THE REAL CHOICE FOR WORKERS IN GLASGOW NORTH EAST

As well as campaigning in the South West of the City, I have been out in Glasgow North East, and it is simply breathtaking, the anger that voters have for New Labour because the media would have you believe differently.

What is more astonishing is the level of negative campaigning adopted by the New Labour during the by election.

This election like so many recently is a straight choice on many issues.  Amazingly, the by-election has been about devolved issues, and not Westminster ones.  Little wonder. Not one word about foreign policy or the economy from a candidate whose pitch would be more appropriate for that of a local council candidate.

During the SNP conference I spoke on the recovery from recession debate, and the fact that both the Tories and New Labour were complicit in their neglect on workers rights, which has led to workplaces closing all over Scotland, because it is easier to make someone redundant here than it is elsewhere.

It transpires that the New Labour Candidate, Willie Bain was BOOED AND JEERED at the Labour Conference four years ago, because he was against Secondary Action, in debate, moved by Unite, AMICUS and the GMB, over the disgraceful way that workers in Gate Gourmet were treated by British Airways.

Here’s what he said

William Bain, from Glasgow NE, was jeered when he claimed the call amounted to a "return to the employment practices of the 1970s or '80s".
Urging delegates to be realistic, Mr Bain said: "We don't want to see the party bounced back into a shift to secondary action. It wouldn't do anything to solve this dispute. Let's learn the lessons and go forward as a movement, not back."

Members of these Three Unions, and Trade Unionists in general should reject this candidate on this alone. The CWU and postal workers would also do well to regard his mouthing of support for them with a degree of scepticism – it’s the Say Anything campaign. From pretending that he would challenge unpopular Labour policies and decisions nationally to dissociating himself from unpopular local decisions on school closures (alongside his “nothing to do with me guv” councillor colleagues), it’s the ultimate face both ways New Labour smoke and mirrors act.

So workers in Glasgow North East have a real choice, a political party who agree that Employment Rights should be strengthened and that Industrial Relations should be dealt with in a respectful manner, or New Labour who from day one have shown whose side they are really on.

The Voters of Glasgow North East must vote for a Candidate that backs working people and their hard fought struggles for dignity and rights at work (which the Labour party used to stand for), and not the Candidate who opposes the rights workers have in other countries, and who opposes ILO Conventions.

 

That’s just one of the many reasons why David Kerr deserves to win.

OUR PLACE IN EUROPE

Like Freddy Kruger, the European issue just won’t stay dead for the Tories. However, they must be calculating that there’s enough of a time lag between their climbdown on a referendum and the inevitable Spring 2009 General Election date .Tory strategists must’ve crunched the numbers and worked out that such is the state of Gordon Brown’s Weak New Labour government, that they can safely afford a leakage of rabid anti-European voters to UKIP. A calculated risk ?

Bearing in mind the fact that their blue rinse core vote of Daily Telegraph readership would be more comfortable with leaving the EEC (as they still think of it), Central office must be really sure of their ground to try to finesse this , with a message of “oh well, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, the decision to ratify the Lisbon treaty’s already been made, it would’ve been different if you’d voted for us in 2005 .. it’s beyond our control…”

The real reason the Tories can’t stomach the European parliament and legislation is not so much a Little Britain mentality (don’t forget it was Ted Heath who was the most enthusiastic proponent of joining the EEC, and whatever her public posturing might’ve been, Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act) , but is really a protest against any social democratic improvements in terms of legislation to protect workers rights and makes clear their opposition to important rulings on disability and health and safety legislation (aka measures to protect people from being killed at work or made to work for peanuts that are usually described as red tape).

When the EU operates as an agent of multi-national businesses then the corporate minded polticians are usually silent.  When Brown and Blair where going round Europe after 1997, seeking opt-outs from the European Social Chapter why didn’t  they call for a referendum then?

Strange though that when the Tories where in charge that the EU was looked upon to curb the worst excesses of Thatcherism, yet when New Labour where elected the EU went the other way.

Scotland’s Climate Change Bill is seen as an international standard maker, and the outrageous decision to deny Scotland a place at the Copenhagen Summit smacks of doing Scotland down. New Labour are terrified of Scotland appearing credible on a world stage.

The quicker Scotland is at the top table in Europe the better.

GOING POSTAL

As the previous blog post shows, history is on my mind; looking back to the last time we were contemplating the real prospect of the Tory vultures returning to power – 1978/9, and part of the simplistic analysis of that era is that the intransigence of the trade unions and striking workers ushered in a Tory government. However, I would point out again the fundamental contradiction in the New Labour analysis – they manage to suggest the 1979 election result was both a push (anti- old labour vote) and a pull (pro Tory free market vote), and given that the Tory medicine has been prescribed by New Labour from Day One of Year Zero (and before, as Brown announced before the 1997 election that he’d stick to Tory spending limits), they obviously favour the “pull” argument. It would be heresy of the most heinous kind in their minds to suggest that the confrontational industrial policy imposed by the IMF on the Labour governments of the 70’s ushered in the Tories.

So I would suggest that the parallels with the post dispute are not the miners strike (as at least one backbench Labour MP has observed and his whips interview must be pending), but those of the Labour government taking on public sector workers in late seventies.

Surely the lesson is not that workers shouldn’t defend their rights but that Labour governments should support them more or lose power – discuss?

Hopefully the talks on-going will resolve the bitterness that is festering on both sides.

The most despicable aspect of this episode is the disgraceful behaviour by Royal Mail, and influenced by the hand of the Dark Lord Mandelson to attack Union rights of the Communication Workers Union, as a result of this dispute.  Documents leaked to the media showed a strategy that dates back to the Victorian days.

The facts are that Royal Mail have ripped up agreements on pay, terms and conditions, and pensions,  signed with the CWU, without consultation,, who have no other option than to withdraw their labour.

The arguments against the dispute are the same old tired ones, with an obsession in indulging in a race to the bottom. 

Back the Posties!  

THE GREAT MYTH

“I have since wondered whether those thirty-four Labour members would have voted as they did if they had been able to foresee that their vote on that evening would precipitate a General Election, at the least favourable time for the government “and I’m quoting the words of Jim Callaghan himself in his auto biography “Time and Chance”, and look who he’s pointing the finger at, Labour members in 1977 not the SNP in 1979.

Who better to analyse the circumstances of the Labour government’s demise?  He was referring to the infamous Cunningham amendment which set the 40 % Yes threshold for devolution, a democratic travesty dreamt up by the arch unionists of the day. In Callaghan’s analysis of the events of 1979 “it was the adverse result of the two Devolution referenda in Scotland and Wales that finally ended the Government’s life “. What is remarkable is his non partisan analysis of the devolution vote, and he even goes so far as to state “the merits of the case had become entangled with a vote on the Government’s popularity, which was not high even in Scotland, because of the recent industrial disputes”.

So it would appear that Labour MP’s who were anti-devolution and profoundly hostile to Scotland having additional powers scuppered the Callaghan government and ushered in Thatcher’s Tories – according to the Labour leader of the day.

There’s also a great big elephant in the room when it comes to analysing the Tory victory in 1979 – the entire foundations of New Labour are built on the premise that Old Labour was fundamentally unattractive to the voters (in the oft repeated clichés of Winter of Discontent, too much power in the hands of the trade unions etc) and therefore they must believe that a Tory victory in 1979 was inevitable…no matter when the election was held or under what circumstances the government fell?

In the minds of the shiny suits clutching filofaxes in the 80’s and fixing red roses in the buttonholes then singing along to “Things can only get better”, in 1997 that they believe Thatcher, and the superiority of private sector delivery and market values was a historical inevitability,  in other words......

..Vote New Labour, get Tory!

As true today as it was then…………….

VALUES

Yes another comeback for the blog, a bit like Frank Sinatra some might say, and I've decided to spruce this up a bit with a new look for this esteemed organ! Its been quite a summer, having got married to the Good Lady, been involved in lengthy negotiations with the employer over changes to working practices, and of course campaigning, where we have reduced a 44% deficit four years ago to 3% in the European Elections.  Now to kick on and overtake.

Despite all the negative attacks placed on the SNP by our opponents recently, we seem to still be ahead in recent polling which spells trouble for our friends in the British Labour Party (Scotland Region).

The Summer has also been dominated by New Labour double speak no more so than with the release of Al Megrahi.  In football parlance its been a dreadful pre-season for them, and one can only wonder if they can up their game in time for the Westminster election.  Can this authors prediction that they could suffer the same fate as Lloyd George's Liberals really come true?

The first double speak was over comments from some Tories over privatising parts of the NHS, whist at the same time consider papers designed to do exactly that in Engand and Wales, hence the aforementioned suspension of funding from UNISON.  Of course they still campaign in Scotland for outsourcing and more PFI, when the rest of us look on in utter bewiderment.

They continue to shout about cuts, when at the same time prepare for shaving £1 billion from the Scottish Budget.

Equally they scream about SNP councils and terms and conditions, whilst for the last 10 years Gasgow City Council have issued redundancy notices to change terms and conditions in an effective sign or be sacked policy as a matter of course.

Today was the ultimate.  To send a signal that they are at the very least comfortable at Westminster with the compassionate release of Al Megrahi, we have their Scottish Branch saying something entirely different.  They must think the electorate are fools.  To suggest that an organsation which cannot sneeze with out their Bosses in London telling them what to do, can now have separate opinions is risible.

Today we can only assume they have no values.  Values will decide the winner of the Westminster elections in Scotland.  That is the lesson from the American Presidential elections.  New Labour can only do negative because they have no values to share.

On the otherhand the people have a choice.  They can choose world class public services and the principles of social justice, peace and yes compassion.  They can choose to rebuild an economy where massive job losses are not seen as a price worth paying. 

The people of Scotland are not leaving New Labour.  New Labour have already left the Scottish people.

Voters who wish the choice of values can only now turn to the SNP.

FEEDING THE HAND THAT BITES

I am down for the UNISON Conference in Brighton, for what is a unified conference so far, after General Secretary, Dave Prentis delivered a devastating attack on New Labour, and received a standing ovation midway through his speech when he announced that he was requesting that the Labour Link section suspend funding Labour Party Constituency Development plans.

There is little doubt that this move is symbolic, and underlines the frustration of workers in the Public Sector. In a poll commissioned by UNISON 70% of Public Sector workers will not vote for Labour. Correctly the move to suspend funding is due to New Labour's attitude to public services, and for the way New Labour MP's have conducted themselves with their expenses.

How will Labour respond? If the last few weeks are anything to go by, they will have learned nothing. At a time when the PFI scam has been revealed, where more goes to private companies than is actually invested in public services, we see New Labour in Westminster and Holyrood argue that PFI is the way forward!

As Dave Prentis said "We must demand a manifesto that puts limits on privatisation. …. a manifesto that rebuilds public provision. We cannot tell our members to campaign and vote for a party whose manifesto promises more competition and more privatisation of our public services.” That why UNISON are sick of feeding the hand that bites.

Trade Union members and the public at large support Public Services being delivered by the Public Sector. They believe that privatisation only benefits the private investor.

I am glad I am a member of a political party that supports the Public Sector principle too.

PERCEPTIONS

Three months since my last blog, as I have been very busy dealing with an employer that appears to have taken complete leave of its senses, pre-occupied with Thistle's ultimately unsuccessful promotion push, Campaigning across the whole of South West, and of course helping with preparations with my forthcoming wedding.

I have been meaning to post for a few weeks now, however, my opponent for Glasgow South West has given me the ultimate inspiration. I am not going to attack Ian Davidson for his individual expenses claims which have featured in the media, as that is a matter for him. However, he has got it completely wrong with his comments in the Scotsman regarding the new Interim Expenses arrangements. To suggest that "He wishes he had a larger mortgage so he could claim more in allowances" sends the wrong signal in the current expenses crisis.

Politics is often about perception, and at this moment many members of the public think that Westminster politicians are on the take. Suggesting you wish you had a larger mortgage only re-enforces that view. In all the telegraph coverage on expenses the real scandal is the property "flipping" i.e. pocketing the profits of a sold house which the public paid the interest for, and then buying another property.

What has to come from this morass, is more accountability. In that spirit, I have decided that if I am given the honour of being elected, I will rent a property, and publish my expense claims so voters can judge for themselves if they are getting value for money.

There must be a general election soon, so that people can express their verdict on the Westminster system, and to restore confidence.