You are here: Home » Comment »

Why we march

October 19, 2012 3:32 pm

Author:

Mark Ferguson

Share this Article

I’ll be joining thousands (hopefully hundreds of thousands) of people marching through Central London and on nto Hyde Park for the TUC demo. I won’t be doing this because I think that Cameron and his sidekick George Osborne will suddenly realise the error of their ways, and remove the chokehold of austerity from an economy they have done their best to throttle to death. I don’t even believe, as some do, that a large turnout tomorrow will show the government the extent of the opposition to their plans, and cause them to think again before going further. I hope I’m proved wrong, but I imagine tomorrow’s march will be written off by the Tories both in public and in private as a left-wing march by Labour, people who help fund Labour and people to the left of Labour.

I don’t believe tomorrow’s march will directly or indirectly bring about the end of destructive austerity. I believe the best way to stop austerity is to bring jobs and growth to the economy, under a Labour government. So I don’t march thinking that I’ll be bringing about an alternative by doing so.

No, tomorrow, we march for us. We march to remind those of us who are fighting tough and often lonely campaigns – both nationally and in our local areas – against this government and their proxies, that we are not alone. That there are others standing alongside is in our struggle. This is a march as much about solidarity as anything else.

The march is also important to show millions of people who aren’t at the march and the demonstration itself that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are fighting for a different kind of country, and a different kind of future. One in which the crises of unemployment (especially youth unemployment), housing, social care and others – all exaccerbated by the austerity government – are tackled, rather than allowed to grow.

For Ed Miliband, this march is about the crisis of politics. He’s never been shy about attending events with (and/or organised by) trade unions, which is to his credit. He’s happy to take his shiny new (for Labour) One Nation message out onto the streets of London, as he is to take it to business leaders, or people in Cardiff, Bristol – or the coalfields of County Durham. It’s not playing by the conventional rules of politics – that say an opposition leader attending demonstrations like tomorrow’s are making a tactical error – but it’s honest, true to himself, and even a little bit brave. Fair play to him.

So that’s why we march. In solidarity with others who are struggling, and those who struggle against this government. It won’t change anything – not directly – but it’s important, nonetheless – for morale. Being in opposition is awful. Demonstrations, petitions and parliamentary tactics are the weapons of attack, whilst the government has offices of state, government departments and a legislative agenda. As I march tomorrow, I’ll spend most of my time wishing we weren’t so impotent that this is all we can do. Counting down the days until 2015, when we get a chance to realy do something about the state of the country.

But I’ll be glad to have others alongside me for are also fighting for their own version of a better future. Because although there will be many differences on tomorrow’s march about what that future – that alternative – should look like, most of them will look far better than the one being offered by this government.

Dave Postles

It’s the extra-Parliamentary action which demonstrates that some feel a moral obligation to combat the penalization of the poor and needy. The TUC proposes also to establish a general credit union to assist those in need against the venality of Wonga (and its Tory shareholder, Beecroft). My wife is ill just now, but I hope to be there tomorrow. If ever the unions were needed, it would be now.
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  The unions only make sense in a workplace setting representing individuals with specific individual workplace grievances, which a march on a weekend is not.
  
  If the unions take their general anti-austerity campaign into one or many workplaces and through brutal force of blocking one or more companies ability to trade try to force a change of policy, it is anti-democratic.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    “The unions only make sense in a workplace setting representing individuals with specific individual workplace grievances, which a march on a weekend is not”.
    
    At what point in the history of trade unions has this been true? Never, is the answer. Unions represent both individual employees with specific grievances and collective claims on behalf of all or a significant proportion of their members. It would be wasteful and time-consuming if a trade union tried to deal with a matter that uniformly affected a large number of its members, on a one-to-one basis and any HR department that tried this approach would become similarly dysfunctional.
    
    ‘If the unions take their general anti-austerity campaign into one or many workplaces and through brutal force of blocking one or more companies ability to trade try to force a change of Government policy, it is anti-democratic’.
    
    Anti-democratic in what sense? Union members have approved these tactics, meaning they are hardly undemocratic. The government is not the last word in democracy and if the state started becoming the be-all and end-all of democratic legitimacy, then I for one would be extremely worried. In any event, the law governing industrial actions only permits industrial action in the pursuit of a trade dispute, meaning that a union in a dispute with the government, cannot then use that dispute as a cause of action against a private sector employer. Furthermore, the use of secondary picketing has been banned for 30 years.
    
    “No one voted for the unions, because they have not the courage to stand for election”.
    
    This isn’t a valid complaint. No-one votes for Oxfam or HSBC either, but that doesn’t make any decisions they make on a commercial or campaigning basis invalid. The democratic process requires civil society to able to organise independently of the state. If this isn’t permitted, we no longer live in a democracy.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      Brum,
      
      of your three points:
      
      1. Well, yes, but why on earth do people allow themselves to be shackled by collective agreements that some union oaf then tries to administer? It seems senseless. Individuals can and do achieve far more negotiating for themselves. If you don’t like sub-standard terms for your own circumstances, find another job.
      
      2. Anti-democratic in the sense that the large majority of people in the UK thankfully have nothing to do with unions (and this is increasing, thankfully). If there is a strike, it affects ordinary people, not just the employer and the union. That is before you examine the reality that many union decisions about strike action seem to be voted on by a minority of union members, but apparently binding on all members. That is a total nonsense. I am not a union member, but if I was foolish enough to belong to the BMA, I would not consider myself bound by any BMA vote that disagreed with my voting position. I would also not worry about crossing any picket line, that conceit foisted upon union members by the Barons, with implicit threats of ostracisation.
      
      3. It is valid when the unions interfere in politics and directly try to control a political party.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        1). If you aren’t happy with one aspect of your job, but otherwise want to remain in it, what sense does it make to junk it all in? Your point about union oafs is just pointless invective. Employees often prefer to delegate the negotiation of collective terms and agreements in a workplace, because it’s easier for them, more transparent and makes compliance easier to monitor. Not everyone is a highly-skilled professional; a great many employees benefit from having a collective body negotiate on their behalf, so as to achieve a bargaining economy of scale. It’s like the Romans observed about a fasces: a single stick snaps easily; a bundle of sticks is much harder to break.
        
        2). Decisions are not binding upon all members and no member of a trade union is obliged to go on strike because of a ballot. In fact, the law specifically prohibits adverse treatment of a union member for refusing to join industrial action – although they may be socially ostracised.
        
        Most people in Britain aren’t members of the RSPB, the NSPCC or the National Trust. This doesn’t mean that those organisations are forbidden from activism or advocacy on behalf of their members and their views. A majority of people in Britain don’t vote in local elections; does this make the decisions of local authorities illegitimate too? You’re conflating majority support for something with the right to advocate for it. Women’s suffrage used to be a minority view, but it didn’t stop the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst and nor should it.
        
        3). The trade unions do not control the Labour Party. The last year has seen a series of disputes between the Labour leadership and the TUC over cuts and the public sector wage freeze. If the trade unions really ran Labour, would Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have explicitly pledged that they wouldn’t be able to reverse all the government’s cuts? Unlikely.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        “Pointless invective”. That really does sum up the unions. I do not study every single strike, but have there been many notable examples of strikes in the last 30 years actually succeeding? And for all of those strikes that were called, who actually lost out? Was it the misled union members, before they returned to work with much less money in their pockets? It is said that the British soldier in the First World War was a lion led by a donkey, but it is equally true that today’s union member is a lion led by a dinosaur.
        
        When the RSPB, NSPCC or National Trust go on strike to try to bring a company or industry to closure, then you have a point. My point is that unions threaten to do just that in the narrow interest of a tiny minority of the population.
        
        Given the unions’ declining popularity with British workers, perhaps in 5-10 years unions will not play a part in political life, and I look forward to that day. Let unions concern themselves only with workplace disputes, and stay out of politics. We have elections for democracy, not the scheming thuggery of the union barons..
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Which union has seen its membership increase the most in the last decade?
        
        That would be the RMT, led by ‘dinosaur’ Bob Crow, whose membership has gone from 57,000 to 80,000, mainly thanks to his not shying away from aggressively defending the interests of his members. He isn’t particularly loveable, but in terms of getting the most for his members, you can’t fault him. And he’s been rewarded for it.
        
        Like it or not, trade unions are part of the architecture of a democracy. If the only democratic activity permitted were elections, democracy would die very quickly. It’s not a coincidence that autocracies and dictatorships, ranging from Nazi Germany to modern-day China, clamp down vigorously on independent trade unions. Elections are in many respects the least important part of the democratic process; it’s dissent and disagreement that stops democracies from turning into autocratic ‘tyrannies of the majority’. The idea that you can depoliticise industrial relations is an impossibility. There will always be a political dimension to workplace disputes and any attempt to ignore that fact can only be achieved at the expense of wider injustice.
        
        You also appear to be convinced that the right to withdraw one’s labour is illegitimate. It is not; it is one of the founding principles of a free society. If you don’t enjoy the right to withdraw your labour in an industrial dispute with your employer – even if that right is qualified – then you don’t live in a free society. You’re effectively a modern serf.
      - PeterBarnard
        
        Thank you for a well-written series of comments, Brumanuensis.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        That’s very kind of you Peter, thank you.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        I shall think about your middle point Brum – it is a different way of looking at things. I don’t instinctively agree, but will reflect.
        I don’t see how you can think I believe in your last point – nowhere have I said that striking is illegitimate. I think it is a waste of time, and therefore pointlessly inconveniences others, but I do not say it is outside of the law.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Fair enough Jaime. I can understand why people believe industrial action is pointless – I don’t think strikes always work, nor are they always the best tactic. I’m not endorsing Bob Crow’s approach either – contrary to aracataca thinks – which is often counter-productive. I just don’t think we’re going back to the 1970s, purely because we’re seeing an upturn in industrial militancy.
- aracataca
  
  Your old mate Alan Giles won’t be with us though Dave. He’ll be on here slagging us off.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    Do you have to have a go at Alan? It’s not going to change the success of tomorrow’s march – which unfortunately I can’t attend, as I’m at a family event.
    
    Best of luck.
    - aracataca
      
      Yes but he spends much of his time on here putting himself forward as a leftist purist and abusing others like myself who he falsely accuses of being right wing but when it comes to it he can’t get off his backside and join this march. Can’t see the annoying side of that?
      In similar vein as the shining white knight defender of that PR disaster Bob Crow you can’t join it either.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Thanks aracataca. Very pluralist of you.
        
        I didn’t realising describing Bob Crow as unloveable made me a ‘shining white knight defender’. I don’t particularly like Crow, but my point was that he is very effective at getting the best deal for his members, which suggests that militancy is not always a negative for a trade union. I wasn’t suggesting we all line up behind him, although his idea for a ‘text tax’ is rather interesting.
charles.ward

But what is the march for? The A Future That Works website is a bit vague to say the least. Without specific alternative proposals I predict the march will be just as ineffective as the Occupy protest.

Of course if the march organisers had specific proposals then Ed Miliband would have difficulty attending the march without implicitly endorsing them.

If the TUC start saying during the march that that they are marching for policies x, y, and z then Mr Miliband is going to look pretty silly if he doesn’t support these policies.
- aracataca
  
  Rather than go on the march you’d rather we mourned the departure of someone you have spoke highly of: namely, Andrew Mitchell (see your previous remarks on this site). You, Alan Giles and all the others who do nothing but slag Labour off on this site won’t be marching with us tomorrow. It is you who are the political onanists with absolutely nothing to offer anybody other than criticism and abuse.
  - charles.ward
    
    “Rather than go on the march you’d rather we mourned the departure of
    someone you have spoke highly of: namely, Andrew Mitchell (see your
    previous remarks on this site).”
    
    Yes, lets have a look at my previous remarks (in this thread):
    
    “I’m not defending Mr Mitchell (I would have fired him immediately).”
    
    High praise indeed!
    
    I make no apologies for pointing out when people lie but I can understand why you might be subject to my “criticism and abuse” in this regard.
    - aracataca
      
      Or we could look at these comments from you:
      Judging by TV shows that follow the police around it appears that Andrew Mitchell’s treatment was exactly the same as a “yob’s”. He was warned that if he swore again he could be arrested, he did not swear again and wasn’t arrested. I have never seen a police officer immediately arrest someone without issuing this warning, though I freely admit that TV documentaries are all I have to go on. Does anyone have an example of someone being arrested for swearing without first being warned about their language?
      
      Sounds pretty defensive of AM to me.
      
      The fact is you’re a Tory and only come on this site to slag off the Labour Party and while we are on the march you’ll be on here abusing us. What kind of political engagement is that?
      - charles.ward
        
        “Sounds pretty defensive of AM to me.”
        
        All I said was that the assertion that AM got different treatment to an ordinary member of the public was untrue. It may be ok in your book to lie in order to attack those you disagree with but not in mine.
        
        If you don’t understand the difference between defending someone’s actions and not allowing false statements to be used against them then I feel sorry for you.
  - AlanGiles
    
    Bill, If I were you, I should go easy on accusing others of “abuse” – you are quite strong on that particular vice yourself, and so you could lay yourself open to a charge of hypocrisy.
    
    If I have to give an account of myself to you, I support todays march and wish everyone all the best, and hope it is a great success. If it is any concern of yours, I do some voluntary work, and it just so happens that I will be doing my shift from midday today until 2100 hours, – if that is alright with you. I may have “nothing to offer” you, but I try to be of use still where I can. I am very sorry that I was unable to contact you personally to get clearance for this, but I hope you will understand that I am unable to be in two places at once. The rota was drawn up a couple of weeks ago, and so it was rather too late to get a hologram made, and unlike your dear friend James Purnell, I would not consider it either honest or helpful to have myself Photoshopped into a photograph of the march to make it looks as if I were somewhere I wasn’t. :-)
    - aracataca
      
      As predicted I’m so right wing that I’ll be on the march and you’re so left wing but you won’t. I rest my case.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Bill, I’m sorry to say this, but what a spiteful petty little man you can be. I have already explained what I will be doing today: if I don’t turn up to do what I am expected to do, there will be a 50% reduction in staff, however – as I hope and believe – the march is a success my insignficant abscence won’t be noticed.
        
        Of course, I could always have PRETENDED I was attending to earn a Brownie point from you, but that would be dishonest, and you know my views on dishonesty.
        
        I will grant you it was very remiss of me to work today without running it past you first – however, weekends can be more difficult as many volunteers have young families or other committments that makes it difficult for them to be available on Saturdays and Sundays.
        
        In an effort to mollify your rancour, I will admit that I consider myself chastened and rebuked, In working today I have behaved in a disgusting and selfish way. I am deeply ashamed and sorry I undertake never to behave in so stupid and improper manner in future.
        
        I will always in future let you know my rota well in advance so you can lodge any objection, and I am very sorry for any distress my behaviour has caused you.
        
        Now – is diddums feeling better?
Daniel Speight

Best wishes to all who are marching and hope for a safe protest. Just too far away to be there myself.
Daniel Speight

Best wishes to all who are marching and hope for a safe protest. Just too far away to be there myself.
Daniel Speight

Best wishes to all who are marching and hope for a safe protest. Just too far away to be there myself.

Latest

News
Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

By Kirstin Hay

With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]
Read more →
News
Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]
Read more →
Comment Unions
The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

By Mark Seddon

Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]
Read more →
News
Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]
Read more →
Featured
Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

By Mark Ferguson

Ed Miliband is speaking at the Google “Big Tent” event this morning, and as we noted earlier this week, he’s picking a bit of a fight with them over their tax affairs. Understandably, most of the press coverage in advance of Miliband’s speech (and presumably afterwards too) is about Google’s tax affairs. That’s in part due to David Cameron’s unwillingness to challenge his adviser, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, when the two met earlier this week. The Downing Street media team [...]
Read more →