Straw Considers New powers
G W F H | 18.09.2000 15:31
After the fuel tax protesters lose their momentum, they will not be allowed to challenge the national moral purpose again. And neither will the unions.
Home Office minister Straw has announced plans to compell the oil companies to break any new blockade that the protesters may set up in the near future.
At its short lived height, there were indications, admittedly not entirely clear, that there were certain progressive signs in the fuel action. It is regrettable that more people didnt give their own local reports, for we would have a better picture. We noted black /white solidarity, and there were mainstream media reports of the expulsion of right wing elements from the pickets, and a move in Purfleet AGAINST the policy of the oil companies.
So why did the trades unions fail to support it, indeed, condemn it ? John Monks, TUC spokesman, even went to compare it to the toppling of Allende in Chile (1973). But, if this was a pro-capitalist strike, why has the Financial Times itself condemned the action as "absurd and unjustified? ". Are not the trades unions following a pro employer approach in their partnership deals, much praised in the same conference ? Who is innocent here ?
Since the defeat of the miners strike in 1984, largely the fault of the Labour party by way of Kinnock's refusal to support it, leftists have only been able to mount scattered resistance, as we know ! If the transport unions had found some formula to come out if not in direct support of the fuel tax protest, then, a kind of parallel action pursuing thier own demands , they could have re established their independence and won a few concessions from Labour, telling them that their loyalty is not unconditional.
This might have been their last chance, for the measures Straw talks of will be used against unions too.
At its short lived height, there were indications, admittedly not entirely clear, that there were certain progressive signs in the fuel action. It is regrettable that more people didnt give their own local reports, for we would have a better picture. We noted black /white solidarity, and there were mainstream media reports of the expulsion of right wing elements from the pickets, and a move in Purfleet AGAINST the policy of the oil companies.
So why did the trades unions fail to support it, indeed, condemn it ? John Monks, TUC spokesman, even went to compare it to the toppling of Allende in Chile (1973). But, if this was a pro-capitalist strike, why has the Financial Times itself condemned the action as "absurd and unjustified? ". Are not the trades unions following a pro employer approach in their partnership deals, much praised in the same conference ? Who is innocent here ?
Since the defeat of the miners strike in 1984, largely the fault of the Labour party by way of Kinnock's refusal to support it, leftists have only been able to mount scattered resistance, as we know ! If the transport unions had found some formula to come out if not in direct support of the fuel tax protest, then, a kind of parallel action pursuing thier own demands , they could have re established their independence and won a few concessions from Labour, telling them that their loyalty is not unconditional.
This might have been their last chance, for the measures Straw talks of will be used against unions too.
G W F H
Comments
Hide the following comment
Andrew Rawnsley's Pop-Up Allegations Book
19.09.2000 13:52
When these allegations (stress the word) first appeared in 1998, it seemed that Blair would soon be heading the same way as John major and his cat, but then something odd happened: he appeared on TV, bleating 'trust me' and then New Labour's internal critics suddenly chimed in, Hattersly attested to Blair's personal honesty, and Livingstone defended christianity as a form of socialism.
A year on from that, the whole matter seemed forgotten and the whole party got drunk right and left on Chateau Rambouillet 1999 (n.a.t.o.) but now they seem to be waking up with a nasty headache and finding out how fickle the favor of the high establishment is to those who serve it most faithfully.
So the government is in not perhaps terminal crisis, but in severe disagreement; one fraction wants to cut feul tax tout de suite, while the other wants to tough it out... higher taxation, they claim, (TUC's John Monks among them) is vital to pay for better services, and there IS some truth in that, except for the small matter of the national debt.
And what is that ? Whilst poor nations are forced to pay off IMF extortion loans, rich nations find themselves running up war costs, and in this case the high price of dropping humanitarian cluster bombs on Belgrade, Sofia, and the Chinese embassy in 1999 have left a massive dent in government revenues. Even as the cruise missiles landed, the bill was being drawn up, and New Labour were faced with a dillemma: having pledged not to raise salary tax in order to attract substantial conservative votes, they let the tax bill rise on those sections who would never vote Labour, hence in part the fuel crisis.
The taxes are hardly for 'green' purposes; if Labour were serious about ecology, they would taken the entire transport system under direct control, disband the disgrace ful Railtrack, and regulate the whole thing to ensure minimal costs, reduced pollution, and secure employment. Note that one of the trucks blockading Park Lane last week had as a banner: "Today self-employed driver- tomorrow, the dole ?", not anything particularly bad.
Blair is looking fairly precarious at the moment, and the Labour conference is looming; perhaps the Labour-left have a chance to redeem themselves for their support of his nato project, and dispense with their automatic loyalty ( "my party leader, right, wrong or christian" they cry,). Politics is about more than loyalty: its also about taking a calculated risk on occasion, so could they please take a risk for once and vote Blair and his chums out without a pension...
and exactly what did happen to John Major's cat ?
G W F H