With state education and the NHS in the same boat, sadly being steered
towards disintegration, with a few failings exaggerated and followed by
misleading generalisations, by a government intent on downsizing the role of
state, Labour has its work cut out. To make matters worse, the opposition has
seemingly forgotten some of its main principles which underpin its very
existence.
What is the purpose of the Labour party if it is not to stand up for
the rights of the working people? Is it not essential that it defends the
exploited against their employers, the NHS against the privateers, the consumer
from the profiteer, the welfare state from the Tories? Arguably, it has done
some of these, albeit half-heartedly at times, but protecting the oppressed
employees from aggressive bosses has been a massive failure, over a number of
years, leading often to the workers themselves having to resort to industrial
action. Protesting to the disinterested government about the "cost-of-living
crisis" is simply insufficient when Labour could be clearly demonstrating to the
electorate that it really is a People`s party, and that it does mean to help
ordinary people rather than the interests of the financial sector. One can only
assume the reason for Labour`s failure to support strikes is because it fears
being branded "socialist", "red", "same old Labour", or whatever, by the Tories
and their obedient media friends; it doesn`t want to frighten away those
oh-so-important southern voters in the marginal seats, in case they decide to
back the Tories again. If they are so unprincipled and gullible, Labour cannot
afford to risk losing the votes of workers for their sake; far better to adopt
policies which adhere to traditional Labour principles of fairness and
justice.
This has to be a mistake; most strikes occur when all negotiations have
failed, or have been refused, and when jobs, pay or pensions are being cut. Are
the Labour leaders so afraid of the Daily Mail they cannot turn up at a joint
NUT/NASUWT rally to voice their support for teachers in their struggle against
the intractable Gove? What did they enter politics with the Labour party for, if
it wasn`t to defend state education, support the principle of equality of
opportunity, and fend off attacks by Tory ideologues? Don`t the tube workers
need their help against the right-wing Johnson and his policies of economic
cleansing of London? Miliband should state in the Commons that Labour supports
all industrial action, when it is taken in the cause of ending exploitation and
restoring fairness; the Tories should not be dictating Labour policies! Does the
country really need Labour leaders, who are "well regarded in corporate
circles", as Seumas Milne recently described Balls and Umunna, making the
differences between the parties glaringly insignificant? How will the rejection
of workers who take legal industrial action increase popular participation in
democratic politics, supposedly the reason for Miliband`s trade union proposals?
Voters have been alienated enough by the expenses fiasco, the broken election
promises and the imposition of poverty on the majority of the nation, whilst the
rich avoid the little amount of taxes they`re expected to pay.
The "squeezed middle" classes need economic help too, and many are
involved in the strikes anyway'; but the "wealthier" middle need to be told that
a new Labour government will do everything in its power to defend all employees
from bosses, greedy to attain their bonus targets for increased efficiency by
either cutting wages and hours, or increasing the number of zero-hours
contracts. or both. If the "suppering classes" of the south-east don`t want
fairness "hard-wired into government policies", as the duplicitous Clegg
laughingly said back in 2012, they need to face the consequences, one of which
will most certainly be Britain`s 28th position out of 34 in the equality league
table getting even lower!
No comments:
Post a Comment