Another gem from Dan.
Showing posts with label Public Protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Protest. Show all posts
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Friday, June 05, 2009
I Think We Are Going To Have To Drag Him Out Of Downing Street
It is clear that Gordon Brown is not going to resign, and that the Labour Party Constitution is powerless to force his removal.
Or should I stay home and get drunk instead? -
I am not sure that I know how to organise a revolution, but I really feel like marching up to Downing Street, tonight, and showing my disdain and hopefully if others feel the same to force the PM out.
I see Steve feels the same, Should we do it? - Who can make it tonight?
Or should I stay home and get drunk instead? -
I think I know which.
19:52 - Belatedly checked spelling & grammar
Friday, March 06, 2009
Pass The Custard
When were the following things debated in the House of Commons?
When was the decision to print £150bn of money debated by MP's?
When was the bank bailouts, and tax payer funding of bonuses and pensions debated by MP's?
When was our continued membership of the EU last debated by MP's?
When was the "Buy European" defence spending policy debated by MP's?
Why is it that the people we are voting for are not debating the big issues of the day? What are people who are over taxed and under represented supposed to do?
The young lady who covered Peter Mandleson in green custard today was protesting the third runway. This is something that was debated in Parliament. She has been widely written and commented on today, and considered opinion has generally accepted she was wrong in her protest (with a compelling argument to both sides).
But what are people supposed to do when they do not agree with the Government and their MP is not getting a say on important issues?
The EU makes in excess of 75% of all laws in the EU, we as people have very, very little say over those decisions. Then on the few matters the EU has no authority over, our MPs are not even consulted on historic events such as printing £150bn. Gordon Brown, who needed Tony Blair to win an election for him is making decisions that could potentially ruin this country for decades, and no one has voted him to be PM.
And they pretend to be disturbed at low voter turn-out at elections.
Peter Mandleson is probably the second or third most politically influential person in the UK today. He was elected to his position in the Lords by no one. He is not being shadowed in the House by anyone who has been elected. How exactly are people able to hold him and his decisions to account. To make things even murkier, he is still paid a massive salary by the EU. How is this not a conflict of interest?
So yes, the young ladies who covered Mandy in custard was probably wrong, and yes it is surprising that such an influential person has such lapsed security. But aren't we all missing the bigger point? In the history of the world there are certain things that we know will always happen. When a people are suppressed and ignored they eventually rise up; when they do they are unforgiving. I asked some time ago where the public protest and outrage is, and in recent weeks I am seeing and reading an undercurrent of discontent. It seems the Government feels it too, judging by this, this, this, this, this, and this. They know they have messed up our lives and our country instead of holding themselves to account, they stock up on riot gear, tear gas and line up the armed forces.
If you are a member of Government you are supposed to be accountable, it is how people stay free from tyranny. We have gone soft by not holding to account a long succession of gaffe prone government officials, and for letting newspaper editors decide who to be outraged with and by how much. A twice disgraced MP should not now be wielding such power from the Lords. Some wolves no longer wear sheep's clothing, they now prefer miniver.
If Democracy no longer works, what else are people supposed to do?
When was the decision to print £150bn of money debated by MP's?
When was the bank bailouts, and tax payer funding of bonuses and pensions debated by MP's?
When was our continued membership of the EU last debated by MP's?
When was the "Buy European" defence spending policy debated by MP's?
Why is it that the people we are voting for are not debating the big issues of the day? What are people who are over taxed and under represented supposed to do?
The young lady who covered Peter Mandleson in green custard today was protesting the third runway. This is something that was debated in Parliament. She has been widely written and commented on today, and considered opinion has generally accepted she was wrong in her protest (with a compelling argument to both sides).
But what are people supposed to do when they do not agree with the Government and their MP is not getting a say on important issues?
The EU makes in excess of 75% of all laws in the EU, we as people have very, very little say over those decisions. Then on the few matters the EU has no authority over, our MPs are not even consulted on historic events such as printing £150bn. Gordon Brown, who needed Tony Blair to win an election for him is making decisions that could potentially ruin this country for decades, and no one has voted him to be PM.
And they pretend to be disturbed at low voter turn-out at elections.
Peter Mandleson is probably the second or third most politically influential person in the UK today. He was elected to his position in the Lords by no one. He is not being shadowed in the House by anyone who has been elected. How exactly are people able to hold him and his decisions to account. To make things even murkier, he is still paid a massive salary by the EU. How is this not a conflict of interest?
So yes, the young ladies who covered Mandy in custard was probably wrong, and yes it is surprising that such an influential person has such lapsed security. But aren't we all missing the bigger point? In the history of the world there are certain things that we know will always happen. When a people are suppressed and ignored they eventually rise up; when they do they are unforgiving. I asked some time ago where the public protest and outrage is, and in recent weeks I am seeing and reading an undercurrent of discontent. It seems the Government feels it too, judging by this, this, this, this, this, and this. They know they have messed up our lives and our country instead of holding themselves to account, they stock up on riot gear, tear gas and line up the armed forces.
If you are a member of Government you are supposed to be accountable, it is how people stay free from tyranny. We have gone soft by not holding to account a long succession of gaffe prone government officials, and for letting newspaper editors decide who to be outraged with and by how much. A twice disgraced MP should not now be wielding such power from the Lords. Some wolves no longer wear sheep's clothing, they now prefer miniver.
If Democracy no longer works, what else are people supposed to do?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Morning Star Strike - Update
For those who have been following the story here, today's proposed strikes were postponed as an act of good faith whilst wage negotiations continue, so say the Press Gazette, here.
NUJ Deputy General Secretary Michelle Stanistreet is reported as saying:
"I'm pleased to report that we've had constructive negotiations with management.
"As a sign of good faith, the chapel has called off the industrial action planned for Monday.
"Our members don't want to go on strike - they just want management to address their concerns about low pay."
Tellingly Political editor John Haylett of the Morning Star is then quoted as saying:
"Wages are low at our paper for the same reason that they are so at every other socialist paper,"
"We have low circulation and no access to the big business advertising that keeps every capitalist daily paper in being.
"All socialist papers are sustained on the basis of sacrifice by staff and supporters.
"The Morning Star, as the world's only English-language daily broad-left socialist newspaper, is no different.
"To present this committee as akin to boards of fat-cat directors who trouser dividends and bonuses is a travesty.
"Every Morning Star staff member is told bluntly at interview: The wages are crap. We work at the paper because we are politically committed to its aims.
"Socialists of any stripe should not be applauding the actions of a group of workers who are putting their own interests before those of our class as a whole."
Make of that as you will, but clearly Mr Haylett is not in the Marketing department (should the Star have such a department) and all would seem not to be well still at the newspaper.
The management offer of a 4% rise and 4% lump sum still stands, but journalists are hoping for more.
I will try to keep up to date and bring you any updates, as and when I hear of them.
NUJ Deputy General Secretary Michelle Stanistreet is reported as saying:
"I'm pleased to report that we've had constructive negotiations with management.
"As a sign of good faith, the chapel has called off the industrial action planned for Monday.
"Our members don't want to go on strike - they just want management to address their concerns about low pay."
Tellingly Political editor John Haylett of the Morning Star is then quoted as saying:
"Wages are low at our paper for the same reason that they are so at every other socialist paper,"
"We have low circulation and no access to the big business advertising that keeps every capitalist daily paper in being.
"All socialist papers are sustained on the basis of sacrifice by staff and supporters.
"The Morning Star, as the world's only English-language daily broad-left socialist newspaper, is no different.
"To present this committee as akin to boards of fat-cat directors who trouser dividends and bonuses is a travesty.
"Every Morning Star staff member is told bluntly at interview: The wages are crap. We work at the paper because we are politically committed to its aims.
"Socialists of any stripe should not be applauding the actions of a group of workers who are putting their own interests before those of our class as a whole."
Make of that as you will, but clearly Mr Haylett is not in the Marketing department (should the Star have such a department) and all would seem not to be well still at the newspaper.
The management offer of a 4% rise and 4% lump sum still stands, but journalists are hoping for more.
I will try to keep up to date and bring you any updates, as and when I hear of them.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Strikes To Take Place At Morning Star Newspaper
I blogged here in late January that there was a possibility that journalists at the Morning Star newspaper might go on strike in a pay dispute. On Friday, 14 Journalists took part in a ballot with a 11-3 result is favour of strike action.
The Guardian is now reporting a one day strike is planned for Monday 23rd February, and a further one week strike will follow at a later date.
Management at the Morning Star gave staff a 3% pay rise and a one off 3% payment last month. The NUJ had criticise the Morning Star for putting this in place before the workers had agreed saying that management had undermined the collective bargaining process. Management have since offered to increase this to a 4% rise and 4% payment in a hope to avoid strike action.
A recent large donation from an anonymous donor was given with the caveat that it was not used on staff wages. However some of the journalists are thought to earn as little as £18,000 p.a.
Jeremy Dear of the NUJ has said "Our members feel forced into this action by a management that is refusing to pay its staff a fair rate for their work. They don't want to go out on strike but if that's what it takes to win fair pay then they are clear that is what they'll do"
The papers management will continue with negotiations in the hope that strike action can be avoided.
The Guardian is now reporting a one day strike is planned for Monday 23rd February, and a further one week strike will follow at a later date.
Management at the Morning Star gave staff a 3% pay rise and a one off 3% payment last month. The NUJ had criticise the Morning Star for putting this in place before the workers had agreed saying that management had undermined the collective bargaining process. Management have since offered to increase this to a 4% rise and 4% payment in a hope to avoid strike action.
A recent large donation from an anonymous donor was given with the caveat that it was not used on staff wages. However some of the journalists are thought to earn as little as £18,000 p.a.
Jeremy Dear of the NUJ has said "Our members feel forced into this action by a management that is refusing to pay its staff a fair rate for their work. They don't want to go out on strike but if that's what it takes to win fair pay then they are clear that is what they'll do"
The papers management will continue with negotiations in the hope that strike action can be avoided.
Section 76 Protest
Saturday, January 31, 2009
More Strikes Coming?
The Times is reporting that nuclear power plant employees will vote Monday morning on whether to join engineering, construction and maintenance staff in strikes over the apparent exclusion of contracts to UK nationals in favour of cheaper alternatives from within the EU.
The unions despite being supporters of the Labour Party and in general of the EU are not altogether happy with the UK position within the EU. Trade Unionists Against The EU Constitution joined up with The Democracy Movement and I Want A Referendum to organise a lobby of Parliament last February.
The TUAEUC have carried on their campaign and are campaigning for a NO vote in the second Ireland referendum this year.
Gordon Brown only has himself to blame for uttering the line "British Jobs For British Workers". The fact is Gordon Brown can not deliver British Jobs for British Workers because this would be against EU law. However, by stating that he would do this (and he must have known at the time that this is impossible, which adds to the stupidity of the statement) he was using a line designed to attack his enemies, in the hope that his supporters would not kick up a fuss when it is not delivered upon. The BBC (in the linked report) were not shy to say opponents branded it dog-whistling and racist.
I really do not understand what Gordon Brown and his communications team were trying to achieve when he borrowed a campaign line from the BNP, but whatever that aim was, it has backfired. There will be no sympathy on the Left if he tries to quash these strikes, especially as they are striking for something he has promised.
I hope that these strike lead to a wider dialogue about the EU and exactly how much control the EU has over our laws and our lives. The strikers are marching because the Unions members are not getting employed. But, [it would seem] the employers are not breaking EU law, The UK Government cannot change the law or make any accommodations - so how can the strikes be resolved? Either these companies break EU law which leaves them open to prosecution, or the UK Government does which leaves itself open to EU Fines or the strikers accept the case as is and back down... that third option does not seem likely.
It also raises other questions of accountability. It used to be in this country that if you had a complaint you could write to your MP or to a councillor. In industrial disputes you could strike, you could if you got enough people to agree with you force for changes to be made.
That is no longer the case. What can any person or group do if we do not like or agree with a directive from the European Commission? The answer is absolutely nothing. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing any citizen, or group of citizens anywhere in the EU can do if you disagree with the European Commission. You could petition your MEP to raise it in the EU parliament, but an MEP has very little sway, if they get the opportunity to speak they are limited to one minute. The EU Parliament is also very unlikely to challenge the European Commission. It is unlikely that they would even raise this issue because it is a important part of the common market and of establishing a Common European Nationality.
So I am not sure how these strikes will play out, but, there is the potential these strikes could lead to unrest and things could get more hostile, as it is impossible to deliver upon the strikers demands. Hopefully it will open the eyes of many voters about where the laws of this country are actually made, and how powerless the UK Parliament really is in areas of "EU Competencies".
The unions despite being supporters of the Labour Party and in general of the EU are not altogether happy with the UK position within the EU. Trade Unionists Against The EU Constitution joined up with The Democracy Movement and I Want A Referendum to organise a lobby of Parliament last February.
The TUAEUC have carried on their campaign and are campaigning for a NO vote in the second Ireland referendum this year.
Gordon Brown only has himself to blame for uttering the line "British Jobs For British Workers". The fact is Gordon Brown can not deliver British Jobs for British Workers because this would be against EU law. However, by stating that he would do this (and he must have known at the time that this is impossible, which adds to the stupidity of the statement) he was using a line designed to attack his enemies, in the hope that his supporters would not kick up a fuss when it is not delivered upon. The BBC (in the linked report) were not shy to say opponents branded it dog-whistling and racist.
I really do not understand what Gordon Brown and his communications team were trying to achieve when he borrowed a campaign line from the BNP, but whatever that aim was, it has backfired. There will be no sympathy on the Left if he tries to quash these strikes, especially as they are striking for something he has promised.
I hope that these strike lead to a wider dialogue about the EU and exactly how much control the EU has over our laws and our lives. The strikers are marching because the Unions members are not getting employed. But, [it would seem] the employers are not breaking EU law, The UK Government cannot change the law or make any accommodations - so how can the strikes be resolved? Either these companies break EU law which leaves them open to prosecution, or the UK Government does which leaves itself open to EU Fines or the strikers accept the case as is and back down... that third option does not seem likely.
It also raises other questions of accountability. It used to be in this country that if you had a complaint you could write to your MP or to a councillor. In industrial disputes you could strike, you could if you got enough people to agree with you force for changes to be made.
That is no longer the case. What can any person or group do if we do not like or agree with a directive from the European Commission? The answer is absolutely nothing. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing any citizen, or group of citizens anywhere in the EU can do if you disagree with the European Commission. You could petition your MEP to raise it in the EU parliament, but an MEP has very little sway, if they get the opportunity to speak they are limited to one minute. The EU Parliament is also very unlikely to challenge the European Commission. It is unlikely that they would even raise this issue because it is a important part of the common market and of establishing a Common European Nationality.
So I am not sure how these strikes will play out, but, there is the potential these strikes could lead to unrest and things could get more hostile, as it is impossible to deliver upon the strikers demands. Hopefully it will open the eyes of many voters about where the laws of this country are actually made, and how powerless the UK Parliament really is in areas of "EU Competencies".
Friday, January 30, 2009
Strikes At Morning Star Newspaper?
The Guardian is reporting here that a dispute over wages may be brewing up at the Morning Star after management imposed a 3% pay rise on staff, escalating an existing dispute regarding pay.
Some of the 16 Journalists that work for the Star only earn about £18,000 p.a. all of them are members of the National Union of Journalists.
Political Editor John Haylett earlier this month backed the papers management decision by saying the pay offer was "Generous in a climate where newspapers were closing and staff being retrenched." He Continued by saying "We think the National Union of Journalists is completely out of step with realities."
Journalists are fed up with the low pay and being told each year that they are special cases. The whole episode is soured further by the knowledge that an anonymous consortium recently pledged £500,000, spread over 3 years, to help with the papers running costs. There was however a caveat that the cash could not be used to bolster journalists wage packets.
The imposition of the pay deal has been criticised by Jeremy Dear of the NUJ who is accusing the Morning Star of undermining the collective bargaining process with the "Unilateral Imposition" of the pay deal.
The 16 Journalists are already balloting on strike action, with the result due on 5th February. Perhaps the workers should rise up and throw of the shackles of injustice?
The Morning Star was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The name changed in 1966 to the Morning Star.
The paper also has an online edition which can be viewed here.
Some of the 16 Journalists that work for the Star only earn about £18,000 p.a. all of them are members of the National Union of Journalists.
Political Editor John Haylett earlier this month backed the papers management decision by saying the pay offer was "Generous in a climate where newspapers were closing and staff being retrenched." He Continued by saying "We think the National Union of Journalists is completely out of step with realities."
Journalists are fed up with the low pay and being told each year that they are special cases. The whole episode is soured further by the knowledge that an anonymous consortium recently pledged £500,000, spread over 3 years, to help with the papers running costs. There was however a caveat that the cash could not be used to bolster journalists wage packets.
The imposition of the pay deal has been criticised by Jeremy Dear of the NUJ who is accusing the Morning Star of undermining the collective bargaining process with the "Unilateral Imposition" of the pay deal.
The 16 Journalists are already balloting on strike action, with the result due on 5th February. Perhaps the workers should rise up and throw of the shackles of injustice?
The Morning Star was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The name changed in 1966 to the Morning Star.
The paper also has an online edition which can be viewed here.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Where Is The Public Outrage & Protest?
If a centre-right UK government was in power right now and presided over an approximate £22,000 drop in property value in every house in the UK, the media, led by the BBC would be calling for the PM’s head. Our TV screens would be full of Left leaning MPs calling for the uncaring and inactive government to be overhauled. “Economic Experts” would be in the news telling viewers and readers that people are struggling because of the Governments actions and/or inactions.
If a centre-right UK Government passed a law that allowed NATO to make and impose legislation governing UK border policy, defence policy or any law really, there would be protests in the streets. Petitions would be organised and passed around. The reaction would be stronger if, that government was elected with a specific promise of allowing the electorate to make that decision, via referendum.
If a centre-right government had been in charge of a monetary policy that had saw Sterling plummet to a 23 year low against the dollar, and all time low against the Euro, and we were witnessing loses of thousands of Manufacturing Jobs; the trade unions would be protesting in the streets about the tough market conditions and the increased jobless numbers.
If a centre-right government was proven in the media to have Parliamentarians selling, openly, their time and professional influence in making and changing laws; we would be calling it a “Constitutional Crisis”, and every law passed during that parliament would come under immense scrutiny. Lawyers would be having a field day. An immediate General Election would be called for by the left-wing leader of the opposition.
If a centre-right PM appointed his most influential minister to the House of Lords, free from the scrutiny of public election and being shadowed by an elected member of the shadow cabinet, then everybody would be calling it exactly what it is; an attempt to undermine Parliamentary accountability.
If a combination of the above situations had occurred we would likely have a combination, or all of the above consequences and responses. Eastenders would have story lines families going broke and being evicted, there would be students organising protests and recruiting members to radical organisations, and the Labour and Union conferences would be getting in depth media coverage. We would be told that there is an unprecedented social crisis taking place in the country.
So why is it, with a left-wing government in power, with The EU Lisbon Constitutional Treaty being forced on the UK without the promised referendum, with house prices nose-diving, with Sterling crashing, stock prices crashing, with a seemingly irreversible trend of the rich-poor divide growing further, with unpopular and oppressive laws being passed, with Peers being caught on tape selling their influence within the upper chamber of our national legislature; why is there no coherent, organised, public outcry of any significance? Why haven’t the people taken to the streets?
It is my assertion that if we currently had a Conservative Government, and were facing the scale of problems that we currently are, things would be very different. The opposition would be in a much stronger position. In fact, I suspect the calls from the public for a general election would be deafening.
There are no mass protests against the government in the streets, there is no radical student band amassing at St Stephens Gate.
The blogosphere has become an established force, and though there is balance and a real spectrum of views and approaches, it is noticeable that the centre-right opinions are prevalent. Have people taken to their computer keyboards rather than marching in the streets. Has the blog become the voice of the right, where the strikers placard is the voice of the left?
I am not sure that it has, or is. But I do not think the blogosphere realised its full reach and influence. Where there seems to be a balance in favour of influence to the political right on the blogosphere, there seems to be the reverse in the organising and effect of public protesting. With the Left targeting the blogosphere more and more, is now the correct time for the centre-right parties to be looking at getting people involved in rallies and protests, for which there is much to target? If they did, we may, just possibly, see that general election in 2009 that nobody is expecting.
If a centre-right UK Government passed a law that allowed NATO to make and impose legislation governing UK border policy, defence policy or any law really, there would be protests in the streets. Petitions would be organised and passed around. The reaction would be stronger if, that government was elected with a specific promise of allowing the electorate to make that decision, via referendum.
If a centre-right government had been in charge of a monetary policy that had saw Sterling plummet to a 23 year low against the dollar, and all time low against the Euro, and we were witnessing loses of thousands of Manufacturing Jobs; the trade unions would be protesting in the streets about the tough market conditions and the increased jobless numbers.
If a centre-right government was proven in the media to have Parliamentarians selling, openly, their time and professional influence in making and changing laws; we would be calling it a “Constitutional Crisis”, and every law passed during that parliament would come under immense scrutiny. Lawyers would be having a field day. An immediate General Election would be called for by the left-wing leader of the opposition.
If a centre-right PM appointed his most influential minister to the House of Lords, free from the scrutiny of public election and being shadowed by an elected member of the shadow cabinet, then everybody would be calling it exactly what it is; an attempt to undermine Parliamentary accountability.
If a combination of the above situations had occurred we would likely have a combination, or all of the above consequences and responses. Eastenders would have story lines families going broke and being evicted, there would be students organising protests and recruiting members to radical organisations, and the Labour and Union conferences would be getting in depth media coverage. We would be told that there is an unprecedented social crisis taking place in the country.
So why is it, with a left-wing government in power, with The EU Lisbon Constitutional Treaty being forced on the UK without the promised referendum, with house prices nose-diving, with Sterling crashing, stock prices crashing, with a seemingly irreversible trend of the rich-poor divide growing further, with unpopular and oppressive laws being passed, with Peers being caught on tape selling their influence within the upper chamber of our national legislature; why is there no coherent, organised, public outcry of any significance? Why haven’t the people taken to the streets?
It is my assertion that if we currently had a Conservative Government, and were facing the scale of problems that we currently are, things would be very different. The opposition would be in a much stronger position. In fact, I suspect the calls from the public for a general election would be deafening.
There are no mass protests against the government in the streets, there is no radical student band amassing at St Stephens Gate.
The blogosphere has become an established force, and though there is balance and a real spectrum of views and approaches, it is noticeable that the centre-right opinions are prevalent. Have people taken to their computer keyboards rather than marching in the streets. Has the blog become the voice of the right, where the strikers placard is the voice of the left?
I am not sure that it has, or is. But I do not think the blogosphere realised its full reach and influence. Where there seems to be a balance in favour of influence to the political right on the blogosphere, there seems to be the reverse in the organising and effect of public protesting. With the Left targeting the blogosphere more and more, is now the correct time for the centre-right parties to be looking at getting people involved in rallies and protests, for which there is much to target? If they did, we may, just possibly, see that general election in 2009 that nobody is expecting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)