Why David Cameron snubbed the TUC
Posted on Wednesday 21 July, 2010
Filed Under Conservative Party, Trade Unions
IT WAS unspeakably obsequious of the general council of the Trades Union Congress even to invite David Cameron to address its annual conference in Manchester in September. How amusing, then, that this thoroughgoing display of sycophantic servility should be met with a riposte of truly Old Etonian hauteur.
The prime minister ain’t going, largely because he can’t be arsed. Sure, Sam is due to drop a sprog around that time, but everybody knows that this is simply the polite pretext on which Number Ten has turned down the offer.
Some on the left are trying to dress all this up as a victory for the awkward squad. RMT leader Bob Crow threatened to lead a walkout if Cameron spoke on the day, and there is little doubt that it would have been widely supported.
But Cameron could scarcely have minded that; Crow is something of a bogeyman to the home county commuter vote, and a symbolic confrontation of this variety would probably have played well with straphangers from Surbiton.
The disquieting reality is that the TUC is no longer deemed sufficiently important to be worth a day of the big man’s time. So the posh boy had no trouble whatsoever in flashing the Vs to the plebs.
Long gone are the years when TUC conference was an event of first rank political importance, with television cameras there to fill daytime television schedules now devoted to Jeremy Kyle with pictures of overweight men pledging defiance of government pay norms.
Nowadays, it is reduced to a talking shop of little apparent purpose. Large numbers of delegates gather together to pass resolutions that nobody takes remotely seriously, in the full knowledge that they will have not the slightest impact outside the conference chamber.
The theoretical case for what is known in labour movement jargon as ‘a national trade union centre’, such as the TUC, is that it co-ordinates the action of separate unions in the struggle against the boss class. Unity is strength, and all that.
The trouble is that trade unions nowadays do little that requires co-ordination to any degree than an ad hoc committee meeting cannot comfortably handle. That leaves the TUC’s purpose as … what, exactly?
This is a terrible thing for a leftie to have to say, but the truth is that in the current industrial climate, TUC conference deliberations are of no relevance whatsoever to workplace-based union members, even those that are activists or reps.
Now is not the time to rattle off the standard Marxist critique of the trade union bureaucracy. Of course union officials negotiate; that’s what they do. Those that represent workers employed by the state will negotiate with the government, and rightly so.
Yet not even the most spurious notion of social partnership could have justified proffering a platform to a man who plans to put millions of working people on the dole. The inevitable slap down simply shows up Brendan Barber as a prize chump.
Just a suggestion, guys. Terribly old fashioned of me, I know. But sod the love-in and start organising some resistance. That’s what you are supposed to be there for, after all.
<<Go back
Comments
40 Responses to “Why David Cameron snubbed the TUC”
Leave a Reply
So, despite the fact that you think the TUC is an irrelevant talking shop that you wouldn’t be arsed to address, you’re still badmouthing Cameron for not “deigning” to speak there?
Viva the class war, brothers! Viva!
We oldies remember when those Trade Union barons – they were all household names in those days – used to stamp over the threshhold of 10 Downing Street like victorious Field Marshals coming to dictate armistice terms, with utter contempt visible on their faces.
“Get your tanks off my lawn!” Harold Wilson bleated piteously to one of them. [Frank Cousins?]
Them days is gone forever, for good or ill.
Maybe he should spend his paternity leave at Sam’s ancestral home Normanby Hall Nr Scunthorpe. If so he could spned 2 weeks in there without meeting anybody it’s got that many rooms and an estate where he could roam around talking to reindeer.
Oh I forgot he can’t the hall and estate are now run by the council a Labour Council in fact.
The actual quote was “get your tanks off my lawn, Hughie”
Hughie being Hugh Scanlon of the the Amalgamated Engineering Union.
Hughie was a go-between for Labour between the party and the TUC. He was one the prime movers within the union movement of the ‘Social Contract’ which introduced strict wage controls and limits on strike action. This culminated in the 1978/79 Winter of Discontent. After the 1979 election he became Lord Scanlon.
Some radical leftie eh?
Trade union leaders may have become overmighty subjects for a couple of decades, but they had nowhere near the political clout the financial oligarchs of today do.
As Steve Barrow, currency strategist at Standard Bank, told the FT:
“It’s the financial markets that have the power to strain governments and so bring about change, not the unions and the electorate”
Oh, and you know those little things like sick leave, holiday leave, decent working conditions, an eight hour day and not forgetting decent pay, these things were not handed over by benevolent employers they had to be fought for and won by trade unions.
No wonder the Tories were so determined to destroy union power eh? And even now with the most draconian anti-union laws in western Europe the ConDems are said to be drawing up further anti-union laws.
That nice Uncle Vince Cable was calling for bans on strikes in essential services even before he joined the coalition. You know ‘essential services’, those are the ones that directly affect ‘business leaders’, the metropolitan media and politicians.
Good point Captain Swing. David Duff has argued that you cannot increase taxes on the rich or regulate them to any resaonable extent because they will just move to another country. He is probably correct, which shows who really holds the nation to ransom and who has the real power. Note that Duff never makes this argument when workers are being taxed or having their living standards cut!!
1974 after the Heath defeat was the beginning of the end of any lobbying power the TUC may have had in the past. The real power was always in the hands of the elected government. I bet a lot of those old block vote union barons wish they had compromised with Heath. The Wilson/Callaghan government were weak and had no backbone. Callaghan must have sighed a relief in 1979. It was the unstoppable Maggie after 1979 the Lady in waiting. The unions paid dearly for it in reduced membership. Maybe they will learn the art of compromise some day.
You are spot on Dave.
“Overweight men pledging defiance of government pay norms” is an item for Trisha – not Jeremy Kyle.
The de-industrialization of the British workforce is the reason that the TUC is no longer a power to be reckoned with. In the nineteen-thirties the unions could see no reason to help in organizing the unemployed. Maybe this time around they can rectify that mistake.
Les Abbey. They cannot organise people that are in work how do you expect them to contact people out of work that cannot afford subscriptions. The large Unions now are about business flogging things likw credit cards etc. Consultation with members from the public sector is dire.
I’m so glad that those of is with no experience of trade unions have internet blowhards like Jimmy Glesga to tell us all about them.
boilermaker. That was a constructive comment. I am sure you will make a good leader of the revolution. The workers are out there waiting for you.
You seem to be the one obsessed with revolutions, Jimmy. Is there something you’d like to tell the group?
boilermaker. Are you part of a group!
Yes, the GMB. There’s hundreds of thousands of us.
boilermaker. That is a lot of members. I hope they have skilled representatives.
incidently, I understand that neither GMB not UNISON were in the room when the General Council voted to invite Cameron.
Talk about oddities and Islamo-Marxist synergy …
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=27&Topic=6812
I found THIS by chance!
This is a long way from this topic but someone here this lunchtime mentioned my time as a University teacher in Korea and I thereafter found this website …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_POWs_detained_in_North_Korea
… if you’re a certain kind of person none of the above is true
I taught at Yosu National University for a while and thus I know about the repression and massacres BEFORE the Korean war and also the singling out and massacring of ‘reactionaries’ when the KPA entered Yosu and then the ‘cleaning up’ after the UN forces retook Yosu.
Verily, Mr Corr, as that site you linked to about teaching vacancies in Saudia Arabia said: ‘No man knows how much he may earn tomorrow or in which country he may die’. Seems to apply in bucketloads to you! Do you teach medicine or English?
andy newman. Well why not invite Cameron. They should also invite his bum chum the liberal Clegg and observe the shared responsibility they have in fuckin the unions further. When both of them form the guard of honour when Thatcher snuffs it, it will be for fuckin the Unions. She did fuck all else.
On one level I’d more than happy to see the TUC lead a campaign against the cuts. But…
We should all be familiar with the sorry story of union membership. Figures here (I know, odd govt dept to have them):
http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/employment-matters/research/trade-union-stats
British unions are pitifully weak in the private sector and not what they were in the public. There’s a vicious circle here with younger workers in particular not being convinced it’s worth joining, unions not being strong enough to achieve anything much, etc.
Nevertheless I get several emails and communications every week as if the basis is there for mass union action against the cuts. Implicitly, sometimes explicitly, the tone is that it’s only the conservatism of union leaders and bureaucrats that’s holding us back from defeating ConLib policies. Union density figures, unfortunately, tell a different story – objectively it’s next to impossible to see how unions are in a position to launch effective mass industrial action. The danger here is that we end up taking costly, and ultimately futile, industrial action. Yet again it seems that grandstanding resolutions passed by poorly attended meetings, epic sounding emails are more attractive than the hard slog of recruiting and retaining union members. I don’t particularly wish to defend union bureaucrats, but the notion past campaigns only failed because they sold out entails rewriting of history.
To which an obvious retort is, what’s the alternative? One suggestion will drive both moderate bureaucrats and far left opposition mental – more effective legal work. The dirty secrets are coming out of how unions effectively did cosy details with local councils to avoid paying female workers equal pay for equal worth. And boy does everyone inside the union movement loathe the solicitor who got compensation for poorly paid women having unearthed this. Talk to union members who have used their union’s lawyers for personal case work and you will soon come across people who have had much better legal advice when they have consulted a different employment lawyer privately. Best keep quiet about this – union officers try to wash their hands of any personal case who has the temerity seek a second legal opinion from that offered by the tame solicitors firm the union has a cosy relationship with. I know aggressive legal cases are risky – as is industrial action – and that bureaucrats hate them (cost money, undermine their authority) and much of the left doesn’t want to dirty itself with the bourgeois courts. Of course much of the legal framework and system is biased against unions. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try to get as much as they can out of it. Currently, they don’t.
On David Low’s TUC carthorse, some of you may have missed this …
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=comment+is+free&page=1&qsrc=121&dm=all&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree&sg=DpI%2BVK1yROaUs8ixhNauFkTEJqQUgqkNzzqwe%2FQOqYw%3D&tsp=1279875104479
teve
The link for what I wanted to show youse was this …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2010/jul/22/steve-bell-coalition-afghanistan-policy#start-of-comments
… Steve Bell, David Low and Famous David the Frog – what a day for art lovers!
And this
http://www.jtl.org/auster/PNS.pdf
Dave,
Good outcome eh? I hope you’ll post on the conclusion of the vexatious libels?
Report in the Guardian says State school pupils outperform private school pupils at university. Clearly the likes of Cameron are a drain on the system. These idiots take up resources that would be better employed on the children of the working class. Who are superior in every way.
Dean. If it is in the Guardian then it must be Gospel. It is a superior and reliable rag.
Jimmy,
It was taken from a study by the LSE. They suggest state school pupils innate ability is greater. Clearly private school is a charity for the thickos in our society. It is clearly a waste of resources. Given the state of the nations finances I would suggest spending loads of money on the stupid is not economical. We need more money directed towards the superior working classes.
And how scary that we have one ruling the nation!!
Dean. The stupid and the superior. That sounds like something you would hear from the BNP. I do agree that private schools are divisive. They do have the old boy network keeping each other in the better jobs. None of the mainstream political parties discuss the issue. I recall Wilson made an issue of it during the sixties. Labour closed the Glasgow High School for the better off but the parents bought land and built their own school. So what would you do? How do you stop people with money building their own schools?
@ Jimmy Glesga
Private schools.
You take away their charity status for a start. In a time of cuts you cannot have these bastion of privilege getting charity status.
You can’t ban private education it would be against EU law for a start. But you could say to the privately educated & their parents “seeing as you are so keen not to have the ‘nanny state’ involved in your education, and you are paying for an education that will give them an advantage in life you can pay the full fees and costs of putting your child through university too”
Concentrate many minds wonderfully.
Jimmy may even remember that when Eton was – supposedly -threatened by Wilson and his gang in the gap between 1964 and the ‘Troubles’ beginning in 1969, the reaction was to say that the school could and would relocate to Ireland if necessary.
Closing Glasgow High School on the absurd grounds that it was “for the better-off” is the sort of inanity one would expect of the sort of begrudging chip-on-the-shoulder nincompoops who have done so much to make the Labour Party stink like an unburied animal carcass.
The better question would be “How do you encourage parents of all economic circumstances to establish their own schools; schools that teach the 3 Rs, teach mastery of thorough facts, teach foreign languages well and inculcate decent citizenship?”
In the 70s I did a PGCE at a Teachy Trainy College in Lancaster and was stunned to find that the regular non-graduate Teachy Trainees were ignorant about ‘uninterested’ and ‘disinterested’ and ‘continual’ and ‘continuous’ and wholly perplexed about apostrophes … and – horrors! – these witless dummies were going to become teachers!
Education is NOT – repeat NOT – a cheap pair of slacks in the January sales
Ideally, everyone should get the education best suited to him-her but in the meantime destroying places that provide a good education out of class hatred or spite is utterly effing insane
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6158443/abbotts-radio-silence.thtml
the above will be of interest to some here.
Bill Corr. The old Glasgow High was elitist and for certain families. Anyone from my area irrespective of ability had no chance of getting in. It was funded by the taxpayer. The families now pay for the new school. I do not have a problem with that. There also has to be level playing field when it comes to the top jobs.
Sue R. – this is why I read HAARETZ:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/he-impersonated-a-human-1.303359
Jimmy, we can be certain that plenty of poor kids from families who counted every penny twice attended Glasgow High; it cannot have been ‘for certain families’ only.
What the eff does the cretinous word ‘elitist’ mean anyway?
Households where kids are obliged to do their homework instead of hanging around on the streets hoping to get into trouble?
Bill Corr. I did my homework and ma maw signed it. But Glasgow High was out of bounds. You are probably right about the word elitist. It is used as an excuse by people that want to be elitist.
Some kids from financially-poor homes certainly DID attend Glasgow High, just as the same sort of kids attended Merchant Taylrs’ School in Great Crosby.
‘Elitist’ is condemnatory and put-down word used by the sort of Teachy-Trainy-College ninnies who hate fact-based learning and like to spout about the wickedness of ‘rote learning’ and capes & bays’ fact memorization.
Here’s a woman who makes the appalling Diane Abbott seem a paragon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFunr5TAlMA
Out of their own mouths …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLj60GCBap0&feature=related
… here is a riposte / attack ad
This will amuse the SEWER RAT ‘cos she casully asked about Bulgaria.
This sorry tale is set a mere 6 km from us …
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=110314
… in Bulgaria [no names no pack drill] it is alleged that there exists a class of Brit property-con swindlers who learned their trade in Spain
Meanwhile skilled Bulgarian ATM skimmers are all over the world, from California to the Antipodes and everywhere in between with an ATM to be skimmed
Similar case in Turkish Cyprus recently I noticed in the paper. A British family brought a villa in good faith from a Turkish Cypriot man and then teh Greek Cypriot family who had been the original owners prior to the Turkish invasion turned up and claimed it was theirs. The case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (or some such) and the poor Brits ended up forfeited the property and last an awful lot of money. Puts you off buying abroad.
Actually, the NORTH CYPRUS issue is a vexed one but the property issue is clear enough …
The deal is THIS: have lawyers in both [only-recognised-by-Turkey] Turkish North Cyprus and Greek Cypus ['real' Cyprus] check the deeds exhaustively.
If a property was in the name of TURKS prior to the Turkish invasion, the title is 100% clear [or so you bloody hope]
If it was in Greek or Armenian hands prior to the invasion, back off fast.
These days one can travel to and fro and back again in hours so zero problem THERE! [unlike a few years ago]
Here are tireless campaigners for ROMA RIGHTS [this babe even addressed the UN on the subject]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297764/Gypsy-rights-campaigner-masterminded-2-9m-illegal-immigrant-benefits-scam.html
An interesting ethno-cultural fact: Here in Bulgaria the Armenians occupy the ecological niche occupied in many other places by Jews. Selling gold and jewellery, for example. The tiny Armenian community in Dobrich raised – from its own resources – the dosh to refurbish* the interiour of the Armenian church. By an unhappy choice, they did it in varnished pine so it looks like a Scandinavian youth hostel.
* Walter Annenberg introduced this work to English-speaking Britons decades ago.