BARROW TUC DETERMINED TO DO SOMETHING

SEND A LETTER TO THE LOCAL PRESS! 
At the 7th February meeting of Barrow Trades Union Council delegates expressed their concern about the affects of government imposed cuts upon the people of this area - rising youth unemployment, increasing waiting lists for social housing, reductions in benefits and allowances, the fear of new 'assessments' of the disabled and their 'fitness for work', and the political vacuum caused by a lack of Labour Party opposition to these measures both locally and nationally which creates a breeding ground for far right organisations such as the BNP and EDL.  Delegates agreed a letter expressing these concerns be written and sent to the local press for publication.  Then progress of business hit the buffers -  who would write the letter?  


The secretary, Robert Pointer, stated he was too busy to do so.  The acting chairperson (Barrow TUC elected a chairman last summer who then went absent and has never been seen or heard from since that time) asked for a volunteer but no one indicated they wished to take on the task.  The acting chairperson then directly asked the NUT delegate (who had initiated the discussion) if he was prepared to compose a letter and send it to the secretary and the delegate agreed to do so in readiness for the next TU council meeting.


Below is a copy of the letter that was presented for discussion/amendment/approval at the meeting held on 6th March.....


DRAFT OF PROPOSED LETTER 
The Labour Party is considered to be the 'Party of Opposition' in parliament yet delegates to this Trades Council see little evidence of any determined opposition, either locally or nationally, to the austerity measures being imposed by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government. 
William Keegan, financial correspondent, wrote in the Observer (Sunday 29 January 2012)
'...while Labour leaders are right to avoid making too many commitments at this stage, statements about not reversing cuts they have opposed make people wonder why they should vote Labour at all.'
Labour's acceptance of capitalism and monetarism make it no different to either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats.  Thus people who must work for a wage or a salary feel there is at present no political party capable of being elected to parliament that will serve their best interests and this has created a political vaccuum.
This Trades Council is concerned that this vacuum will be readily exploited by opportunist fascist, far right organisations, as they have done in the past, leading to a dramatic increase in hate crimes against minorities as the economic situation worsens and so calls upon the membership of the Labour Party to look seriously at the Alternative Strategy of the Trade Union Congress and also the People's Charter that was fully endorsed at the TUC's November 2009 conference.
Whole sections of the British population - workers, unemployed, disabled, sick and elderly, and those who can no longer afford to continue educational studies are crying out for change. Locally, the number of children suffering poverty is escalating and the level of youth unemployment is much higher than the national average.  It really is time for the Labour Party to listen carefull to the people by whom it was founded and for whom it was originally founded to represent.


A Unite delegate (and former Labour councillor)  immediately objected to the letter declaring he knew nothing about it  and it should not be put to the vote as it has just been pushed forward.  He was not present at the February meeting when the matters contained in the letter were discussed and this was why he knew nothing about it.  The NUT delegate proposed the secretary send copies of the letter to all delegates so they may prepare and submit any amendments at the April meeting, and this was agreed.


BARROW TUC MEETING 3rd APRIL
 Usually, these meetings are gatherings at which a few - perhaps five or seven - (mainly retired) persons sit and listen to the secretary read out correspondence, maybe have a chat about things arising from the correspondence, and then go home and wait for the next meeting when they can turn up and go through exactly the same procedure.  It was only last year the secretary declared in the local press that if people didn't start to support the Trades Union Council he would have to wrap it up as sometimes he was left sitting on his own.  Why did people stop attending?  Did they maybe find the boredom and lack of activity suffocating?  Three new delegates, one from the NUT, one from Unison (and secretary of Barrow Pensioners' Association) and another, GMB (and regional representative of Unite Against Fascism) could breathe some life into the council because each considered the council to be important and did not want to see it fold.  Since last year attendance by most delegates has been sporadic but that of the secretary and the GMB, RMT and NUT delegates has been regular and consistent.


Well, proceedings commenced at a leisurely pace.  George Appleton, secretary of the now defunct Ulverston Trades Union Council, agreed to be acting chairperson until the resignation of the former chairperson could be obtained.  Correspondence was read and discussed sedately in the usual manner.  The small protest by Remploy workers was noted.  The proposed construction of a new biomass power generating station was discussed and it was noted a local unofficial group was holding a protest meeting at Roose school at 7pm on the evening of Friday 6th April.  Then THE LETTER came up for discussion.


The Unite delegate objected to the letter and declared he would not vote for it.  The NUT delegate explained a vote was not being asked for at this time as this was only a draft and open to amendment.  The Unite delegate said he didn't want any of it.  One delegate (Unison, health section) said she agreed with most of the letter but had to leave for another engagement.  The RMT delegate agreed with most of it but not some of it but did not specify.  The GMB delegate agreed with some parts but not other parts but gave no details.  The NUT delegate asked for any amendments to be recorded.  The chairperson asked for amendments but none were proposed.  


The NUT delegate asked the chairperson if the letter could be considered paragraph by paragraph and amendments noted and he agreed.  The Unite delegate again declared he would not vote for it. Another Labour Party member and delegate (attending for the first time in many months) asked if the letter could be sent to local Labour MP John Woodcock for his comments but this was rejected.  It was then proposed that the MP be invited to attend the next Trades Council meeting to discuss the letter and this was also rejected.  Delegates made it impossible for the chairperson to tackle the letter section by section and, as it was clear no progress would be made, the NUT delegate proposed the letter be withdrawn and this was agreed.  


Even if nothing came out of this episode at least the discussion was heated in parts and the delegates became animated.  The main problem was that delegates had not bothered to read the letter and to make changes to it.  Neither did they possess the wit nor the wisdom to make amendments when the letter came up for their attention at the meeting.


So what conclusions can be drawn by this pantomime?  One could be that although the state of the local Masonic Lodge is unknown, it is clear the local branch of the Moronic Lodge is doing very nicely.


The situation at the moment is this:  attendance at TU council meetings varies between four and eight persons.  On one occasion it went as high as ten.  Attendance by most delegates however, is inconsistent and this makes continuity difficult.  The council may soon have a reliable chairperson but it still has no elected treasurer.  Some delegates need to pester their union branch to ensure their delegate fees are fully paid up otherwise, as demonstrated at the last meeting, their presence has no legitimacy.


More fun and games next month, perhaps, especially as it was just the letter that was withdrawn - not the decision that a letter be sent to the local press on the issues that had been raised at the February meeting.  The NUT delegate has proposed (by email) that the secretary of Barrow TU council prepare one and send it to all members in readiness for amendments or approval by delegates at the council meeting in May.    

STILL ON THAT WELL-TRODDEN ROAD

Announcement of first TUC Congress 1868

THE WORKING CLASS, AND 
LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT 
The first Trades Union Congress was held in the Mechanics' Institute, David Street, Manchester, from 2nd until 6th June 1868.


Amongst other things, the Congress passed a resolution "that it is highly desirable that the trades of the United Kingdom should hold an annual congress for the purpose of bringing the trades into closer alliance and to take action in all Parliamentary matters pertaining to the general interests of the working classes."


There then followed a period in which the TUC's efforts were directed - with occasional and limited success - towards influencing successive governments' to protect the trade unions as societies and to protect the worker as an individual human being.


"Notwithstanding all the teachings of political economists, all the doctrines taught by way of supply and demand, we say there is a greater doctrine overriding all those and that is the doctrine of humanity."  Sam Woods, secretary of the Parliamentary Committee of the TUC (1894 - 1904)


Of course, in the affairs of mice and men (and women) things are never simple and straightforward.  Keir Hardy, stalwart advocate of a truly independent Labour Party, correctly accused the TUC of having tepid policies and a flaccid leadership. (Not much change there, then. Muddz) Later, in 1895, the TUC excluded from Congress all local trades councils - which had previously always been there as of right - because, according to the TUC leadership, this duplicated membership.  However, many believed the real reason to be because the TUC leadership felt the trades councils were an awkwardly militant element. (A similar attempt by the TUC to exclude trades councils was made in the 1980s but defeated. Muddz)


In the first thirty years or so after its foundation, the TUC had just two major successes: the Repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the introductionof the Fair Wages Clause.


In 1888, following the successful strike by a few hundred Bryant and May match girls, a resolution was moved in Congress by Miss Black of London: "That in the opinion of this Congress it is desirable, in the interests of both men and women, that in trades where women do the same work as men, they shall receive the same payment."  And then, just a few days after the Gas Workers, led by Will Thorne, had confronted the gas companies with a demand for an eight-hour day and won, came the great dockers' strike of 1889.


The dispute began when a few labourers at the West India Dock went on strike.  Ben Tillett, secretary of the Tea Workers and General Labourers' Union and strikers' leader immediately received offers of assistance from two stalwarts: John Burns and Tom Mann.  The business of the Port of London was brought to a complete standstill and the strike went from strength to strength.  Union funds, however, were rapidly depleted. Just when an ignominious end to the strike seemed inevitable, money from Australia began to pour into the coffers of the striking dockers.  This money came from almost every Australian trade union, the warf labourers of Brisbane, and from Australian football clubs.  Ultimately, the dockers obtained the major part of what they wanted and this victory lifted the hearts of other dockers and workers in other fields - gas workers, railwayworkers, textile workers, building workers, shipbuilding and metal workers, miners and boot and shoe operatives who rallied to their own unions in response to the story of the "dockers' tanner."
(You can read about how British miners in their determined and courageous struggle against the ranged forces of the the Tory government, The State, the capitalist media, scab labour, coppers' narks, class traitors, personal back-stabbers, turncoats and a pious Labour Party under the wet leadership of Kinnock, held out for a full year (1984 - 5) and exposed the sham of so-called 'British democracy' in the book The Enemy Within by Seumas Milne.  But be careful of your blood pressure if you do so. Muddz.) 


Britain in the early part of the 19th century was firmly in the grip of the 'Landed Gentry' and the aristocracy - much to the great frustration of the rising industrial bourgeoisie who, although possessing economic power were locked out of any political power and control of the State and the only way forward for them was to bring about revolutionary change.  Imagine that - a bourgeious (capitalist class) revolution!  They needed to achieve representation in Parliament so they could carry through legislation in their own interests.  But they could not achieve this on their own - they needed assistance, and they obtained this assistance by extending the franchise (democracy) to the working class.  However, James Mill, whilst prepared to enlist the support of the working class to defeat aristocratic political power, was determined that the business of government remained firmly in the hands of the rich.  Universal education of the masses would teach the lower orders to respect the 'property of their betters'.  Hard-fought battles resulted in one million people being added to the electoral role in 1867 and, for the very first time, working class voters found themselves in the majority in some constituencies.  Capitalist social ownership concentrated power and wealth in the hands of the few and any further extension of democracy threatened this 'ownership' - it might lead "to the transfer of power from the hands of property and intelligence."  


There is not room here to go to any detail about the struggles and effort that were put into the formation of a political party to represent the interests of 'the lower orders' ie the Labour Party, but I cannot close this post without  two last pieces that I believe are of particular relevance in Britain today.


Here is Walter Bagehot, political theorist of the bourgeousie "...in all cases it must be remembered that a political combinationof the lower classes, as such and for their own objects, is an evil of the first magnitude; that a permanent combination of them would make them (now that so many of them have the suffrage) supreme in the country.  So long as they are not taught to act together, there is a chance of this being averted, and it can only be averted by the greatest foresight of the higher classes."  Engels remarked that with the passing of the 1867 Reform Act, the ruling class had learnt how to rule directly by means of universal suffrage.  That is, the people had the vote but economic and political power remained firmly in the hands of the ruling class.  (We are now in the year 2012 - has anything changed? Muddz.)  


And finally (honestly!) The new mass party system was moulded into the older established constitutional state system with its emphasis on the supremacy of the Parliamentary Party dominated by the parliamentary leaders.  The Parties were simply vote-catchers, their role was to serve and support the Party in Parliament.  At the beginning of the 20th century, A. L. Lowell made his now famous statement, that both parties (Conservative and Liberal) were shams: the Conservative party a transparent sham, and the Liberal an opaque sham.  And Lord Balfour saw as the outstanding genius and achievement of the British political system that the alternating Tory and Liberal Cabinets, fully supportive of the capitalist foundations of society, could safely afford to bicker.  Whatever the measures of democratic rights won, the capitalist social system remained supreme and, to all intents and purposes, unchallenged.  Bourgeois political power had mastered universal suffrage.  And what of the Labour Party?  The fundamental reason for a party of the working class is the conquest of political power and the introduction of socialism.  However, the new Labour Party had no socialist objective or programme - its sole aim was to break with the old Liberal leaders and win independent working class representation in Parliament but without being politically independent of the bourgeoisie - the seeds of class collaboration had been sown.  Indeed, it has been with the aid of the Labour Party leadership that the capitalist class has succeeded in maintaining its rule in periods of serious social crisis.  Does this ring any bells today?


So, now we have the Conservative Party, a transparent sham; the Liberal Party, an opaque sham, and the Labour Party, a semi-transparent semi-opaque sham!  That's progress?






  

A WELL TRAVELLED ROAD REVISITED

SO MANY LESSONS TAUGHT; SO FEW LESSONS LEARNED
All that any leftwing activist needs to know about the history of the class struggle in Britain, be they a member of a trade union or not, is contained within the book shown opposite but few will have seen it and even fewer will even know of its existence.


I am fully aware the above could invite criticism - "What about the revolt of slaves in Roman times....ever heard of Spartacus?" "Remember Wat Tyler and the peasants' revolt?" "The Craft Guilds of medieval times?" "How about the Diggers, the Levellers, Cromwell, Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists, and don't forget the French Revolution!" "And what of the Pugachev rebellion and the peasant uprisings in Russia?"  


Well, these occurred before 1868 and seriously, this isn't a concise history of workers' struggle for  emancipation: it is just a simple blog on parts of the history of the TUC and how this history contains lessons for those conducting the class struggle in Britain today.  It is also a commentary on the role of the Labour Party in working people's attempts to obtain true parliamentary representation that would serve their interests as a class.


The Social Science Association was a middle-class body that claimed to have a sympathetic interest in trade unionism.  However, when William Dronfield, secretary of the Sheffield Typographical Society attempted to defend trade unions following a savage attack on them by a previous speaker at a Congress of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, there was not a single mention of this in the Association's report.  Dronfield gave word of this to two fellow compositors, Samuel Caldwell Nicholson, President of the Manchester and Salford Trades Council, and William Henry Wood, secretary of the trades council, and questioned the point of trade unionists going to these congresses of supposedly 'progressive' middle-class organisations if the views of working men were to be suppressed.  Nicholson's response was to ask "Why not have a congress of our own?"  Later, on February 21st 1868, Nicholson and Wood sent out the first summons to the first Trades Union Congress to be held on 4th May that same year.  It should be noted that Manchester and Salford Trades Council took the initiative and that  the congress would be of Representatives of Trades Councils and other Federations of Trades Societies.  The Trades Union Congress of today owes its existence to the work of the Trades Councils of 1868 -  a fact that ought never to be forgotten by the trade union movement of today.


The history of British working people's struggles for better pay and conditions by means of Trade Unionism and through politics is something of which we should be proud.  British workers have engaged the class enemy at home and fought foreign enemies abroad. Yet the battle at home continues and will continue until capitalism has been thoroughly defeated and replaced by socialism.


   









      

EMERGENCY! SOLUTION REQUIRED BEFORE MIDNIGHT!

The 'Unions, Labour Party and labour movement' matter will have to be continued in the next posting - as will further comments I wish to make about the Member of Parliament for the Barrow and Furness constituency, John Woodcock - because, as reported in yesterday's edition of the Morning Star, many Britons will (together with members of other English-speaking nations) at midnight this evening (31st December) either just make up, or mime, the words of the song 'Auld Lang Syne'.  How absolutely humiliating this must be for them, and how awfully embarrassing for those unfortunate enough to be in their company at what ought to be a joyful moment for everyone.

FEAR NOT; A COMMUNIST COMES TO YOUR RESCUE!

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,  And never brought to min'?  Should auld acqaintance be forgot,  And days o' lang syne?  For auld lang syne, my dear,  For auld lang syne,  We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,  For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes,  And pu'd the gowans fine,  But we've wander'd mony a weary foot,  Sin auld lang syne.  (Chorus - For auld.....)

We twa hae paidl't i' the burn,  From mornin' sun til dine;  But seas between us braid hae roar'd,  Sin auld lang syne.  (Chorus - For auld....)

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere,  And gie's a hand o' thine;  And we'll tak a right guid willie-waught,  For auld lang syne.  (Chorus - For auld....)

And surely ye'll be your pint-stowp,  And surely I'll be mine;  And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,  For auld lang syne.  (Chorus - For auld.....)

Words by Robert Burns.  Tune 'I feed a lass at Martinmas'  Taken from 'The Song Book', published by Macmillan & Co, London and New York, 1892

OK, so a brief departure from things political as I have a headcold and I'm a wee bit peely-wally the nicht.

Sincere best wishes to all comrades actively engaged in the battles of the class war.

The struggle continues!

MASS POLITICAL PARTY OF LABOUR NEEDED

Barrow MP, John Woodcock, 'Baby Hugging'

SYSIPHUS AT LEAST GOT SOME SATISFACTION
Condemned to forever roll a boulder to the top of the mountain only to have it roll back to the bottom again was the lot of poor Sysiphus - but at least he had the satisfaction of getting that rock to the summit each time, which is more than can be said for those who struggle for socialism here in Britain.


Communists and socialists know that Socialism is the only system that will create a fairer society but  British working people do not appear to understand this simple message even when the results of capitalism (a ruthlessly greedy system designed to rob and cheat them and which offers them nothing but anxiety and conflict) are staring them in the face.


Millions buy copies of imbecilic tabloid 'newspapers' to fill their heads with vacuous nonsense and fantasies every day of the week and seem to be incapable of holding any type of meaningful conversation lasting more than a minute.  Yet persistent brief encounters reveal that these people know something is 'not right'.  Some will vote Labour and/or join a trade union in the hope that 'someone' will sort things out for them but it is then that the real problem is created - when Labour 'betrays' them, or their union 'sells out'.  


Socialists are ridiculed for suggesting that the Labour Party can be 'reclaimed' as a party for working people and that the individual unions can unite in the struggle to achieve a more just society when, according to critics, historical evidence demonstrates this is but a pipe dream.  Unfortunately, historical evidence does indeed prove them to be correct - Labour governments do betray working people and unions do sell out their members.  But, today, people on 'the Left' are engaged in finding ways of 'restoring the trust' (in Labour and the unions).  Does the contemporary issue of the Communist Party of Britain's programme, Britain's Road to Socialism, offer any guidance?


   Whether the trade unions and the socialist and social-democratic trends (in the Labour Party) will be sufficiently strong, resolute and united to take back control of the Labour Party from New Labour can only be assessed in the course of a determined struggle to do so.
   The working class and peoples of Britain need a mass political party, based on the labour movement, that can win general elections, form a government and implement substantial reforms in their interests.
   For as long as many of the biggest trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party, the potential exists to wage a broad fight to reclaim the party for the labour movement and left-wing policies.  Certainly, this is the most direct route to ensuring the continued existence of a mass party of labour in Britain, and is an objective that every non-sectarian socialist and communist should support, whether from within the Labour Party or from without.
   But decisive progress in this direction requires the unions themselves to fight both inside and outside the Labour Party for policies that will challenge state-monopoly capitalism in Britain.  Moreover, support will need to be won at every level of the trade unions and the whole labour movement for an alternative economic and political strategy (AEPS) to that being pusued by the British ruling class.  This would provide the most favourable conditions in which to resolve the crisis of working class electoral representation.  Here, too, the Communist Party and the daily socialist Morning Star newspaper have an important contribution to make to the struggle within the labour movement.       (BRS, p21)
Now, before there are groans of "Oh, no - just more of this 'reclaim the Labour Party' wishful- thinking nonsense!" it is necessary to read further......
   Only after a determined fight can the big trade unions make a realistic assessment of whether the Labour Party can be reclaimed.  They will have to decide whether to persevere or, together with their political allies, to re-establish a mass party of labour that will represent the interests of the working class and the people generally.
   For as long as little or no progress is made in the direction of reclaiming or re-stablishing such a party, other left-wing and class-struggle trends are likely to emerge that are not organisationally or politically related to the Labour Party.  It is likely that they will seek to participate in the political and electoral arena.
   The Communist Party's role is to work with all left trends that have a real, sustained base in the labour movement, urging them to unite around policies and in actions which raise the combativeness, confidence and political consciousness of the working class.  This would lay the basis for their convergence in a reclaimed or re-established mass party of labour, one federally organised to permit the affiliation of socialist and communist parties committed to the fight for socialism.   (BRS, p21)
So the way forward is either by
a) the trade unions, and the socialist and social-democratic trends uniting to take over the Labour Party, or by 
b) them abandoning a Labour Party that no longer represents their interests and forming a new federal party of labour that is unequivocal in its aim to establish a British socialist state.


Well, that's the theory and it all seems quite simple and straightforward, so what could possibly go wrong?  (To be continued in the next posting)


Meanwhile, leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, does not agree with workers striking to defend their pensions, makes no proposals for returning energy provision or transport to public ownership and has little to say about regulating speculative bankers and financiers.
   John Woodcock, (pictured above) Labour MP for this constituency, believes 'The Cuts' are necessary.  He was unable to attend a public meeting for the defence of the National Health Service because, his assistant explained, he was attending 'a meeting'.  Yes, he was - he was on a trip to Israel as new chairman of Labour Friends of Israel and was pictured 'standing in an area that could receive a Palestinian rocket attack'!  Gosh!  As no full explanation for the visit was provided, are we to assume it was just another meeting to draw up some new lucrative weapons contract to assist Israeli expansionism and further illegal occupation of Palestinian territory?  Or did he advise them, as a friend, to begin heeding United Nations resolutions before the Security Council finally loses patience, imposes sanctions, draws up a comprehensive 'no fly zone' and lays the ground for a full NATO invasion?
   Robert Pointer, Labour Councillor and secretary of Barrow Trades Union Council, agrees 'The Cuts' are necessary. This probably explains why he persistently ignores requests to support the TUC-endorsed People's Charter local campaign and why he did not attend the recent meeting of Trade Union Councils in Derby - though he did confess "I don't like travelling in winter."


The struggle continues.
       


   
  

SOME WORDS ON STRIKES AND COMPROMISES

Strikers rally in front of Town Hall, Barrow, 30 Nov 2011

Guidance worthy of note from comrade Lenin
Can there ever be compromise in the class war?  Is it ever acceptable to retreat at the height of confrontation with the class enemy?


'...proletarians schooled in numerous strikes (to take only this manifestation of the class struggle) usually understand quite well the very profound (philosophical, historical, political and psychological) truth expounded by Engels.  


Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced "compromises" with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers had to go back to work either without having achieved anything or agreeing to only a partial satifaction of their demands.  Every proletarian - owing to the conditions of the mass struggle and the sharp intensification of class antagonisms in which he lives - notices the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, extreme hunger and exhaustion), a compromise which in no way diminishes the revolutionary devotion and readiness for further struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise, and a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to outside causes their own selfishness (strike-breakers also enter into "compromises"!), cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery on the part of the capitalists. (The history of the British labour movement offers especially many instances of such treacherous compromises by British trade union leaders, but, in one form or another, nearly all workers in all countries have witnessed the same sort of thing)' (My emphasis - FR)


And further...
'Of course, in politics, where it is sometimes a matter of extremely complicated - national and international - relations between classes and parties, very many cases will arise that will be much more difficult than the questions of a legitimate "compromise" in a strike, or the treacherous "compromise" of a strike-breaker, traitor, etc.  It would be absurd to formulate a recipe or general rule ("No Compromises!") to serve all cases.


One must use one's own brains and be able to find one's bearings in each separate case.  That, in fact, is one of the functions of party organization and party leaders worthy of the title, namely, through the prolonged, persistent, variegated and comprehensive efforts of all thinking representatives of the given class, to evolve the knowledge and experience and - in addition to knowledge and experience - the political instinct necessary for the speedy and correct solution of intricate political problems.'


And finally...
'Within every class, even in the conditions prevailing in the most enlightened countries, even within the most advanced class, and even when the circumstances of the moment have roused all its spiritual forces to an exceptional degree, there always are - and inevitably will be as long as classes exist, as long as classless society has not fully entrenched and consolidated itself, and has not developed on its own foundations - representatives of the class who do not think and are incapable of thinking.  Were this not so, capitalism would not be the oppressor of the masses it is.' (My emphasis - FR)


Text from "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder, V.I. Lenin, pp 63, 64, 65


For many who took part in the one day of action on 30th November, this was their first ever strike.  The public sector workers who took part that day did so in the belief that their leaders were taking the correct decisions and had a strategic plan for the future confrontations that are sure to follow.  These workers are advised to keep a close eye on that leadership and the nature of any 'negotiations' conducted on their behalf.


  

TUC ONE DAY PUBLIC SERVANTS' STRIKE

7.30AM PICKET, DWP, 30 NOV, BARROW IN FURNESS

   NOVEMBER 30TH 2011
"United, we stand; divided, we fall."  is a simple enough statement and one that most people understand yet it is apparently beyond the comprehension of many in Furness.  Either that or the many have become convinced that, no matter what they do, they will not succeed in bringing about change.


Many remember Prime Minister Gordon Brown declaring there would be a cut of 100,000 civil servants and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling warning that cuts about to be imposed by the New Labour government would be 'worse than under the former Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher'.  And all this before the General Election in May 2010 at which the Conservatives, with the backing of the Liberal Democrats, took (unelected) power to unleash a slash and burn campaign against the Welfare State and to privatise sections of the National Health Service.


The TUC one day strike of Public Sector workers on 30th November was, in Furness terms, quite well supported.  Pickets were evident outside schools, the offices of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP, pictured above), the Town Hall, and Furness General Hospital, for example.  A thirty minute 'rally' in the town square, supported by local members of Unison, GMB, PCS, and NUT unions culminated in 'one minute of noise' obtained by blowing of whistles and vuvuzelas.  Furness Against the Cuts attended with a stall and members of Unite Against Fascism displayed their banner.  The secretary of Barrow Trades Union Council was seen sidling about in the background and the local Labour Party was conspicuously absent.  Later, the local press gave the event good coverage estimating an attendance of 300 persons.  


Was the strike successful in drawing the public's attention towards the threat to its Public Services and demonstrating workers' strength of feeling against the proposed Pensions reform?   The strike certainly made national headlines in the press and was featured in TV news programmes so, in this, it was a successful piece of publicity.  Did the strike serve to strengthen workers' resolve to take further action?  In as much as the strike had little affect upon the government's Pensions plans and further pressure will be required, then the results of future union strike ballots will demonstrate whether resolve was, or was not, strengthened.  


One thing that has not yet been clearly understood by local unions is the pressing need to educate the public about the damage being planned for the Welfare State and the National Health Service.  They will certainly not educate anyone by sitting in a room discussing issues amongst themselves, or having a 'fun' rally for half an hour every six months:  they need to follow the lead provided by Furness Against the Cuts by getting out into the town, talking to members of the public and explaining exactly what is at stake here.  But then, of course, any serious campaigners would have been doing this months ago and promoting the People's Charter as the TUC's alternative to the government's politically-motivated cuts agenda.


Blackleg office worker entering DWP "I'm not supporting the strike; the union's never done anything for me!"
Picketing union official "What do you think your union is doing for you today, then?"   

JOB CENTRE PICKET, 30 NOV,  BARROW IN FURNESS

Neither the secretary of Barrow Trades Union Council nor the secretary of Ulverston Trades Union Council was prepared to attend tomorrow's (Saturday 10th December) Trades Union Councils' Joint Planning Meeting - for Jobs, Industry and Public Services - at Derby.  Literature for this event clearly points out 'The TUC Trades Council programme of work highlights working with The Peoples' Charter'.  Given that Carlisle Trades Union Council and Kendal TUC have both been defunct for some time, and that Barrow and Ulverston TUCs are contemplating a merger 'just to keep going', it would seem the first proirity of the Trade Union movement ought to be encouraging trade union branches to support their local Trades Councils recognising that TUCs are an invaluable means of communicating directly with the general public.  Class conscious, politically aware, trade unionists know this of course.  Has anyone spotted the elephant in the room here - that thing which is so obvious but which most seek to deliberately ignore?