Dear striking British workers: F___ You! Love, the Labour Party

 From the desk of Keir "Patriotic Duty" Starmer:

“We have robust lines. We do not want to see these strikes to go ahead with the resulting disruption to the public. The government have failed to engage in any negotiations.

“However, we also must show leadership and to that end, please be reminded that frontbenchers including [parliamentary private secretaries] should not be on picket lines. 

 “Please speak to all the members of your team to remind them of this and confirm with me that you have done so.”

 So, yeah, there you have it.  Adulate the queen and to Hell with the revolting proles.  It's satirically hilarious but unfortunately true.  We must tug the forelock to the monarch, because she's a nice old bird who has been around forever; we must not do anything as vulgar as acknowledge the historical roots of the Labour PArty in the union movement or show solidarity with workers in general.

Because that might make Labour less electable and thus jeopardise the job security of Mr Starmer and his allies.  Lenin wrote about the aristocracy of labour - the privileged workers in the developed world who were bribed with the 'overflow' of profits from low wage exploitation in the developing world, and so politically neutered and inclined to support the ruling class.  Here we've got the aritstocracy of Labour - lead by a genuine knight, no less! - marshalling the supposed parliamentary champions of the workers against the workers.

And so much for freedom of conscience or association.  Apparently not a concern in the Starmerite Labour party.

Save Mart sackings

Union workers who complained about unsafe conditions at Save Mart stores have been made redundant, soon after John Campbell was invited to the New Lynn store to see the operation for himself. 

Save Mart workers have told Checkpoint they have been exposed to health and safety risks by being denied the use of gloves while sorting through clothing donations made through the big blue bins in many New Zealand neighbourhoods. 

Workers have spoken of finding syringes, broken glass, used sex toys, and clothing covered in blood and faeces, as they sort through the donations. 

WorkSafe said earlier this week it would investigate health and safety standards. 

First Union organiser Graham McKean told Checkpoint that while investigators were at the New Lynn store today, the 10 union members at the store were given four weeks notice of redundancy.

This is going to buried in a blizzard of election coverage.  Almost as if it was intended to be like that.

The media aren't going to take much interest in it because it is about little poor people, and dangerous subversive lefties at that.  Normal people are only interesting to television news if they come with appealing or dramatic pictures and if they are caught up in some sort of dramatic event.

Save Mart workers losing their jobs?  They aren't dying in a cataclysm and some of them won't even be smartly dressed or terribly photogenic.  Where the 'human interest' in normal, boring people involved in an industrial dispute?

It's massively corrupt - unsafe working conditions, misleading 'charity' campaigning and now probably illegally firing union members. They mustn't be allowed to get away with it.

But I fear they will. Employment litigation beckons, if the bosses at Save Mart aren't compelled to back down. I assume the psychopaths running the company have had some sort of semi-competent advice, rather than just acting on impulse. And their pockets are deep and time is on their side; they can countenance protracted litigation. People living hand to mouth, suddenly having to find new jobs aren’t in that position.

It's a bigger story than the election, in some ways. That's just about how one bunch of corrupt liars is arguing with another bunch of corrupt liars about which set of promises get to be broken.

This story is about real people losing their jobs because their employers are wicked crooks.

And again ...

Four dead and fifty trapped in a fresh mining disaster in the PRC.

Miliband bashing

So, Ed Miliband is being castigated for refusing to deviate from his prepare lines during an interview (1).

It was a shite performance, a horrible throwback to the Blairite days of always being 'on message' and controlling the media, making sure they could only use one soundbite.

In fairness, he has expanded his argument a bit elsewhere, but it was infuriating to watch him repeat the same thing. Fuck's sake man, seize the moment, Talk To The Nation. Your point isn't a bad one. Run with it. You've got a privileged position where you get to access the media, I don't get to do that, and I've got lots of things I want to say. Stand aside, man, and let me hog the camera!

That said, the thinking behind the obstruction is clear enough - It's also worth noting that Red Ed is trying a rather transparent policy of Following The Public Mood - condemning the government for forcing the crisis and the unions for striking while a deal is still possible.

Courtesy of UK Polling Report:

On balance the public remain opposed to the government’s proposed changes to public sector pensions by 47% to 37%. However, while they oppose the pension changes, they also tend to oppose the strike – 40% of people support the teacher’s strike on Thursday, 49% of people oppose it. (2)

Red Ed, his finger on the People's Pulse.

And there is something else to consider. Miliband has to watch his words because he knows the Conservatives, and the media, are desperate to portray him as some sort of barely reformed trotskyite dreaming of the 'Good old days' of the 1970s.

I think this sort of crap from the right is what is driving Miliband's tactics over the strikes:

But Cameron sought to steer the debate away from health and on to the union strikes due to be staged on Thursday.

He accused Miliband of choosing not to ask him about the forthcoming industrial disruption because he was in the "pocket of the unions".

"That's what we see, week after week – he has to talk about the micro because he can't talk about the macro," the prime minister said.

"What the whole country will have noticed is, at a time when people are worrying about strikes, he can't ask about strikes because he is in the pocket of the unions." (3)

It's also worth noting that what Miliband did was pretty much what Cameron - and every other PM - does at Prime Minister's Question Time.

The Tories are desperate to link 'Red Ed,' the 'pawn of the unions' with these strikes, so they can bang the old Thatcherite drum, like he's a re-heated incarnation of Neil Kinnock. So - while it's not edifying, nor inspirational - Miliband's obstinate refusal to depart from the scripted line is understandable.

1 - "Ed Miliband TV interviewer reveals shame over 'absurd' soundbites," by Mark Sweney. Published in The Guardian, 1st of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/01/ed-miliband-interviewer-shame-strike-soundbites)
2 - "Latest YouGov polling on teacher's strike," by Anthony Wells. Posted on UK Polling Report, 29th of July, 2011. (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3688)
3 - "David Cameron hits out at Ed Miliband in NHS row," by Helene Mulholland. Published in the Guardian, 29th of June, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/29/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nhs-row?INTCMP=SRCH)

Nothing to be proud of

So it's very nice that the Chinese government have decided to release Ai Weiwei. It's even nicer to think that pressure from the west might have had something to do with his realease, though this seems to be wistful thinking. When a regime brags that a newly released prisoner has shown a "good attitude in confessing his crimes," it probably isn't caving in. Ai Weiwei's silence on release speaks volumes, as they say. He's not triumphed over the viciousness of the regime; he's been broken by it and, like Winston Smith in 1984, is drinking at The Chestnut Tree.

Nor is it enough to note, as the Independent does, that Ai Weiwei was just one of over a thousand political prisoners in the PRC, and they remain imprisoned (1). That's better than celebrating a single release; but it's still missing the point. In fact, it seems to me to be a deliberate diversion.

By focusing on this or that celebrity prisoner, we can conveniently excuse our blindness to how we exploit Chinese labour, take advantage of the PRC's totalitarian tendency when it is convenient to us - we like those baubles and trinkets, but we don't like have to pay too much for them. We deliberately ignore the oppression of Tibetans and Uighurs, the arrest of workers who try to form independent trade unions, the thousands killed and injured in Chinese mines where cornoers are cut because of the desperate need to keep costs down, the brutal working conditions imposed by employers who are churning out toys for us to play with. We salve our cosciences by making a token fuss about people like Ai Weiwei, but purposefully ignore our own massive, hypocritical convenient connivance in oppression and state brutality.

1 - "Ai Weiwei is free; another 1,426 are not," unattributed editorial. Published in The Independent, 24th of June, 2011. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-ai-weiwei-is-free-another-1426-are-not-2301849.html)

John Key's pro slavery rebellion

I'll warrant John Key is not an assiduous reader of Karl Marx.

For all that, he seems to have an instinctive grasp of the wrong end of the Marxist stick. That is to say, he's a anti-Marxist, not in the sense he's opposed to Marx, but that he accepts the Marist model - perhaps unconsciously - but from the capitalist side of the Labour-Capital binary opposition. Even if he hasn't delved into the depths of Capital, Mr Key may be familiar with the opening lines of the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (1)

Mr Key would immediately recognize that this is perfectly true; and that he is representative of the first party in each opposition - the freeman, the patrician, the lord and the guildmaster. In a word, the oppressors.

His latest pronouncements, on National's plans to further reduce the power of trade unions, are a typical part of the 'hidden fight' to reconstitute society not as the workers might want it, but as Mr Key and his ilk would rather have it (2).

In Capital, Marx describes how capitalist society is characterised by "a potracted and more or less concealed civil war between the capitalist class and the working class," which takes place in "the arena of modern industry" (3). Elsewhere, Marx referred to efforts to overturn the Acts as "a pro-slavery rebellion in miniature" (4).

Mr Key understands chipping away at worker's rights and trade union powers is very much for their own good. Like the factory owners Marx described, who claimed their workers sought to work long hours because they needed the money to relieve their debt and hardship. I almost expect him to crack his guileless, weak smile, and tell us, with an almost comically straight face, that all these advances in favour of the working man will hurt him more than it hurts us. I'll bet it does, John. I can see that pain etched in your face.

Marx, in 1867, was writing about the campaigns either for or against a limit to the working day of the English working class; a succession of Factory Acts had limited the hours worked by women and children. Mr Key is probably doesn't want to see children working 15 hour days, but he does want the work force to be more "flexible," in the hope of encouraging growth and jobs (5). He does want to see the inconvenient, hard won rights of workers diminished, and workers put firmly in their place, subordinate to capital. His finance minister thinks this would be an advantage to us (6). Well, to him, and his people, perhaps.

And, of course, John Key would love to see wages drop (7).

Is this Victorian attitude towards labour really the sort of person we want leading New Zealand in the 21st century?

1 - "Manifesto of the Communist Party," by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Published in 1848. From the 1888 translation by Samuel Moore and Engels. The quoted passage occurs at the very start of the very first chapter, 'Bourgeois and Proletarians.' IT is reproduced on Marxists.org. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007)
2 - "Labour law changes a campaign plank, says Key," by Claire Trevett. Published in The New Zealand Herald, 9th of June, 2011. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10731097)
3 - "Capital, volume 1," by Karl Marx, originally published in 1868. The quotation occurs in Chapter 10.7, "The Working Day: The Struggle for the Normal Working-Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries." This quotation is from my copy of Capital, translated by Ben Fowkes. Marxists.org reproduces a slighly different wording (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S7)
4 - ibid. Marx used the term "pro-slavery rebellion" to describe the American Civil War, and was fond of using it to characterise moves against social reform.
5 - Trevett, op cit.
6 - "Bill English: NZ's low wages an 'advantage'," unattributed article. Published by RadioLIVE / 3 News, 11th of April, 2011. (http://www.3news.co.nz/Bill-English-NZs-low-wages-an-advantage/tabid/419/articleID/206359/Default.aspx)
7 - "Key “would love to see wages drop”," unattributed press release. Published by The New Zealand government, 19th of February, 2008. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0802/S00304.htm)

First Foxconn suicide of 2011

I checked on a whim and, sadly, it seems the 'rightswash' carried out by Foxconn last year, following a spate of suicides, was just that - a phony exercise to quieten down media interest, so business as usual could carry on.

Certainly, it doesn't seem to have stopped workers killing themselves through desperation:

The unnamed employee, who had worked for Foxconn since 2005, had "been on sick leave" at the time of her death after factory officials rebuked her for an unknown reason and told her she would lose her job. Taiwan media further reported that the worker was mentally troubled. (1)

Of course, it's in all our interests, as Westerners, that business as usual carries on. Imagine having to pay a fair price for an Ipad?

1 - "New Foxconn employee commits suicide in Shenzhen," unattributed article. Published in The Global Times, 15th of January, 2011. (http://china.globaltimes.cn/society/2011-01/612970.html)

Respect is due: Jimmy Reid

Jimmy Reid, the Scottish socialist union organiser, died on the 11th of August, 2010.

The independent has kindly put up the whole text of his justly famous speech as rector of Glasgow University. The opening lines:

Alienation is the precise and correctly applied word for describing the major social problem in Britain today. People feel alienated by society. In some intellectual circles it is treated almost as a new phenomenon. It has, however, been with us for years. What I believe is true is that today it is more widespread, more pervasive than ever before. Let me right at the outset define what I mean by alienation. It is the cry of men who feel themselves the victims of blind economic forces beyond their control. It's the frustration of ordinary people excluded from the processes of decision-making. The feeling of despair and hopelessness that pervades people who feel with justification that they have no real say in shaping or determining their own destinies.

Many may not have rationalised it. May not even understand, may not be able to articulate it. But they feel it. It therefore conditions and colours their social attitudes. Alienation expresses itself in different ways in different people. It is to be found in what our courts often describe as the criminal antisocial behaviour of a section of the community. It is expressed by those young people who want to opt out of society, by drop-outs, the so-called maladjusted, those who seek to escape permanently from the reality of society through intoxicants and narcotics. Of course, it would be wrong to say it was the sole reason for these things. But it is a much greater factor in all of them than is generally recognised.

Society and its prevailing sense of values leads to another form of alienation. It alienates some from humanity. It partially de-humanises some people, makes them insensitive, ruthless in their handling of fellow human beings, self-centred and grasping. The irony is, they are often considered normal and well-adjusted. It is my sincere contention that anyone who can be totally adjusted to our society is in greater need of psychiatric analysis and treatment than anyone else. They remind me of the character in the novel, Catch 22, the father of Major Major. He was a farmer in the American Mid-West. He hated suggestions for things like medi-care, social services, unemployment benefits or civil rights. He was, however, an enthusiast for the agricultural policies that paid farmers for not bringing their fields under cultivation. From the money he got for not growing alfalfa he bought more land in order not to grow alfalfa. He became rich. Pilgrims came from all over the state to sit at his feet and learn how to be a successful non-grower of alfalfa. His philosophy was simple. The poor didn't work hard enough and so they were poor. He believed that the good Lord gave him two strong hands to grab as much as he could for himself. He is a comic figure. But think – have you not met his like here in Britain? Here in Scotland? I have.

It is easy and tempting to hate such people. However, it is wrong. They are as much products of society, and of a consequence of that society, human alienation, as the poor drop-out. They are losers. They have lost the essential elements of our common humanity. Man is a social being. Real fulfilment for any person lies in service to his fellow men and women. The big challenge to our civilisation is not Oz, a magazine I haven't seen, let alone read. Nor is it permissiveness, although I agree our society is too permissive. Any society which, for example, permits over one million people to be unemployed is far too permissive for my liking. Nor is it moral laxity in the narrow sense that this word is generally employed – although in a sense here we come nearer to the problem. It does involve morality, ethics, and our concept of human values. The challenge we face is that of rooting out anything and everything that distorts and devalues human relations.

And from a bit further on:

To measure social progress purely by material advance is not enough. Our aim must be the enrichment of the whole quality of life. It requires a social and cultural, or if you wish, a spiritual transformation of our country. A necessary part of this must be the restructuring of the institutions of government and, where necessary, the evolution of additional structures so as to involve the people in the decision-making processes of our society. The so-called experts will tell you that this would be cumbersome or marginally inefficient. I am prepared to sacrifice a margin of efficiency for the value of the people's participation. Anyway, in the longer term, I reject this argument.

To unleash the latent potential of our people requires that we give them responsibility. The untapped resources of the North Sea are as nothing compared to the untapped resources of our people. I am convinced that the great mass of our people go through life without even a glimmer of what they could have contributed to their fellow human beings. This is a personal tragedy. It's a social crime. (1)

It's a potent read, as the Indie rightly points out, as relevant today as it was in 1972. Though nowadays we'd look on an unemployment role of a million as evidence of an astonishingly productive society, not one peopled by layabouts.

Martin Kettle in the Guardian also has some thoughtful words to say about Reid (2).

1 - "Still irresistible, a working-class hero's finest speech," text by Jimmy Reid. Published in the Independent, 13th of August, 2010. The speech was originally delivered in 1972. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/still-irresistible-a-workingclass-heros-finest-speech-2051285.html)
2 - "The late, great Jimmy Reid left a legacy for our times," by Martin Kettle. Published in The Guardiann, 12th of August, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/jimmy-reid-legacy-great-unionist)

Daily Mail on the side of Goliath (Unsurprisingly)

The Daily Mail is in a stew (1) because a worker in Tesco complained about being forced to do something he considered unconscionable, did not back down when he was bullied and threatened. He lodged a grievance with the company over his treatment which lead to an intensification of the campaign agaisnt him, which fianlly led to him quitting. He then sued Tesco for "racial discrimination, victimisation and harassment" (2).

This is a classic David and Goliath story, but because David in this case is really Mohammed Ahmed, an Muslim and - even worse - an immigrant from Saudi Arabia, the Daily Mail chooses to present the story rather differently:

A Muslim who claims he did not know Tesco sold alcohol is suing the store for religious discrimination after having to carry crates of drink as part of his job.

Forklift truck driver Mohammed Ahmed, 32, worked in a distribution depot for eight months before quitting 'in protest', an employment tribunal heard.

He claims he was forced to leave because handling beer, spirits and wine is against his strict Islamic beliefs and that he was victimised when he asked the company to give him another role.

Mr Ahmed, who was raised in Saudi Arabia, told the tribunal he had no idea his job entailed handling alcohol when he started work last September at the depot in Lichfield, Staffordshire. (3)

There is an awful lot of spin on this article. For a start, the case is described as centring on Ahmed's scruples over handling alcohol, and whether or not it was reasonable for him to know that Tesoc's sold it. That is a red herring, and the story seems to have been deliberately presented in this way to make Mr Ahmed look like that modern bogeyman of the Daily Mailite masses, the whining Muslim troublemaker who demands special consideration.

In actuality, this is a fairly typical case of a worker's rights being ignored and violated by the employer. That the employee was a Muslim is not relevant except to those of a certain prejudiced cast on mind. He is not asking for special consideration, but the same consideration that Tesco's claims it gives all its employees.

The actual case being tried is one of "Racial discrimination, victimisation and harassment" (4) which suggests there was probably some other issues at play. Perhaps these focused on his worries about alcohol, but that scruple is a secondary issue. The complaint is about the treatment he received when he reported he was not comfortable carrying out some of the duties assigned to him.

Certainly, Mr Ahmed seems to have tried his best to make the best of a situation he found difficult, carrying on for eight months and and only cracking "when extra alcohol arrived at the warehouse in readiness for Christmas" (5). His attempts to raise the issue were allegedly met with rude rejoinders ("Do not take the piss") and veiled threats to "Do the job or go home" (6).

After lodging his greivance officially, he was was the subject of further harrassment and bullying, eventually leading to him quitting.

He even seems to have tried to accomodate the demands of the job with his religion, resorting to the 'beer's okay' loophole that some Muslims exploit. This attmept to be reasonable seems to have been seized on by Tescos and is presented as a "Mixed message" (7) which rather makes a joke of their claim to be "Culturally sensitive and have an open-door policy to staff for issues like this" (8).

So, a worker is threatened and his requests that the company abide by its avowed policies of toleration and consideration is bullied and harrassed and eventually given no recourse but to quit his job due to a campaign of bullying and harrassment. This is all okay in the eyes of the Daily Mail because the victim in all this was a Muslim, and worse, a Muslim who had dared to say, "I'd rather not have to do this" - which was entirely his right, and then not accepted the curt dismissal of his concerns but taken his greivance further - again, in accordance with his his rights as an employee in Britain.

If he enjoyed being told what to do and not having any recourse or rights, he would, presumably, have remained in Saudi Arabia. As it is, he has the right to be treated fairly and have his greivance heard. Those who suggest otherwise should perhaps depart for Saudi, as their authoritarian instincts will be at home there.

1 - "Devout Muslim sues Tesco for making him carry alcohol," by David Wilkes, publised in the Daily Mail, 29th of September, 2008. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063590/Devout-Muslim-sues-Tesco-making-carry-alcohol.html)
2 - ibid.
3 - ibid.
4 - ibid.
5 - ibid.
6 - ibid.
7 - ibid.
8 - ibid.

Britain 1979 – Parallels, Part Two

The similarities between the victory of Margret Thatcher in 1979 and the situation in New Zealand in 2008 don't end with the fact that both Thatcher and Key mouthed centrist platitudes in their pursuit of power – remember, "being in government is worth everything" (1).

John Campbell's description of the election campaign that saw Thatcher oust Jim Callaghan's Labour government is also instructive (2). Politicians, after all, have always been liars. They haven't all gone on to win, however. Thatcher did, Key probably will. If Labour are to stop him, someone should examine where Callaghan went wrong, to see if any useful lessons can be drawn from it.

This is not such an analysis. It is just a loose collection of thoughts based upon my reading of the closing chapter of Simpson's book.

First of all, the general position of the parties in 1979 is similar to the current situation in New Zealand in 2008. Labour are in power. While Labour in New Zealand have been in power for a lot longer than the Callaghan administration (or the lacklustre Wilson administration that immediately succeeded it), both Labour and the Conservatives of the 1970s had pursued broadly similar policies, particularly in the key area of industrial relations. Following the Winter of Discontent , it was easy for Thatcher to take advantage of the popular frustration with the 'old way' and suggest – without ever getting very specific – that she offered a new solution to the problem that had been left to fester. National have the opportunity to present themselves in a similar light, as an alternative to a longstanding, traditional way of doing things. Rather like Lange's Labour Party in the 1980s, in fact. And we all know how that ended up.

Further, the election is National's to lose, just as it was Thatcher's to lose in '79. The National Party, like the Labour Party, has enjoyed a big lead in the polls for a long time. Realistically, Labour will struggle to overturn this, even six months out from the election. It will require some sort of monumental cock-up on National's part, or Labour revealing something truly remarkable, to turn it around. So it is likely that National will imitate the Tory strategy in 1979, which was to fight as boring a campaign as possible. Campbell describes the Conservative strategy to "Keep the campaign as low key as possible, avoiding any risks that might jeopardise their commanding lead" (3):

The electoral strategy set by Reece and Thorneycroft had three strands – neutral, negative and positive. The first priority was to protect the Tory lead by keeping the campaign as dull as possible and allowing Mrs Thatcher to say nothing that might frighten the voters. The negative strand was to keep the heat on Labour, reminding the electors in simple language of the government's record ... inflation ('prices'), unemployment ('jobs), cuts in public services (schools, homes and hospitals) and above all the strikes and picket line violence of the winter ... From this the positive appeal followed naturally – the simple electoral cry of all, "Time for a change!" (4)

This reluctance to fight Labour on issues led them to refuse an offer for Thatcher to debate Callaghan on television. It was feared that even if she won, the sight of her "Laying into Uncle Jim" would alienate voters. Key, at least, will not have that option. He will have to debate Clark. While he will probably find it a rather trying experience, he can take comfort in the fact that Clark won't be able to overturn a twenty point deficit, no matter how thoroughly she mauls him. If Labour are relying on that, they are doomed, and deserve their fate.

The negative strand of the campaign was most famously demonstrated by the Saatchi & Saatchi 'Labour isn't working' posters, which summarised perfectly what the Tories were about – attack the other party, no matter how crudely or disingenuously. Buzz words. Slogans. Powerful images. Say nothing about your own policies, because that will only give the enemy something to use against you. There was no positive reason to vote Conservative in that poster. They didn't need to give one. It was enough to remind people that they felt Labour government had let them down.

This feeling of disillusion was far more important to the Tories in 1979 than any policy they could muster of their own, which is another similarity between Then/There and the Here/Now. Or, rather, the Here/Soon. Campbell's describes how Thatcher overturned traditional voting patterns in 1979:

Academic analysis of the 1979 result suggests that the Tories did do exceptionally well among their target groups, gaining an 11 per cent swing among the skilled working class (the C2s) and 9 per cent among the unskilled. Many of these converts continued to vote Conservative throughout the 1980s. But there is also plentiful anecdotal evidence of lifelong Labour voters who were persuaded to vote Conservative for the first time, and spent the next ten years bitterly regretting it.

On who recorded his reasons at the time was the Director of the strike-ravaged National Theatre, Peter Hall. 'We had a society of greed and anarchy,' he wrote in his diary at the height of the winter chaos in terms which Mrs Thatcher herself could not have bettered. 'No honour, no responsibility, no pride. I sound like an old reactionary, which I'm not, but what we have now isn't socialism, it's fascism with those who have the power injuring those who do not.' Three months later, he shocked himself by deciding to vote Tory, having come to the conclusion that Labour was no longer the party of social justice. 'It's now the party of sectional interest; the party that protects pressure groups and bully boys.' 'It wasn't all that difficult this morning to vote Tory,' he wrote on 3 May. 'In fact it positively felt good .. we have to have change.' Hall wanted Mrs Thatcher to 'sort out' the unions. Fourteen years later he could not deny her credit for having done so, though he loathed practically everything else she did, particularly the commercialisation of the arts. 'I can understand now why I voted Tory,' he reflected in 1993. 'I very much wish I hadn't had to.' (5)

The final swig to the Tories was 5.1 per cent, lower than the swing in the traditional Labour vote – so the above average defections in the targeted working class vote were crucial to the Tory victory (6). Labour needs to watch out for its core vote – assuming it has any left come polling day – and defend it against the sick feeling of disillusion and disappointment that the Tories exploited so well in 1979.

Ultimately, it may be impossible. The British Labour party is credited with having fought a good campaign in 1979, generally out-performing the Tories. They reduced a Tory lead of between 9 and 13 per cent st the start of the campaign to between 3 and 5 percent (7). Further, they Britain's Labour party enjoyed one asset that New Zealand's does not - a popular leader who was seen as a symbol of unity, rather than division. Callaghan always beat Thatcher in the Preferred Prime Minister stakes (8), but still they lost the election.

Here in New Zealand in 2008, things are different and yet eerily the same. The government has been in power a long time, long enough to make the "Time for a change" slogans have a superficial validity regardless of any other considerations. The impetus is for change. Campbell describes Callaghan in fatalistic mood, and the wily old fixer's thoughts make grim reading for any Labour strategists:

Jim Callaghan told his senior policy adviser, Bernie Donaghue, that every thirty years or so there occurred 'a sea change in politics'.

It then does not matter what you say or do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves. I suspect there is now such a sea change – and it s for Mrs Thatcher. (9)

Turning the clock back thirty years in New Zealand takes us back – more or less – to the fall of Muldoon. There was a sea change then, alright. Since the mid-nineties, however, the tide has been running the other way, and New Zealand has been better for it. It would be strange indeed if the New Zealand electorate rejected Clarkite social democracy (you can't call it socialism with a straight face, unless you are Lindsay Perigo) in favour of the same medicine that made so many gag (with no noticeable benefits) in the 80s.

1 – Attributed to Ruth Richardson, quoted by Nicky Hager in The Hollow Men, Craig Potton Publishing, 2006. The comment occurs in an email to Brian Sincliar, and is quoted on page 68 of my edition of The Hollow Men.
2 – Margret Thatcher: The Grocer's Daughter, by John Campbell, published by Jonathan Cape in 2000.
3 – ibid, page 427.
4 – ibid,
page 429.
5 – ibid, pages 433-4.
6 – I am not suggesting that directors of theatre companies are blue collar heroes. It is a shame that Campbell didn't back up his 'anecdotal evidence' by talking to someone a bit more proletarian than Peter Hall.
7- Campbell, op. cit. Pages 427 and 444 respectively.
8 - ibid, page 427.
9 – ibid, page 443.

Wharfies on strike

By curious coincidence, as the workers at the Port of Auckland go on strike for fairer wages, I'm reading Dick Scott's account of the 1951 strike, 151 Days. Though, on second thoughts, maybe it isn't that curious, just further evidence that things ddon't really change as much as you'd think.

According to a press release from the Maritime Union of New Zealand, the amount of freight going through the port is up by 12.6% (1). Even taking into account that increased volume might not indicate a similar increase in profit, it shows the 3.25% being offered (2) by management of the port is pathetic. Even the 4.5-4.9% (3) that the union is seeking seems restrained.

It would be interesting to know what pay increases management have enjoyed over the last few years.

1 - "Ports of Auckland workers want their share," unattributed press release from Maritime Union of New Zealand, 7th of October , 2007. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00083.htm)
2- "Workers At Ports Of Auckland Dig In Heels In Dispute," unattributed press release from Maritime Union of New Zealand, 8th of October, 2007. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00094.htm)
3 - ibid.

Not enough from Bradford's bill, or Progressive

I'd like to be happier about Progressive Enterprises's move to equalize youth and adult pay rate, pending completion of a three month probation period. But I'm just not feeling overly-celebratory about it. It is better than treating the youth workers as second class, and removes some of the incentive of supermarkets to employ kids to do adults jobs, but I'm still not happy. Not cock-a-hoop happy, anyway.

It is an improvement on what was. When it gets through palriament, Sue Bradford's bill will give sixteen and seventeen year old workers the full adult rate as well - though, curiously, the deal between Progressive and the National Distribution Union extended to fifteen year olds as well (2). It is still only a partial victory, however. I'm can't help but resent the discriminatory probation period. Failing to extend the rights of adult workers to youth workers leaves the job incomplete. Some of these youth workers will have left school and be starting out on their careers. Some of them may already be parents. They should be granted the same rights as other workers.

Employers may point out that they can't rely on youth workers as they can adults, that youth workers may be feckless, workshy, or not up to the job. This begs the question, if youth workers are so bad, why employing them over adults in the first place? And it is up to the employer, through interviewing and reference checking, to determine if a candidate is suitable for the job. There are just as many useless adults out there. It is wrong that they are given protection denied to youth workers.

1 - "Supermarket chain to raise pay for youths," unattributed NZPA story on Stuff.co.nz, 15th of August, 2007. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4165582a11.html#Scene_1)
2 - ibid.

Something stinks in the Rawnsley fiasco

Louis Rawnsley commented that he had been working at TVNZ so long that he was on close terms with a lot of the regular guests who appeared on the shows (1). Presumably, he also knew a lot of the staff at TVNZ as well - particualrly since 150 of them have signed a petition calling for his re-instatement (2).

So it is possible that he might have come to know Matthew Rea-Rankin, when Matthew worked at TVNZ as Human Resources Manager (3). If Rawnsley did know Matthew, he have managed a wry smile as he was told he was losing the job he had held for twenty four years, for alleged abusive comments to Matthew's mother, Christine Rankin. That is, if he had the time to think anything before he was marched out the building (4), as TVNZ seem to have acted without much in the way of formal process.

It is very odd that a person who has served a company for twenty four years is sacked in less than twenty four hours for remarks made - or not made, depending on who you listen to - to the mother of someone who used to be the Human Resources Manager at TVNZ. After all, it would be the Human Resources department that would have expunged Mr Rawnsley so swiftly. Though perhaps in light of their inhuman treatment of a long serving worker, they should consider renaming the department to something more fitting. And perhaps put a motto over the door, something like "Arbeit Macht Frei" (5), which would be appropriate in so many ways just now.

Thank you to the anonymous voices for bringing this to my attention. They're real, I tell you. I'm not crazy. But I am mad.

1 - "TVNZ staff object to guard's dismissal," by Simon Collins in the New Zealand Herald, 9th of August 2007. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=74&objectid=10456627)
2 - ibid.
3 - as per the Rankin Group Ltd website, as of the 9th of August 2007. (http://www.rankingroup.co.nz/aboutus.html)
3 - "TVNZ CEO defends sacking of security guard," unattributed TV3 article, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/32152/Default.aspx)
4 - Translates roughly as "Work will set you free." Commonly used as a slogan placed above the gstes of Nazi concentration camps. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei#Nazi_use)

Rawnsley saga continues ...

A wise man once said,

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages
appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the
second time as farce. (1)

TVNZ is the Australian government, Louis Rawnsley for Mohammed Haneef. Another tale of bureaucratic bullying, soon to collapse into a similar shambles. I don't know why TVNZ has decided to give the Australian government and police a run for their money in the unpopularity stakes, but they're uping the ante in the Rawnsely affair. Describing the discussion that led to Rawnsley's sacking,

TVNZ spokesperson Megan Richards said Mr Rawnsley was sacked because what he said to Mrs Rankin was "verbal abuse".

"This was a very visible and aggressive challenge and completely inappropriate from any staff member," she said. (2)

That, as they say, is fighting talk, and might come back to haunt TVNZ. At the moment, they are making themselves out to be the bad guy in a Haneef style David and Goliath confrontation. Especially since a lot of their staff seem to be pretty pissed off about this high handed treatment - as they should be (3). If TVNZ can boot someone with 24 years service, then who is safe?

MEanwhile, TV3 are enjoying themselves immensely, caliming that Rawnsely was marched out of the building' (4) and reproducing an email (5) from TVNZ CEO Rick Ellis to all staff. Again, he leave quite a few hostages to fortune:

I can say is that the staff member was dismissed after verbally abusing a
member of the public who was a guest on Breakfast.

The job of this staff member is to meet and greet members of the public, to
be the public face of TVNZ. And critically, while they are on the premises this
role has responsibility for the security of members of the public.

His behaviour was totally unacceptable to TVNZ. Guests on our shows
and to the building, regardless of their views on issues of the day, should not
have to put up with abusive behaviour from staff members but particularly those
whose job is to be the welcoming and safe face of TVNZ.

I want to make it clear that this was not the case of a staff member having
a friendly discussion with a guest or communicating a contrary opinion to that
expressed by the guest. (6)

This could all come back to haunt TVNZ. Rawnsley is sticking to his version of events, and Christine Rankin is not commenting on the affair (7). I predict that TVNZ is going to tough it out a while longer, will engage in the sort of sematic wriggling about the definition of 'verbally abusing' in the same way as Kevin Andrews has bent the word 'association' into a shape that suits him (8), though no-one else would recognise it as valid, then be forced into a climb down, as it transpires that the case against Rawnsley is hopelessly weak.

1 - "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon," by Karl Marx, 1852. Reproduced on http://www.marxists.org/. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)
2 - "TVNZ staff object to guard's dismissal," by Simon Collins, in the NZ herald, 9th of August, 2007. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=74&objectid=10456627&pnum=0) 3 - ibid.
3- ibid.
4 - "TVNZ CEO defends sacking of security guard," unattributed TV3 article, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/32152/Default.aspx)
5 - ibid.
6 - ibid.
7 - Collins, op. cit.
8 - "Haneef case rests on guilt by association," by Cosima Marriner in the Sydney Morning Herald, 9th of August, 2007. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/haneef-case-rests-on-guilt-by-association/2007/08/08/1186530447617.html)

TVNZ sack security guard for confronting bigot

There's no justice in the world. Time was, if you stood up to the big man and told the truth to power you got the Pulitzer Prize or some such. Nowadays, you get booted out of a job you've held for 24 years. This man deserves some sort of award for telling Christine "we have got a problem with Maori" (1) Rankin she's out of line, rather than getting sacked:

The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union says it is shocked by claims a
TVNZ security guard was sacked for criticising the comments of Christine Rankin.

Louis Rawnsley has worked as a security guard for the state broadcaster for 24 years. He says he was dismissed after telling Ms Rankin her comments on Breakfast about Maori and child abuse were "over the top". (2)

Unsurprisingly, this was the lead story on TV3's late news. Can't imagine it got *much* coverage on the other side ...

TVNZ have claimed Rawnsley

used a raised voice and the exchange was not polite and private as claimed ... he was representing the company and was charged with greeting guests and making them feel safe ... it is unacceptable for someone in that position to berate a guest and Mr Rawnsley should not have expressed his opinion. (3)

None-the-less, how the Hell do justify sacking someone over an offense like this. The EPMU National Secretary stated

There are two problems with TVNZ’s actions. Firstly, people like Christine Rankin can’t expect to express controversial views without alternative views also being expressed. Secondly, TVNZ has to understand that its employees are citizens, too, and must be allowed to express views, especially in important national debates like this. (4)

Which is all true but missed the essential point - it isn't to do with freedom of speech or having the right to reply. It is to do with the rights of a working man being trashed by his employer. At most, Rawnsley's actions would have deserved a reprimand. Whatever censure he might have deserved (though I still say he performed a service to the people of New Zealand), there are proceedures that should be followed. To dismiss someone out of hand, for objecting to a whole segement of society being written off as a 'problem,' is disgusting.

1 - Direct quotation from the lovely Christine, in "Urgent calls for abuse inquiry," unattributed One News / NewstalkZB article reproduced by TVNZ, 30th of July, 2007. She repeated the exact phrase in the interview that sparked the debate / confrontation with Rawnsley - http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1259020?bandwidth=56k.
2 - "Union investigating TVNZ guard sacking," unattributed article from NewstalkZB, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=122178
3 - "TVNZ defends decision to sack guard over remarks to guest," unattributed Radio New Zealand article, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200708081402/tvnz_defends_decision_to_sack_guard_over_remarks_to_guest)
4 - "TVNZ sacking over Rankin comments 'shocking': EPMU ," unattributed press release by the EMPU, reproduced on Scoop, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0708/S00105.htm)