I have already referred to FT columnist Janan Ganesh once today. Let me pick another but from his article, as it is so telling as to what the dispute with Unite is about:
Mr Miliband's biggest idea is “pre-distribution”, which seeks to reduce welfare by getting the private sector itself to raise wages at the bottom and narrow pay differentials. That implies more powerful unions. There will also be pressure on him to undo some of the Thatcherite reforms to labour laws. Unions will try to ensure his newly hawkish line on spending does not survive first contact with government.
To calm voters, Mr Miliband must renounce this. He must say Unite is wrong in its ends, not just its means. But it is not clear he believes that.
I am quite convinced Ganesh has given the game away. He does not want wages to rise. He does not want the less well off to have their situation improved. He does not want unions who could demand that. And many in Labour might, unfortunately, agree. And both he and some in labour say unions are wrong to demand fair pay and conditions.
They are wrong.
And unions are right to say they're wrong. And it is a fight the country requires, on this occasion, that unions win.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
When we are told that average earnings will be 10 to 15% LESS in 2015 than they were in 2010, surely this is a no-brainer to anyone outside the privileged, cosseted 1%, who, by battening on “rent” derived from taxation streams, are the REAL welfare and benefit dependent scroungers and skivers?
Sorry for the inaccurate figures, which are correctly expressed in Frances O’Grady’s piece, quoted in another article in this Blog, namely:
Not only has there been a decline in the wage share of the economy, but those in the middle and at the lower end have been getting a smaller share of this shrinking pie. The Resolution Foundation has forecast that a typical low-income household in 2020 will have an income 15% lower than they would have had in 2008. – See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/07/08/the-uk-needs-a-pay-rise-now-if-we-are-to-get-out-of-recession/#comment-area
Since the key problem with our economy is lack of demand, owing to lack of income, then “pre-distribution” and raising earning power is clearly in the interests of everyone who does NOT want to live in a “Blade Runner” society of gated communities, isolated like islands in a sea of violence and destitution.
Your last sentence is true .
I’ve voted for all three major parties plus UKIP in General/Bi Elections and like much of the electorate have been turned off by political parties and in the past by unions overstepping the mark .
For me , in order to “win” , there are a few things the Unions need to do .
1) “winning” has to be defined as winning the argument , not bringing down a government as Mr Scargill was aiming for . (I would say “elected government” except nobody voted for a coalition) .
Anti-government rhetoric should to be reigned in and in any case the issue could hardly be framed in a party political context because the three main parties are basically offering the same thing .
Do you have someone in mind who can do this ?
2) Have to be seen as supporters of democracy
The perception , which I believe to be correct in some cases , is that some union activists and far left wingers :-
– would happily trade democracy for a totalitarian single party system with a command and control economy
– believe the ends justifies the means
– are intolerant of those who disagree with them
– don’t recognise that the individual needs to be protected from the state
I voted Conservative in the last general election because after 3 terms in office Labour was becoming entrenched and maybe a threat to democracy so needed to be booted out .
I think many people voted Conservative for the same reason , not in the vain hope that they would be any better which they haven’t .
3) Have to be honest about austerity and spending
I appreciate the majority of cuts are only just starting to be implemented and hate it that some people are suffering .
However , what many in the UK are calling austerity looks to be something between austerity and profligacy rather than outright austerity .
You might be right that aggregate Govt spending needs to increase temporarily to stave off recession but compared with say Ireland the cuts are not savage except in the area of defence .
4) Need to drop the double speak
All the stuff in the public sector unions about “fair pensions for all” was tosh .
They wanted better than fair pensions for themselves (or there members which is fair enough) and they didn’t care a fig if other people had to have their standard of living reduced to pay for it .
People could see it (or at least perceived it) Richard yet I get the impression that some of the banner wavers were surprised they didn’t have wider public support .
5) Can’t have any taboos
Campaigning for British jobs for British workers and registering objections to the influx of cheap labour from abroad does not make someone a racist .
Are unions now doing this or are they like Jack Dromey unable to support the concept that , in general , jobs on British soil should be going to British workers ?
6) The magnitude of the task is enormous
Have any other countries which have managed it (other than perhaps the UK itself back in the immediate postwar era thanks to WW2 , Attlee and co) ?
Is there a half-way house so don’t have to expropriate and nationalise which would result in tit-for-tat retaliation , discourage investment and turn the UK into Argentina MKii or France MKii ?
Can it be done without strikes and without chaos on the streets ?
Strieb – you seem to assume we have democracy – how did you fall under that magic spell? We are all controlled by a Neo-Liberal agenda which is hell bent on bankrupting the population and stoke their gaping, insatiable maws with infinite booty.
Tell those who are going to food banks and working to fill a landlord’s pockets and those whose pension (sorry Ponzi) schemes have not paid out that what we have isn’t real austerity! The neo-liberal dictatorship, for that is what it is, appears less visible but is still sucking our wealth away like giant Artful Dodger.
Simon ,
Yep it is as Ricard might say D.I.N.O. . I think it always has been but it definitely seems to be getting worse .
There is the ruling class and everyone else and the ruling class always win – or as Ken Livingstone put it if elections changed anything they wouldn’t allow them .
Perhaps the concept of democracy over the last 400 years really was instigated at the behest of creditors to make the citizenry feel obligated to honour the debts run up by their Leaders . That was the case with gold and kings and their modern counterparts have no problem socialising their losses/thefts .
I agree that people in the outside world have been experiencing austerity – unemployed and employed/self employed in the private sector .
My point is that people who work for the state have been insulated from the hard times through things like defined benefits pensions .
Where it becomes a big problem is that the decision makers become insulated from the consequences of their decisions . We see this in the case of NEST ; the poli’s and civil servants who devised this crock will never have to use it themselves and don’t care about the outcome for anyone who has little alternative .
I’m not suggesting public servants need to start using private pensions but that scheme(s) accessible to state workers become accessible to all .
I believe this already happens for teachers who can move back and forth between the state system and independent sector and use the same Teachers Pension Scheme .
John Hutton in his review mentioned preventing teachers doing this whilst working for the independent sector which sounds like a tacit admission that the figures are fudged .
Sorry to keep flagging this up ad nausiam – unless Milliband has a radical policy for housing that frees people up from debt peonage and rents that eat up over 50% of income he is reliving himself in the wind – of course he won’t do this (might affect his and his chums’ housing portfolios!) so coming out with this catchword is pretty empty. The CEO’s wouldn’t give up a bent farthing if half the country were starving.
Simon ,
As I said before I agree with you on housing .
As regards directors they are not all over-remunerated , beneficiaries of bonuses even when their companies are struggling and lacking a social conscience but there certainly appear to be a lot who are .
I’ve noticed stark differences between the two organisations purporting to represent the bosses of British industry ; the CBI and Institute of Directors .
The CBI seems to represent the worst aspects of modern “corporate” culture . Their director general , John Cridland went there straight from University . He has never done a proper job and has no experience working in industry – unless you count the CBI as being part of lobbying industry .
The CBI are part and parcel of the establishment and support without question the replacement of Sterling with the Euro , Carbon trading schemes* , influx of cheap labour from abroad .
* Regardless of whether people are convinced/open minded/sceptical of anthropogenic global warming , it is too much of a temptation for the 0.01% not to abuse it as a tool to control and subdue the masses .
AGW is almost the perfect excuse for unrestricted and unaccountable executive power (example UN agenda 21 the “precautionary principle”) because the climate is a moving target so they can keep changing their story if their forecasts are contradicted by empirical data . Much like claiming that something is in the interests of “national security” , UN Agenda 21 is a way of ensuring a debate doesn’t happen .
On the other hand the output I have read from the I.O.D. has been factual and informative and without the thinly disguised distasteful agenda that makes CBI output read like the Daily Mail .
And the IOD partners the Taxpayers’ Alliance
Enough said tio damn them
Thanks for letting me know that . Will have to look into it further .
Years ago I read some of the Taxpayers Alliance stuff and it struck me as half baked and ill thought through .
Much worse than that they are a misnomer and really do seem to be unpleasant people .
I agree with all that!
@Striebs –
Conflating action on climate change with the base motives of executive power is precisely one of the tactics used by executive power to discredit the science behind climate change.
To paraphrase Richard Feynman, nature cannot be fooled.