Neil Kinnock had as his motto ‘get your betrayals in first’. The idea was that if Labour had a clear programme for a mixed economy, a multilateral approach to disarmament, and a role in the EEC, no one could complain if that’s what it did in government. Kinnock never had the chance to find out if his strategy was successful. However, despite Tony Blair being pretty clear in opposition about his attitude towards nationalising the commanding heights of the economy and scrapping the nuclear deterrent, it didn’t stop his critics crying ‘betrayal’ within a few hours of the 1997 landslide.
Ed Miliband has got his betrayal in first, at least in the minds of many of the strikers this week. His name has been booed on demos and rallies because he called the strike ‘wrong’. The unions out on strike on Thursday – PCS, NUT and ATL – are not affiliated to the Labour party, and their leaders are not in the mainstream of the Labour party. In an industrial dispute between public sector unions and the government, the Labour leader does not have a dog in the fight. He expressed his view (several times, if you watch that viral TV clip that’s done the rounds), and you can either agree or disagree. But what you can’t do, in good conscience, is cry ‘betrayal’.
My colleague Dan Hodges over at the New Statesman puts it rather well in his appeal to Ed’s critics:
‘What did you think you were doing – electing the president of a student union? This man is putting himself forward for the job of prime minister of the country. He can’t pick up a placard and take a stroll along the picket lines.’
Was Ed right? To answer the question you have to decide what you think he was doing. At one level, he was offering tactical advice to the unions on the efficacy of launching a major strike action during a negotiation with ministers. Once that particular bolt has been shot, it is hard to reshoot. So the schools stood empty, and the borders were a little less safe for a day. What do the unions do next? An escalation of strike action would risk a massive collapse of any residual public support, and a fracture within the unions themselves. So Ed’s advice was probably right.
But he has a broader, bigger task too. That’s to persuade the British public, who mostly work in the private sector and do not belong to trade unions, that they can vote Labour without fear of a return to the 1970s. When Blair talked about ‘fairness, not favours’ it served to reassure a wary electorate. Ed has an even bigger task of reassurance, as this time Labour will not been in opposition for 18 years. So at this second level, Ed was right to put distance between his party as a government-in-waiting, and the strikers. If Ed is prime minister in 2015, he will no more be able to guarantee public sector pensions than can Cameron. It’s the strongest possible signal we’ve had that Ed is serious about winning the next election and governing in the broad interests of the British people. He took another step in that direction by what he said.
Thousands of workers this week were not worrying about their pension. They work for Carpetright, Thorntons, TJ Hughes and a host of other retailers, and they are worried about how they will pay next month’s mortgage. I didn’t notice any demonstrations and rallies for them. I have to say I have rather more sympathy for them than civil servants.
Paul. You’re entitled to your view that the action yesterday was wrong. But in refuting the strike you fall into the rather unprogressive right wing trap of pitting workers against worker. Just because some workers in the private sector are faced with redundancy (as are many in the public sector incidentally) doesent mean that workers with concerns about tersm and conditions shouldnt be allowed to take action in their defence. Also, your final paragraph rather betrays your general antipathy (and that of Progress as a whole I wonder) towards trade unions. Unions have an outstanding record in campaigning for jobs in the private sector and camopaiugnimng against redundancies. Not always successfully I’ll admit but commited and dedicated nonetheless. To suggest that unions dont care about workers at TJ Hughes, Thorntons and the other companies you mention is a comment more worthy of the Daily Mail. But then again, that increasingly appears to be the target audience of Progress.
This was the right decision and it shows how Ed appreciates the big picture of how a combination of the long-term misallocation of capital and a growing demographic timebomb will make defined benefit pensions simply unsustainable in the future. Indeed, this has already been revealed after the 2008 financial crisis, where the pension scheme defiicts of many of the UK’s largest quoted companies doubled. These are major employers and they have seen the writing on the wall as far as meeting future liabilities is concerned. Over the longer term the amount of capital required to provide the same amount of pension income will increase substantially. We need to adapt to a future that will be very different to the past, because to continue with the mindset of “business as usual” will be disasterous in this sphere of economic life, as much as it will be in terms of our energy usage given the profound constraints on resources going forward. Pension expectations have been formed in a world which, by virtue of the financial paradigm, needs the future to be bigger than the present. This is no longer sustainable, and the rapid rise of the developing economies with ever greater demands for finite resources poses the greatest challenge of all for future allocation of both capital and labour.
We live in a very different world today than the land of 1997. There are many similarities and some things will always remain, for example finding the best political solution to a given problem without being blinded by dogma, but with a keen objective idea of what will be in the very best interests of the public (the best element of New Labour). I have spent months blabbing about the worst elements I thinks its time to open up and talk about the positives at a time of rebuilding. Firstly Richard, I agreed with Eds position but I think like many others, that he was badly briefed and was over the top in seperating himself with the Unions. Peoples big concerns today are no longer the horrific fear of the Unions bringing the UK to a standstill, those days thankfully are over. For me I see the unaffiliated Unions and their affiliated allies as an opportunity to gain support. And it may well be that the Leadership is confident that it will win the next election because of the polls and the unpopular decisions the Governmnet will take etc etc, they may well feel that party growth and devlopment does not need to be so great and that the good times of being an MP or Minister in Power are just around the corner within reaching distance. Its a position to take, I would never take it, but it may well be right. I just like to increase my odds. I like to make sure the deal is done. I like to make sure all my bases are manned by my players. Its a ruthless thing but it limits defeat. I think Ed could have used this as an attack on the Government in a manner that marries the drustrations of the public sector with the terrible zero-pension settlement many people have to rely on the private sector. I thought John Denham hit close to base (normally I am criticising the poor guy so this makes a damn pleasant change) when he had a go at the Tories using the misfortunate of the private sector to attack the public sector. It was applauded by the audience because we brits hate dogma. We like pragmatism. So well done John Denham MP and I damn well mean it. I think we need to look at Eds strategy and the tactics therein, because there is as I have said time and again a “story to tell” about the lives of the brits and a common narrative that unifies us via our values. I believe you Mps refer to “shared values” sounds a bit woolly to me. But we should not be referring to values in such a way, we should be bringing life to them by exercising them. Ed and Tony Blair talked abour principles, Tony often in his works refers to the bridge (as I think of it) between our principles and our actions and how sometimes the bridge cannot be crossed. Some bridges can be though. I think Tony Blair was correct and it is applicable here specifically about “subtely” and “nuance”, we defend the Unions “concerns” and their fears over their own insecurity for the future (that WE ALL SHARE). Sorry if I have Mr Blair correct, we reposte, by saying we do not agree with the Strike because of the Timing and the negotiations etc etc, the sharp end of the resposte is in the fact labour can say it would have gone further with negotiations. You then go for the killing blow. You say something along the lines of genuine concerns not just of the poor souls striking, but of employees and employers across this land whose private and public pension settlements are appalling and why is this Government, this Coalition failing to even deal with one small sector in an open and adult manner? What of people in other sectors, what Mr cameron is going to become of them? So leave an open question of that sort, there are a variety of possible repostes and thrusts but I think this method would have been better. Rely on the stregths inherent in your New Labour philosophy, focus on the common concern and draw in people from the Left and the center. We have the biggest tent in politics, I suggest we start filling it with supporters who know we are more than a party but that we are on their side and we are their party.
Whatever stance he takes he has got to start saying what a Labour government would do instead, Addressing the unfairnesses of the Tory approach and the lickspittle attitudes of the Lib Dems.
Re Dan’s comment about whether putative PMs can join picket lines, of course they can if they think it would be the right thing to do: on 8 April 1992, Democratic nominee hopeful Bill Clinton spent more than half an hour greeting picketing workers outside a Caterpillar plant in California. Not taking sides, but let’s be less lazy in our assumptions.
“If Ed is prime minister in 2015, he will no more be able to guarantee public sector pensions than can Cameron.” It is not a question of ability but of will. Pensions for many in the public sector are already pretty poor. The so-called ‘black hole’ in many of the schemes results solely from the theft of deferred wages by the state. Implicitly the author approves of the act of theft. The money required to provide decent pensions for public sector workers is a drop in the ocean and , what is more, you KNOW this. Comrade Paul says to the workers ‘Go screw yourselves’. He is very proud of it too, it tells him he is right because people who seem to care about stuff and things dont like it. ” It’s the strongest possible signal we’ve had that Ed is serious about winning the next election and governing in the broad interests of the British people. ” Its not in the interests of the ‘British’ people to maintain a reasonable standard of living in retirement? Its not in the interests of the ‘British’ people to be able to retire perhaps at all? Why attack workers to defray the costs of capitalist crisis? Are workers not the very same ‘British People’ in the abstract that pleases the author so very much? “Thousands of workers this week were not worrying about their pension. They work for Carpetright, Thorntons, TJ Hughes and a host of other retailers, and they are worried about how they will pay next month’s mortgage. I didn’t notice any demonstrations and rallies for them. I have to say I have rather more sympathy for them than civil servants.” Correction. Millions of workers are very worried indeed about their pensions, especially those who have no pension at all, or a very meagre one. Millions of unemployed share the same fears. Also, are we to take it that YOU are going to fight for better pensions/pensions at all for private sector workers. Because if not then your idiotic braying about the lack of protests for private sector workers -whom the author ‘loves’ so much when it suits him – is chemically pure cynical hypocrisy. Logically, given the authors statements, if private sector workers were to stike the author would approve. In reality of course he would despise them for it and want them to shut up, go home, wait four years and wait for a labour government whom he readily admits does not care a jot about them or their pensions regardless of the economic sector! Does the author even have a primitive understanding of WHY pensions for none-public sector workers are so utterly despicable and impovershed? Does his philistinism really extend to beyond deriding cleaners, call centre workers, office worlers and teachers as Sir Humphrey like ‘Civil Servants’!? Of course it does, and he has no interest in the plight of workers beyond the use for him to insist, with a tear in his eye, that all workers should be equally ill treated, equally poor and live in equal fear. The real problems do not in the least form a concern for him. That a private sector pension in the UK is worth 40% less due to skimming by the banks than in comparable OECD nations does not matter to him at all. Why not ban strikes by employees of the state? Prove that this is not the logical end point of your politics. What do YOU propose to do about poverty pensions? If nothing, then shut up and rot. Is there such a thing as a homogenous British ‘People’? How does the author divine their unitary interest with such astonishing precision? Surely he is not just a fool! Last, but not least: “The unions out on strike on Thursday – PCS, NUT and ATL – are not affiliated to the Labour party” You can practically hear the glee in his voice can’t you as he mocks the stupid fools for thinking that their problems matter to him or his party, because “Get this, the joke truly is on them- they’re not even affiliated, so we dont have to care at all about them at all!” Yes, millions of workers and trade union members do no matter because they do not have an instituitional stake in the labour party, founded and funded by… trade unions. Does he not aspire to get them to seek to affiliate? Given your obvious relief that you have an easy get out for not giving a stuff about masses of people, and given that their ‘type’ seems to be so bothersome, why not activlet seek the disaffiliation of all trade unions presently affiliated to the Labour party? Why is this not the logical conclusion of the views that you have expressed? Is Lord Sainsbury still giving you money?
Yes, Ed Miliband WAS WRONG to condemn the strike. I am getting sick and tired of media commentators spending all their gossiping efforts in writing/talking exclusively about the “immorality” of unions going on strike and how they have a negative impact on “public opinion” while ignoring the underlying issues. Coincidently, this is the very same line of attack trotted out by the Tories (now, there’s a surprise!). The truth is a one day strike has a far more positive effect on public opinion than negative, contrary to what the Tories and media tell us, particularly when the public have the opportunity to hear both sides of the dispute. Knowing the arrogant and dictatorial posturing and pre-emptive decisions of the government during these “negotiations” it was necessary for the unions to demonstrate to all that they will not be meekly led as lambs to the slaughter. Ed Milband moral duty was to strongly condemn the actions of the government AND express support and understanding for the strikers. To suggest that strikes are counterproductive bordering on undemocratic is, as the ATL leadership described, “disgraceful”. I thought Labour was supposed to be on the side of the ‘working class’ or is Ed more ‘blue’ than ‘red’? One way for Ed to start earning some brownie points as leader would be to take part in, not the next strike, but a ‘demonstration against public sector pension cuts’ to be held on a non-working day – then the media won’t be able to peddle their usual anti-union claptrap.
Some of us felt in the lead up to 97 that any sort of watered down Labour was acceptable as long as we got mrid of the Tories. We did not realise that the spoon we were supping with was not long enough. It is nonsense to suggest a Kinnock Government or indeed a John Smith one would have been similar to that of Blair. Its true character is revealed by the way in which its members happility either entered the corporate world currently making thousands redundant or chose to work for the Tories. The problem with a neo liberalist view of political life is that it has no moral,social, or cultural values.
Ed was wrong. Not because of a “betrayal” – the relationship between active and campaigning trades unions and the Labour Party is always difficult. He was wrong becasue he said that Government and the Unions were equally to blame. He did not have to say that. He could have said that he thought the Unions involved had made a tactical error or been provoked or bitten at the Tory bait and any of that is fair comment. Instead he said we who took part in that strike as as guilty as the Government and that is wrong. The bully and the bullied are not equally to balme. And what did we achieve? Well for sure six months of negotiations did not start to convince some of the media and an increasing number of journalists that there might be some holes in the Government’s case but in the last few days before the strike the media focus on the NUT and ATL in particular managed to bring out more of the Government’s lies and dissembling than the TUC behind closed doors and the Labour Party in the Commons ever managed to do. Call us wrong and call us stupid if you must but don’t equate us with Tories.
This article just sums up how far from the Labour movement the Right of the Labour Party has gone. They used to say about greedy miners, and the fact that the miners getting less would never make the nurses get more. The same applies today. Global Capitalism doesn’t work on a public sympathy meter, any more than this Government does. It is a straight question of strength. My Tory Council wants to cut £5m from the terms and conditions of its staff – not to be fairer, but because it thinks it can get away with it under cover of the recession. If public sector workers have their pensions taken off them will it be a fairer world, with the private sector get more – or will this just help the rich and big business drive down wages and pensions further in the Private Sector. Yes, Kinnock got his betrayals in first – and then workers wouldn’t vote for him. Ed better learn this lesson or he will be another Labour leader who doesn’t get to be Prime Minister. He has learnt nothing from the Blair years if he cotinues to distance himself from organised labour. Its time you lot stop pretending to be on the side of ordinary workers and joined the Tories.
Hmmm, not convinced. To not endorse a strike or to add caveats is one thing. But to say it is wrong is quite another. I’d have respected Ed more if he had said he respected the right to protest on a matter of considerable concern to millions of public sector workers and left it as that. It was an opportunity to show concern for living standards and working conditions in both the private and public sectors. The idea that to show some sympathy would scare off voters by the shadow of the 1970s seems to me grossly over-stated!
Spot on!
‘governing in the broad interests of the British people.’ Hardly. Like all the other main parties the Labour party now seeks to govern in the interests of the global business elite. Like I suspect many others I shredded my Labour membership card this week when it was clear Ed Miliband was just a continuation of the New Labour project. You have learnt nothing from your defeat.
Excellent. The last paragraph sums up the absurdity of public bloaters moaning whilst the high street burns.
We have just been out delivering leaflets in Birmingham, running the gauntlet of irate Labour voters who were chasing us off their properties and vowing never to vote Labour again. Ed needs to think beyond London and he needs better advice than this. He could have expressed himself better.
I agree. There is no point of principle here. The Government are not proposing to abolish final salary pensions. The only issue is the terms on which they will be offered and that is still under negotiation. What exactly was the point of the day of action until the government’s bottom line was known? More to the point still, on what basis do Unions who do not support the Labour Party demand that the Party support them? The miner’s strike was com pletely different. It involved an affiliated union whose members were ov erwhelmingly our people and who were striking to defend their very way of life. It was a much more difficult call and while Neil Kinnock called it right, that was only because of the ballot issue, as he made clear at the time. Strikes about terms and conditions are strikes about terms and conditions. Individual Party members can have a view but the Party’s view must be that this is a matter of negotiation between employer and workforce which is exactly what Ed said. Pletely
It is wrong to cite Kinnock and Blair when commenting on a leader of the Labour party. They are proven Failures whereas Milly has yet to stumble and fall. Kinnock is remembered as a constantly verbal bufoon and Blair as a liar and a conman. Both were hypocrites and used the Unswerving Blind Loyalties of the Labour supporters for their own financial ends and hopes.
The comments about leaving the narrow confines of the political class are absolutely spot on. Ed and others made the lazy error of assuming parents would be cross att he inconvenience of a strike when everyone I’ve spoken to as Chair of Governors of a school that’s just had an interesting Ofsted have been very supportive. Ed should have said more clearly that he understood the frustration behind the strikes; was amazed at the incompetence of Maude and Alexander in leading the negotiations for government; clarified that the cost of the schemes to the public is going down and then said what the country needs is a strategy for tackling complex long term challenges in a coherent way – e.g. you force students into £40K plus debt and those who still take relatively low paid public sector jobs will hardly opt to have 10% plus taken out of their pay to save for a rainy day when its p@@@@@g down now. They’ll opt out of the pension then the government will have created a genuinely serious short term hole in the public sector scheme. Add to that government expecting people to pay more into a scheme during a pay freeze and its not hard to see why hard working public servants start using rhetoric about millionaires in Cabinet. So then Ed should go on and say Labour hope the strikes, though unfortunate, will force everyone to look at the whole issue seriously and that he hopes government will start working for a coherent answer to a complicated problem rather than chasing cheap soundbites in the daily mail. Ed has done well so far but his opportunity is coming and he can’t afford to be on the wrong side beofre the debate opens up for him.
You know, I always thought “New Labour” was a disingenuous euphemism. Why not go the whole hog and call it the Capital Party?
This article and Ed’s comments are perfect fodder for me to roll out to Labour supporting trade unionists. Yes it isnt betrayal, because the Labour Party has long ceased to have anything to do with workers or the labour movement. The idea of a PM and party uniting the country is a reactionary and very conservative position. The author and the Labour hacks who like/write this type of thing should move to the Conservative Party and let workers and members of the proper left build a new mass workers party.