, "anti-social ownership"? The traditional old Left were especially worked up about the question of who owns - and should own - what; others of various different political hues were - and for the most part still are - generally less concerned about who owns what than they are about the tangible benefits or otherwise that might arise from such ownership. I recall in the dark days of the 1970s that what we now know as British Gas was making large profits for a while - and it was then a state-owned organisation; it occurred to me at that time to question whether the profits it was making were more or less important than who owned the company.

The long-standing traditional trade union mantra that strikes constitute "withdrawal of labour" misleads today as much as it ever did; it's not a "withdrawal" but a "suspension" of labour, since all strikes are for limited pre-advertised periods of time; the best - and indeed the only - way that a cause can sucessfully be served by protest of this nature is not for strike action to take place but for disgruntled employees to resign en masse - i.e. a true "withdrawal of labour". Your point that millions may cross picket lines next Wednesday because they just can't afford to go on strike is apt here; such people could afford to resign their employed positions even less, which is why such withdrawal of labour has never occurred as a means of protest yet, if it were ever to do so, it is quite likely that the causes concerned would be successfully served as an immediate direct consequence. Imagine, for example, if all medical staff employed by NHS were to resign en masse; no one could successfully accuse any of them of breach of contract (if for no better reason than that there simply wouldn't be enough lawyers and courts to deal with so many such cases at once) and there would be no way that the armed forces could suddenly be pressed into service to take over, especially on an indefinite basis. The government would thus be faced with having to act in order to keep the NHS going and, in such circumstances, what else could they do but either capitulate and persuade all those resignees to reapply for their positions at once or let the entire state health service collapse for good?

Strikes are a blunt instrument that becomes blunter still whenever the public gets inconvenienced by them. I'm not advocating true withdrawal of labour as a more persuasive alternative because, as you point out with strikes, most people simply could not afford to do this, but that fact alone doesn't make strikes the answer as a means to protest about perceived or actual employment woes.

...(to be continued)...

[ahinton]

...(continued from above)...

Your "bottom line" is, I think, truer that you may realise (or at least truer than you indicate here), in that capitalism will have to get us out of this mess (if indeed we ever do get out of it, which is by no means guaranteed), because there is no alternative economic system; it is as notable as it is unsurprising that "anti-capitalists" of all kinds present a front that suggests that they are "anti-" for the sake of wanting to protest but not "pro-" anything else because they do not have a viable alternative to put forward. There's obviously no point in trying to dismantle the entire panoply of capitalism (even in the impossiblyh unlikely event of general international agreement to do so) without a practical alternative economic systm with which to replace it. One has only to consider the economies of the Communist régimes of the past century or so to realise that these, too, were in reality capitalist ones, the only difference between them and others being in the manner in which and the extent to which any wealth was distributed and to whom; they all still depended to some extent on importing from and exporting to non-Communist nations and were all subject at all times to financial corruption just as in most other capitalist states - and, after all, the more that governments seek to control national wealth, the greater and more active the black market becomes.

What will the solutions be - if indeed there are any? I have no idea. Nor, I suspect, do many senior politicians. One thing, however, is pretty certain - and that is that borrowing at all levels is all very well until the lender decides that the game's up and turns off the tap; given that almost every nation on earth is sufficiently indebted as to be incapable of redeeming its debts upon demand, the writing would seem to be upon the wall and likely to remain there until the wall collapses because no one is any longer able to afford to maintain it.

[rauschwerk]

In recent times (from 1979 in the UK) huge amounts of power have been handed to 'the markets' without any kind of responsibility being required in return. The amount of money used for speculation now far exceeds the amount used for trade. Shares and other financial instruments are traded largely under the control of computer-based algorithms which pay no heed to the performance (actual or potential) of the companies in question. Politicians now have little or no power to make major changes to governance, and if they aver that they have then their words are empty. It is extremely difficult to see how they can regain the power they so carelessly gave away. In any case, we are now starting to see democratically elected politicians replaced by technocrats at the behest of the 'markets'.

Capitalism might get us out of this mess but the system which now reigns is a perversion of capitalism. Politicians might not be able to do much but clearly many of them are terrified to do anything meaningful at all except kick the working classes in the nuts at regular intervals.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Damp quib, eh?

All my teaching colleagues are so angry about the governments' (and I include previous administrations) theft of our pension contributions, that every one of them will be striking on Wednesday. The press only see us as irresponsible, because we will not be child-minding for other workers. Perhaps those simple-minded pen-pushers can advise on how a teacher can take action over a government breach of contract without striking.

[ahinton]

In recent times (from 1979 in the UK) huge amounts of power have been handed to 'the markets' without any kind of responsibility being required in return. The amount of money used for speculation now far exceeds the amount used for trade. Shares and other financial instruments are traded largely under the control of computer-based algorithms which pay no heed to the performance (actual or potential) of the companies in question. Politicians now have little or no power to make major changes to governance, and if they aver that they have then their words are empty. It is extremely difficult to see how they can regain the power they so carelessly gave away. In any case, we are now starting to see democratically elected politicians replaced by technocrats at the behest of the 'markets'.

"Handed to" or "seized by"? "Gave away" or "had taken from them"?

As to the amounts used for speculation, one has first to determine what is meant by speculation and there is certainly no dividin line with speculative activity firmly on one side and trading ditto equally firmly on the other.

Capitalism might get us out of this mess but the system which now reigns is a perversion of capitalism. Politicians might not be able to do much but clearly many of them are terrified to do anything meaningful at all except kick the working classes in the nuts at regular intervals.

The first part of this is undoubtedly true.

[Lateralthinking1]

Eine - Great news. Let's hope it is just the first step. I would like to see six separate weeks of strikes - full weeks - between now and the end of the financial year. One announcement but no advance warning of the individual dates. People to be advised the evening before each one, hence no contingencies. This will place huge financial pressures on some. However, the message would be "strike on as many weeks as you can". I am in no doubt whatsoever that the foregoing of a holiday for a couple of years in many cases or something like a decision not to buy electrical goods for that period would be a very small price to pay.

We also need the unions to reach out to private sector workers and the unemployed. I loved the poster from one demonstrator that said "Don't take my Mum's pension anyway". Let's get rid of the artificial distinctions for once and for all. Adverts during the X Factor to point out that there are public sector workers in a very high number of families. What they manage to retain stands a better chance of helping members of those families too. The alternative is that it goes to the very well off.

It also needs to be backed up by the urging of special support for the vulnerable and the elderly. Union members need to be seen as helping those during the strikes. It really isn't rocket science to get this sorted out - Lat.

[MrGongGong]

Eine - Great news. Let's hope it is just the first step. I would like to see six separate weeks of strikes - full weeks - between now and the end of the financial year. One announcement but no advance warning of the individual dates. People to be advised the evening before each one. This will place huge financial pressures on some. However, the message would be "strike on as many weeks as you can". I am in no doubt whatsoever that the foregoing of a holiday for a couple of years in many cases or something like a decision not to buy electrical goods for that period would be a very small price to pay.
.

Of course for those of us who are self employed that would mean total financial ruin but no one gives a toss about that least of all the politicians
If I lost that much work it would mean no house , rather than no holiday
I'm in danger of running out of empathy with many folk that I work with on a regular basis , luckily I'm not due to be working in a school next Wednesday or I would simply loose the work and the fee in support of (yes, hard working and deserving of more etc etc ) people who DO get paid holidays, sick pay etc etc

[ahinton]

Damp quib, eh?

All my teaching colleagues are so angry about the governments' (and I include previous administrations) theft of our pension contributions, that every one of them will be striking on Wednesday. The press only see us as irresponsible, because we will not be child-minding for other workers. Perhaps those simple-minded pen-pushers can advise on how a teacher can take action over a government breach of contract without striking.

I certainly doubt that it will be a damp squib, for all that I have no idea what it actually will be. Much as I sympathise with you and your teaching colleagues, I fail to perceive what difference there is in principle between government theft of your pensions and government theft of so many private sector workers' pensions that occurred when Brown was Chancellor; that's not to defend either, of course - merely to draw an inevitable comparison. That said, I don't quite see how anyone - simple-minded pen-pushers (does anyone really still push pens these days?!) or otherwise - can realistically expect that strike action will overtun any such breach of contract and, given that this one is happening under a Tory government and the previous ones were presided over by Chance(llo)r Brown's Labour one (and I note and agree with your inclusion of "previous administrations"), I don't even see that a change of government - even were one to result from an emerency General Election that is not even mooted yet - would make any tangible diffeence either.

What I fear that we're all going to have to get used to is that the notion of retirement as anything other than a luxury for the small minority that can afford it is going out of the window along with pensions, be they private, public sector or state. Market performance, whether real or artificial, affects the values of all pensions other than the misnamed state one (which isn't a pension at all, as there are no savings into it and no investment of the "contributions"). so one cannot realistically ascribe all the blame for pension shortfalls to individual governments either.

[Lateralthinking1]

Of course for those of us who are self employed that would mean total financial ruin but no one gives a toss about that least of all the politicians. If I lost that much work it would mean no house , rather than no holiday.

With respect, I don't believe this for one moment.

How many holidays did you have this year? I had a long weekend in Devon in late October.

How many cars are there in your household? In mine, there are none.

Do you have Sky TV, a dishwasher, a freezer, unnecessary annual subscriptions, two-wheeled vehicles, a DVD player, expensive musical instruments or sports equipment? I don't have any of these things.

Do you have more than one computer? I don't.

How many mobile phones? I have none.

Do you have children who are being funded to attend private schools? Do you have private medical insurance? I don't.

What is your capability for downsizing? What percentage of your mortgage do you need to pay off?

I'm living - just.

Let's have the facts please. The reality rather than the fantasy. The long-term view rather than the short-term propaganda.

[MrGongGong]

With respect, I don't believe this for one moment.

How many holidays did you have this year? I had a long weekend in Devon in late October.

How many cars are there in your household? I have none.

Do you have Sky TV, a dishwasher, a freezer, unnecessary annual subscriptions, two-wheeled vehicles, a DVD player, expensive musical instruments or sports equipment? I don't have any of these things.

Do you have more than one computer? I don't.

How many mobile phones? I have none.

What is your capability for downsizing? What percentage of your mortgage do you need to pay off?

Do you have children who are being funded to attend private schools? Do you have private medical insurance? I don't.

I'm living - just.

Let's have the facts please.

Are you always this rude or do you save it up for special occasions ?

with respect , I suggest you try and believe people who are being honest !


Six weeks of no work would mean financial ruin for us whether YOU decide to believe it or not
you have a bizarre idea of how people live !

[amateur51]

Please good people.

This is another Mandy wind-up

Motives unknown

Save your sanity & move on.

[Lateralthinking1]

Sorry but you haven't answered the questions. I can only assume that you are trying to live the short-term dream while pretending the future away. I don't think I was rude but I have no tolerance for middle aged people whose over-emphasis on comfort requires the elderly to die in poverty.

PS. I note your comments am. Confused......not for the first time!

[rauschwerk]

What I fear that we're all going to have to get used to is that the notion of retirement as anything other than a luxury for the small minority that can afford it is going out of the window along with pensions, be they private, public sector or state.

Yes indeed. I do worry about how my offspring will fare by the time they are my age (66). It was a shock to me to be made redundant at 49 from what I had thought was a job for life but my severance package was legendary even by the standards of those days. Now I draw an index-linked pension which (I am reliably informed) would require a pension pot of half a million pounds to buy the equivalent annuity at today's rates. This is more or less what my well paid son hopes to do, but he does not have even the job security that I thought I had at his age.

[Lateralthinking1]

As a matter of interest, what have you done between 49 and 66? My severance package at 48 last year wasn't legendary so there is that factor known as survival. But other than that, there are big questions about what to do with the rest of my life. I'm genuinely looking for past examples.