To support the RMT?
The RMT are striking yet again. Not because of sackings, or poor pay and conditions, but because there may be job cuts in the future. Despite assurance from the mayor, they still feel its necessary to bring the capital to a stand still.
There are no job cuts at the moment. The RMT, however, continue to call for strikes at every opportunity they get. Already paid a considerable amount for fewer hours and more holiday than many of the capitals workers it is not hard to see why londoners are not sympathetic to the most recent strike.
The trouble with this is that the workers may have to face repercussions later on. The rmt have gone on strike so often that the public is losing sympathy and the ordinary Londoner is getting use to finding another route home. Many in my office (unionists too) are going on about "the RMT striking again" and "what wrong this time"
So why does Bob crow continue? Power? Just to antagonise? or because he is so
dedicated to his workers.
Its hard to see the latter given the preferential treatment of wages, but i suspect a little of all of them. And knowing these old union types they do care and do believe that they are working for the best deal for the worker. Most of the time. However, they do try to get what they can and often ignore the bigger picture.
There will be a backlash against the tube workers one day. Whether its a conservative government or mayor that will happen over the next 5-6 years. And it will be hard for Labour and the public to defend them.
As with most strike action with lions led by donkeys, the workers are ultimately the ones that suffer.
Its the long route home again tonight!!
N.B. My colleague told me that in brazil they just open the barriers and let people travel for free, to keep the public on-side. Maybe one to think about for the future.
UPDATE: I have been corrected on some massive faults on my last post and rightfully so. Thanks for that and apologies for it.
It was lazy blogging on my behalf, i meant workers not drivers. The point I was trying to make is that all the public hear is that there is a strike on the tube and don't seperate them out for the reasons why. An RMT/Bob Crow led strike (as well as calls for strikes and recently calls for a EU referendum etc etc), i think, is becomming devalued as a currency and i think more effort needs to be made to keep the public on side for the sake of the longer term.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Respect and Galloway
Living in East London a recent Blog by a fellow memeber John Gray came to attention.
This was news of the letter that George Galloway has sent to his party that has them in a bit of a fluster.
So what is Galloway doing with this letter. Well its important to remember that he is an age old politicial' so the idea that this has come out in the public realm accidentally is nonsense. He clearly wanted this out in the open, so i will use my "don't listen to what politicians say, think about why they are saying it" motto to find out why.
Firstly the electorate are no friend of the SWP. Despite the best intentions of the middle class - class warriors, they are a turn off for all but a delusional few. The main vote in poplar and Limehouse, that Galloway needs if he is to win in the next election, is bigger than the SWPers that live there. So he does what we all do in elections and knocks the controllers of Respect Party (the SWP) saying there management is poor and political savvy is weak.
He goes on to say they only "elect" people in positions that agree with them and don't worry too much about proper elections (later in the article, Galloway suggests an unelected elite few set up a new board, made up of people he suggests. Quite how that is different from what they do now is not clear).
He is also worried about low funding and membership. The issue is that, if you are a democratic party, the MP doesn't really have right to tell people where it is going wrong and how to fix it. He is not the leader. They are suppose to have officers that run the party and if they elect the wrong ones, they don't do well. If you care so much you stand against them. Thats what democracy in political parties are. You can't always get your own way.
So Galloway is no big fan of democracy and bad people getting jobs. The second message is clealy: George is in charge.
Whatever impression you got the respect was run by its members, its not true. What George says goes. He is the only MP and only electoral hope, if he fails, Respect fails. As the dictators he so admires he is becoming weary of leading and incompetent people following.
Which is his third message. He is tired of many of the things he mentioned. Tired it is him who has to raise the funds and bringing in new members. He is tired of being the only political thinker in the whole political party. Tired of the bickering and nepotism that is rife.
He, like the dictators of old, is at a rubicon point and this letter is his attempt to pull himself and the party out.
But George needs to learn that people and parties out grow their political figureheads. On this occasion the SWP will swallow it yet again, but only because they know they are nothing without him. But soon they will tire of having no councillors and no-one in the limelight.
One day, he may find that people are tired of his hedgmonay over the left and what historically ensues the overthrow of a leader is a civil war between two rival factions. The unlikely marriage of the SWP and the Bangladeshi community is only held onto by George and is constantly fraught. They don't sahre the same values, only the sme goal of beating Labour.
Following the fall of George the SWP will then have to take on the completely Bangladeshi powerbase of Councillors (none of whom are in a trade union), in Tower Hamlets the heartland of Respect, for the soul of the party.
Historically collapse usually follows. We can only hope.
This was news of the letter that George Galloway has sent to his party that has them in a bit of a fluster.
So what is Galloway doing with this letter. Well its important to remember that he is an age old politicial' so the idea that this has come out in the public realm accidentally is nonsense. He clearly wanted this out in the open, so i will use my "don't listen to what politicians say, think about why they are saying it" motto to find out why.
Firstly the electorate are no friend of the SWP. Despite the best intentions of the middle class - class warriors, they are a turn off for all but a delusional few. The main vote in poplar and Limehouse, that Galloway needs if he is to win in the next election, is bigger than the SWPers that live there. So he does what we all do in elections and knocks the controllers of Respect Party (the SWP) saying there management is poor and political savvy is weak.
He goes on to say they only "elect" people in positions that agree with them and don't worry too much about proper elections (later in the article, Galloway suggests an unelected elite few set up a new board, made up of people he suggests. Quite how that is different from what they do now is not clear).
He is also worried about low funding and membership. The issue is that, if you are a democratic party, the MP doesn't really have right to tell people where it is going wrong and how to fix it. He is not the leader. They are suppose to have officers that run the party and if they elect the wrong ones, they don't do well. If you care so much you stand against them. Thats what democracy in political parties are. You can't always get your own way.
So Galloway is no big fan of democracy and bad people getting jobs. The second message is clealy: George is in charge.
Whatever impression you got the respect was run by its members, its not true. What George says goes. He is the only MP and only electoral hope, if he fails, Respect fails. As the dictators he so admires he is becoming weary of leading and incompetent people following.
Which is his third message. He is tired of many of the things he mentioned. Tired it is him who has to raise the funds and bringing in new members. He is tired of being the only political thinker in the whole political party. Tired of the bickering and nepotism that is rife.
He, like the dictators of old, is at a rubicon point and this letter is his attempt to pull himself and the party out.
But George needs to learn that people and parties out grow their political figureheads. On this occasion the SWP will swallow it yet again, but only because they know they are nothing without him. But soon they will tire of having no councillors and no-one in the limelight.
One day, he may find that people are tired of his hedgmonay over the left and what historically ensues the overthrow of a leader is a civil war between two rival factions. The unlikely marriage of the SWP and the Bangladeshi community is only held onto by George and is constantly fraught. They don't sahre the same values, only the sme goal of beating Labour.
Following the fall of George the SWP will then have to take on the completely Bangladeshi powerbase of Councillors (none of whom are in a trade union), in Tower Hamlets the heartland of Respect, for the soul of the party.
Historically collapse usually follows. We can only hope.
Labels:
Galloway,
John Gray,
Respect,
SWP,
Tower Hamlets
Monday, 3 September 2007
Destroying the Democrats
I was reading the Anthony Seldon autobiography of Blair and came accross an interesting passage about Gordon Brown. It stated that unlike Blair, Brown wanted to destroy the Liberal Democrats.
His first moves in Government showed that he was serious about that. The move to being more cautious on foreign policy and seeking consensus on 90 days for example. Offering Paddy and Shirly jobs in his government and as advisors. He has clearly moved from Blairs position of ignoring them and ridiculing them at every opportunity, to saying he admired many of their well respected members to the point he wanted them with him.
This is clearly a play for the voters and possible even their MPs. As should they go into melt down they could go either way.
The tories have also been stepping on their usual agenda of green issues.
The problem with the liberals is that they have also moved to shadow both labour and Tory proposals. Nuclear power stations, dropping the 50p top rate, supporting tax cuts. The liberal nature under charlie has gone and this will ultimately lead to them suffering in the elections as their protest vote reduces. They are also fighting, unlike labour and the cons, seriously in the north and south. Whereas Labour will consolidate the North and Cons will grow in the South the Libs look like being squeezed all accross the board (even in scotland with a strong SNP as well).
They could be wiped out should they continue on their current course. I think they should move left, or sack Ming to survive.
His first moves in Government showed that he was serious about that. The move to being more cautious on foreign policy and seeking consensus on 90 days for example. Offering Paddy and Shirly jobs in his government and as advisors. He has clearly moved from Blairs position of ignoring them and ridiculing them at every opportunity, to saying he admired many of their well respected members to the point he wanted them with him.
This is clearly a play for the voters and possible even their MPs. As should they go into melt down they could go either way.
The tories have also been stepping on their usual agenda of green issues.
The problem with the liberals is that they have also moved to shadow both labour and Tory proposals. Nuclear power stations, dropping the 50p top rate, supporting tax cuts. The liberal nature under charlie has gone and this will ultimately lead to them suffering in the elections as their protest vote reduces. They are also fighting, unlike labour and the cons, seriously in the north and south. Whereas Labour will consolidate the North and Cons will grow in the South the Libs look like being squeezed all accross the board (even in scotland with a strong SNP as well).
They could be wiped out should they continue on their current course. I think they should move left, or sack Ming to survive.
Thursday, 30 August 2007
Divorce rate lowest for 22 years
Just when David Cameron was getting back on track, this announcement won't do him any favours. Desperate to prove he is all about the family, it doesn't look like there is much need for his "marriage tax break" now.
The BBC report on this show the divorce rate in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level for 22 years.
It reports "Some 132,562 couples split in 2006 - equivalent to 12.2 of every 1,000 married couples. This was 7% lower than 2005 - 13.1 in 1,000 - and the lowest since 1984."
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6970367.stm for the full story.
It also goes in to the level of marriages falling to a record low and the growth of "co-habiting".
As Cameron wanted to help "keep families together" rather than get people to get married in the first place, this is a srong argument for opposition to his tax breaks.
The BBC report on this show the divorce rate in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level for 22 years.
It reports "Some 132,562 couples split in 2006 - equivalent to 12.2 of every 1,000 married couples. This was 7% lower than 2005 - 13.1 in 1,000 - and the lowest since 1984."
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6970367.stm for the full story.
It also goes in to the level of marriages falling to a record low and the growth of "co-habiting".
As Cameron wanted to help "keep families together" rather than get people to get married in the first place, this is a srong argument for opposition to his tax breaks.
Cameron's Sleight of Hand
Cameron pulled off a clever sleight of hand in his newsnight interview, which was as impressive and vague as he gets.
He said he doesn't want anymore immigration. Well actually he didn't. He said he doesn't want anymore EU immigration. Er...actually no he didnt. He actually said.....nothing. His interview last night (which, i painfully have to agree, he was good in) he said (I'm paraphrasing) "the next accession countries to the should have a limit on the numbers allow to come to the UK" and "numbers from outside of the Eu shold be more controlled". Which of course is pretty much government policy now. He refused to use "swamped" to discribe it and said it put pressure on our schools and hospitals, which is clever. What the papers missed is that the EU makes up the bulk of UK immigration and this will continue so the Pressure on schools etc from current accession states would continue under him.
The purpose of this, and lets face it to pretend it was not purposely brought up would be naive, was to have a headline that said Cameron is for lower immigration. And it worked well. Most newspapers lead with the immigration theme today, despite the fact he said very little new about it. It was well timed and showed he is back to his vague yet headline grabbing best. Now (with Iain Dale and others leading the line) they are pretending it was just co-incidence adn media led. Sorry, but there are no coincidences when it comes to spin in politics.
It was also another in a long line of "core value" reach-outs to his party. Recently with crime, he got "tough". Last night he practically fell over himself to be "pro-family" (which he is if "family" means a Mother and Father that are married.) otherwise he is only Pro marriage. He also kept mentioned "Conservatism" and being "conservative" a lot, without his usual use of modern or compassionate as a prefix.
What is clear is that he thinks the fluffy stuff has gone on for long enough and that people should be starting to like the Conservatives enough to hear them out on immigration and conservative basics.
Will it work? we shall see
He said he doesn't want anymore immigration. Well actually he didn't. He said he doesn't want anymore EU immigration. Er...actually no he didnt. He actually said.....nothing. His interview last night (which, i painfully have to agree, he was good in) he said (I'm paraphrasing) "the next accession countries to the should have a limit on the numbers allow to come to the UK" and "numbers from outside of the Eu shold be more controlled". Which of course is pretty much government policy now. He refused to use "swamped" to discribe it and said it put pressure on our schools and hospitals, which is clever. What the papers missed is that the EU makes up the bulk of UK immigration and this will continue so the Pressure on schools etc from current accession states would continue under him.
The purpose of this, and lets face it to pretend it was not purposely brought up would be naive, was to have a headline that said Cameron is for lower immigration. And it worked well. Most newspapers lead with the immigration theme today, despite the fact he said very little new about it. It was well timed and showed he is back to his vague yet headline grabbing best. Now (with Iain Dale and others leading the line) they are pretending it was just co-incidence adn media led. Sorry, but there are no coincidences when it comes to spin in politics.
It was also another in a long line of "core value" reach-outs to his party. Recently with crime, he got "tough". Last night he practically fell over himself to be "pro-family" (which he is if "family" means a Mother and Father that are married.) otherwise he is only Pro marriage. He also kept mentioned "Conservatism" and being "conservative" a lot, without his usual use of modern or compassionate as a prefix.
What is clear is that he thinks the fluffy stuff has gone on for long enough and that people should be starting to like the Conservatives enough to hear them out on immigration and conservative basics.
Will it work? we shall see
Eu Constitution / Reform Treaty
I am having frequeny arguments with a fellow activist about the EU constitution recently. He thinks that the issue is here to stay and that the Tories can gain some political capital by keeping up the pressure to have a referendum.
I disagree. The last set of meaningful polls about which issues people found most important, the EU came in about 10th with around 3% of the vote. At the 1997 General Election (i'm just going on polling memory here) it reached around 25%. This was at the hight of the single currency debate. So any EU debate is not high on the list of interest to most people. Also, the people who complain the most and think it is an important issue are the Tory supporters, which means they are preaching to the converted mostly.
I believe that the Tories are wrong to call for a EU referendum on both political and party political reasons.
Firstly political. They claim that 96% of the Constitution is the same. Well yes of course it is. The voting weight in the co-decision procedures and important reforms (which make up the bulk of the document) which shouldn't be thrown out just because they were in the original constitution. So the 4% difference is based on the constitutional bit, while it sounds only a small bit, it actually fundamentaly changes the document.
It is secondly, always good to have the Tories banging on about Europe. The government clearly wants them to continue on this line as they have done hardly anything to back the new treaty (so much so that Blunkett came out today saying they should be more vocal in their defence of it). Brown is simply saying there should be no referendum and Parliament will decide.
The bulk of the UK is, i think, pro european (despite what people say), we buy most products from EU go on holiday to EU countries more than anywhere else and enjoy their footballers making the premier league the best in the world. We like fining microsoft and BA Hundreds of millions for anti-competitive practices and we enjoy no-longer living in rip-off Britain. The press (Times, Sun, Telegraph, express and Mail) are all owned by eurosceptics that do not speak representitively for the UK population.
The Tories also miss the point that they are against Scottish independence referendum, which seems a little hyporitical.
I also think referendums are a waste of time and money. Only about 1% if not fewer have actually read the constitution and half of them don't understand the bulk of it. The point of electingv an MP is to have them work through difficult and complex documents and make a judgement on whether to accept them or not. Not just go to the whim of the "public" and whatever headline they are reading that day. I would accept a referendum if you had to read the constitution cover to cover first, then take a test on it. That way we'll really know how much people care and what they think after informed debate (and not just a media fuelled overreaction)
I say carry on banging on about the EU, it will make it harder to escape the "same old Tories" tag that Cameron has been keen to escape.
I disagree. The last set of meaningful polls about which issues people found most important, the EU came in about 10th with around 3% of the vote. At the 1997 General Election (i'm just going on polling memory here) it reached around 25%. This was at the hight of the single currency debate. So any EU debate is not high on the list of interest to most people. Also, the people who complain the most and think it is an important issue are the Tory supporters, which means they are preaching to the converted mostly.
I believe that the Tories are wrong to call for a EU referendum on both political and party political reasons.
Firstly political. They claim that 96% of the Constitution is the same. Well yes of course it is. The voting weight in the co-decision procedures and important reforms (which make up the bulk of the document) which shouldn't be thrown out just because they were in the original constitution. So the 4% difference is based on the constitutional bit, while it sounds only a small bit, it actually fundamentaly changes the document.
It is secondly, always good to have the Tories banging on about Europe. The government clearly wants them to continue on this line as they have done hardly anything to back the new treaty (so much so that Blunkett came out today saying they should be more vocal in their defence of it). Brown is simply saying there should be no referendum and Parliament will decide.
The bulk of the UK is, i think, pro european (despite what people say), we buy most products from EU go on holiday to EU countries more than anywhere else and enjoy their footballers making the premier league the best in the world. We like fining microsoft and BA Hundreds of millions for anti-competitive practices and we enjoy no-longer living in rip-off Britain. The press (Times, Sun, Telegraph, express and Mail) are all owned by eurosceptics that do not speak representitively for the UK population.
The Tories also miss the point that they are against Scottish independence referendum, which seems a little hyporitical.
I also think referendums are a waste of time and money. Only about 1% if not fewer have actually read the constitution and half of them don't understand the bulk of it. The point of electingv an MP is to have them work through difficult and complex documents and make a judgement on whether to accept them or not. Not just go to the whim of the "public" and whatever headline they are reading that day. I would accept a referendum if you had to read the constitution cover to cover first, then take a test on it. That way we'll really know how much people care and what they think after informed debate (and not just a media fuelled overreaction)
I say carry on banging on about the EU, it will make it harder to escape the "same old Tories" tag that Cameron has been keen to escape.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
