46 Comments

• Tim13 14th Sep '12 - 4:28pm

  We obliquely discussed how funny or otherwise these cartoons are the other week. This one definitely isn’t – I think if the power of trade unions has ever been more needed during my life, it is difficult to imagine when that might have been. One of the unattractive things about our party has been the anti-union (or at best apathetic about unions) tendency.

• Rebecca Hanson 14th Sep '12 - 5:09pm

  Whoever put this up – please can it just be removed?

• WorkingMum 14th Sep '12 - 6:08pm

  @Rebecca Hanson
  “Whoever put this up – please can it just be removed?”

  I would concur with your plea to remove this ridiculous cartoon. However, given the Business Secretary’s announcement today to cap unfair dismissal claims (without capping the bonuses of the “fat cat” bosses who would seem to be free to do as they wish) it says more about the Lib Dems in this coalition that this is how the T.U.C. is viewed now…The last news item I read did not give any dates for any strikes organised or abetted by the T.U.C.

• Simon Bamonte 14th Sep '12 - 6:08pm

  This is seriously unfunny. As average people (those who both do and do not belong to unions) face ever-further wage freezes, job insecurity, public services cuts for a crisis they did not create and rising prices of daily basics, a strike is often the last resort. It does us no favours at all to take the Tory “unions as dinosaurs” line. Trades unions are not the big, bad “enemy within” like they were in the 1970s and LibDems would do well to remember that these are exactly the type of people we should be supporting and working hard in government for. This cartoon is basically mocking the millions of people who face lowering living standards and are considering taking the last resort – striking – to improve their lot. If average people had more money to spend, rather than letting those at the top continue to hoard or offshore their wealth, maybe our economy would be in better shape. This seems, to me, just more proof that many in this party now hold the working class, poor and powerless with contempt. We talk big about “empowering” people, yet when people empower themselves and join together via unions, they get mocked. Charming.

  How dare average people band together to protect their families, incomes and what they already have! How very well dare they! Bloody dinosaurs!

• Rebecca Hanson 14th Sep '12 - 6:25pm

  If anybody doesn’t understand what happened during the 1980s union reforms (as “Lib Dem News”) apparently doesn’t they might like to read this:
  http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0333559029/?tag=libdemvoice-21
  It’s a quick read which explains the fundamentally undemocratic way in which unions WERE operating and how that was addressed. It’s very clear to see that it was more than sufficiently addressed.

  Unions serve many important positive purposes in democracy and for the people who join them.

  Strikes serve two useful purposes. Firstly they can help draw attention to situations where government policy is deeply ignorant and there is a serious failure to consult. Secondly they are a mechanism by which society can let out a collective cry of pain when people in professional pain are seeing the quality of the work they can do destroyed due to cuts. It’s cathartic and it’s also profession as during rallies and strikes people think deeply about what they’re doing in their work, what matters and what doesn’t, how society operates and how it interacts with their workplaces and so on.

  People who join in the general attack on unions without stopping to listen and understand annoy me a lot.

• bazzasc 15th Sep '12 - 7:30am

  Rebecca Hanson

  Excellent post and I couldn’t agree more

• Stuart Mitchell 15th Sep '12 - 9:05am

  The irony of course is that those who call the unions “dinosaurs” would like to go back to a 19th century world where workers have fewer rights, and their employers can treat them pretty much as they please.

• Tim13 15th Sep '12 - 9:39am

  It might be useful to hear from Howard, the cartoonist, himself, about his judgment of the situation.

• Rebecca Hanson 15th Sep '12 - 10:40am

  “The irony of course is that those who call the unions “dinosaurs” would like to go back to a 19th century world where workers have fewer rights, and their employers can treat them pretty much as they please.”

  Here’s the the return of Beecroft – our most effective tool for many decades for ensuring that managers can spend two years sizing up whether employees may be a personal threat to their own promotion prospects or potential wider thinkers who might be whitleblowers against dangerous behaviour or illegal activity and weed out those individuals.

  I suppose there are some people out there who haven’t been sacked without recompense or comeback for those reasons.

  Wine o’clock?

• Alistair 15th Sep '12 - 11:43am

  IMHO – the dinosaurs are the 18th century style monied toffs who run the Tory party and by extension the country. Nice of Danny Boyle to inform them that the industrial revolution has happened.

• CP 15th Sep '12 - 12:23pm

  I would be interested in hearing from Howard the cartoonist. In the meantime I’ll generously assume his message has got lost somewhere in the cartoon.

  The too-low pay and job insecurity that have so weakened our economy are not particularly funny, while the people working together to improve their circumstances are surely something we should encourage (N.B. I don’t mean the bankers here!)

• Paul McKeown 15th Sep '12 - 1:39pm

  So those complaining about the cartoon think that a rash of strikes would be a good idea?

  Certain disconnect from the public, there.

  Frankly some trades union leaders *are* dinosaurs, just as some right wing politicians and lobbyists are.

• bazzasc 15th Sep '12 - 2:16pm

  Paul McKeown

  I don’t think it is us that are disconnected from reality.

  The public believe what is fed them by a clearly anti-union media. The unions are not all good and, as said above, they betrayed their founders with the behaviour in the 70s but now they have changed and actually are one of the few forces left that fight against worker exploitation – not even the LD can claim that anymore!

  The pressure on society is coming from the feral rich

• Paul McKeown 15th Sep '12 - 2:42pm

  @bazza

  The trades unions are generally much more responsible than they were in the ’70s and they do a lot of important work to the benefit of their members, the companies they are active in, and society at large. I see no sense in further regulation of trades unions, as certain Conservative politicians would like to see. However, I really don’t see how they will further their causes with widespread strikes; strikes will inconvenience the general public and any sympathy for the campaigns that the trades unions are engaged in will rapidly be lost.

• Chris 15th Sep '12 - 3:07pm

  “The trades unions are generally much more responsible than they were in the ’70s and they do a lot of important work to the benefit of their members, the companies they are active in, and society at large.”

  So presumably you wouldn’t think it appropriate to portray the TUC as a whole as a dinosaur?

  For a moment I thought you were disagreeing with the previous comments.

• Chris_sh 15th Sep '12 - 9:06pm

  @Paul McKeown
  “The trades unions are generally much more responsible than they were in the ’70s”

  But in your view, will that continue into the future? I’ve just read an article that may imply that there is a drift back to the far left within the Union movement (or at least the larger unions – which may have a knock on effect), if the article is correct (or even in the same ball park) then the unions may not care to much about public opinion.

  http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/09/14/the-unions-are-gunning-for-ed-balls/#comments

• Ed Shepherd 15th Sep '12 - 9:49pm

  I think it’s odd that a cartoon from a political party that claims to place an emphasis on democracy is attacking working people who organise themselves democratically in unions. I work at a place where redundancies are being made. Many members of staff are wishing that they had a union to offer them support. If the Lib Dems are against strikes then what other methods do they suggest by which people can protest or effect change? I think strikes are a waste of time on most occasions and cause more harm to the employees than to the employers or government. However, with no other options for resisting unfair actions by employers or the government, I am not surprised that many workers think that strikes are an option worth considering. Presumably, the Lib Dem party are against any strikes either in the UK or abroad. Perhaps the Lib Dem Party should clarify it’s position on the subject of unions, strikes and workers rights. For the life of me, I cannot work out what the Lib Dem’s current position is.

• Rebecca Hanson 15th Sep '12 - 10:59pm

  “So those complaining about the cartoon think that a rash of strikes would be a good idea?”

  I don’t like rashes of strikes. I like occasions strikes in situations where there are good reasons of the two types I mentioned above. I’ll try to bring the subject to life a little more with some detailed description. Obviously there’s more to it than this.

  In the early days of this government some bright spark decided the best way to cut public sector pay would be by cutting state contributions to pensions rather than by cutting top line wages and by telling everyone it had to be done as the state pensions pots were in crisis, so people felt less like protesting than they’d be likely to do if they simply announced a pay cut. So all of a sudden we had Francis Maude and all the Tory press whipping up a storm about how outrageous public pensions were and how people were retiring on £60k pensions and so on.

  Now I’m a member of the ATL and, like most teachers in the ATL I’m in it because my union is pro-actively moderate (had never been on strike in over 100 years) and balanced and reasonable about everything.

  The wrote to us to explain that this government line was very seriously problematic because it was completely untrue and very seriously counterproductive. Firstly teachers have a pension scheme (not a fund), which funds in real time with current teachers’ contributions paying the retired salaries of retired teachers. Secondly the ATL had proactively led negotiations to ensure the scheme was in balance – with no deficit – and had encouraged us to accept cuts to ensure that was so and to put in place systems by which the government could further reduce contributions if that did not continue to be the case. So they know the government was lying when it said there was a problem with pensions. Not only that but the government was clearly going to create a huge problem which didn’t currently exist as, at a time of increasing costs and frozen salaries, many teachers had no spare money and therefore couldn’t finance substantially increased contributions so would be forced out of the scheme. Not only did we not want that to happen because pensions should be for everyone, we knew it would put the currently robust scheme into crisis as it would then fail to fund.

  So, after a year of non-negotiation, non-consultation, brute force and ignorance by government we went on strike. I took my children to a rally in Carlisle. I saw many familiar faces in the crowd and on the stage I saw the people who’d been there to support me and others in difficult times in resolving complex issues effectively standing bravely on stage trying to explain what was going on. I found it interesting to listen to the realities of the other unions and especially of the union representing the lowest paid public sector workers. It felt like such a breath air to hear the truth being spoken – fresh air in contrast to the dense sulphur being belched out of the press. I felt my lungs expand to maximise the benefits of this opportunity to properly understand the world around me. We chatted and then the rain poured down and we chased into the cathedral which I explored with my children until the sun came out. Then we went to the park to play in the fountains and chat to all the teenagers who were exploring their unexpected freedom and behaving in a way which was such a credit to those responsible for them in absentia. They too were talking about the issues.

  The atmosphere at the rally of 20,000 outside the Tory party conference after the summer break was different. Most people there were like me – they’d been at small rallies and were interested in balanced discussion about the issues. But this time when we arrived at the meet point the SWP had got their first. This was their turf too. I had some wonderful discussions along the route I toddled with my ‘Fair Pensions for All’ placard. I’d say maybe 19,000 were like me – concerned about and exploring the issues. But we sometimes had to speak up to be heard above the few hundred on their annual outing to express their hatred of Tories who were bouncing along with their chant of ‘You scum, you scum, you @@@@ing Tory scum’. I was pleased to see just how few of these people there were. We were also held up by an amusing small group of student anarchists staging a sit in which we all waited politely for them to complete. But the messages in the speeches there were notably less detailed and in that loss of detail the point was confused. It was a difficult medium to exist in.

  The cordon of policeman 8 deep protecting the Tory conference from us startled me. Why did they need to be protected? Why didn’t they just come and talk to us? Were they really that scared? Why? Those of us who work in the public sectors were disconcerted and annoyed by the way our message was being drowned out by the chanters. But we weren’t afraid of them because were are used to working with – teaching and caring for – everyone like that and much worse. I thought David Cameron should have just walked out into the crowd with all his MPs and talked to people. They would have appreciated and respected that. People would have learned a lot on both sides. He’d have been able to see for himself which of his troops really had people skills and which didn’t.

  In the next round of strikes my husband was also off so we were unexpectedly able to work with a group of five Y13 students from a tough local comp with Oxbridge interviews the next week – a wonderful opportunity we used to the full.

  Then all of a sudden the government negotiated – adapting the offer so those most financially pushed would be less seriously hit making it far less likely they would drop out of the scheme. Other specific and practical key issues were addressed behind the scenes and very quietly, over Chirstmas and buried on a bad news day, everything was agreed. I don’t think we personally benefited at all from the changes. That was never the point.

  But the extent to which the raft of completely irrelevant and inappropriate unions bashing hammering through the media never paused and still hasn’t shocks me. I read often now of the ignorance of the ATL and even the headship unions and I just wonder what on earth is going on? Yes the loony left exist. Yes there is sometimes a small overlap between them and some of the unions in that some people in them are also in unions. But there was barely any of that lot left before this government came along. But they thrive on hypocricy and lies and the stream of constant rich stream nutrition this government has decided to provide them with continues. This government contains senior members who relentlessly viciously attack people in unions and others who are perfectly right in what they say rather engaging with the content of the points made or looking at their own ignorance. This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour and its this specific behaviour by government and the press we need to properly address.

• Alistair 16th Sep '12 - 12:25am

  @Rebecca – great contribution. Unions exist because there is a need for them, now possibly more than for a long time.

• Chris_sh 16th Sep '12 - 12:33am

  @Rebecca Hanson

  “But there was barely any of that lot left before this government came along ”

  I’m sorry but whilst you may feel that is the case, I think I’m more inclined to believe people who are Labour supporters, as they have the most at stake with regard to the unions. If they are worried that the unions (especially the big ones) are going to the left, then I’m inclined to believe them.
  As for the “barely any of the lot” statement, well that is really quite jaw dropping. Do you really believe that all of this started 2 years ago, or are you just lashing out at the government?

• Alistair 16th Sep '12 - 7:03am

  @Chris – if ATL hasnt gone on strike in 100 years but did in the last 12 months you can interpret that as a lurch to the left.Or as that last 100 years encompasses many periods where strike activity was generally common including the Thatcher years, you can interpret this government as taking or threatening the most anti union actions in 100 years which would suggest that in supporting this government, our party has lurched to the right.

• Chris_sh 16th Sep '12 - 8:44am

  @Alistair
  Rebecca Hanson didn’t say the ATL, she said the unions. Nor am I implying that all unions have “lurched” to the left, but I am saying that there are people in the Labour Party who feel the overall general direction of travel is to the left and (in at least one article) it may “drag the Party back to 1983.

  Some of the swing to the left may be justified, when Unite says “Only 9% of sitting Labour MPs have a working-class background; that has to change.” then I have a great deal of sympathy with that cause (as I would if any political party said the same sort of thing). Other things though can be quite worrying, such as:
  “We want to shift the balance in the party away from middle-class academics and professionals towards people who’ve actually represented workers and fought the boss.”
  Which pretty much sounds like they want their MPs to be union reps who will be mainly from the public sector (as the public sector is about 60% of the union base), by the sounds of that statement they may also like a bit of the old class warfare thrown in as well.

• Tabman 16th Sep '12 - 8:57am

  I don’t think this cartoon is very good, or funny. But it is interesting that similarly poor and unfunny cartoons posted here attacking in other directions receive no comment.

  Unions are necessary and useful organizations when they focus on representing their members. But many people worry that the aim of *some* union leaders in calling for a general strike is the anti-democratic one of trying to topple an elected government. That is a deeply disturbing state of affairs.

• Tim13 16th Sep '12 - 9:27am

  Plenty of room for big historical analysis here of, especially the 80s, the Alliance, the direction of the Labour Party, whether they “should” or “should not” have taken the path they did under Kinnock etc. In a practical sense vis a vis the Trade Unions, should they have “accepted defeat” at the hands of Thatcher – in fact did she defeat them? What did the SDP bring as any new thoughts about the role of Unions in society? It will be interesting with a focus on what happened at the time of Hillsborough (1989), how much of this debate will be seen in the media, and possibly reflected in current political directions.

  And into the 90s – why did John Major win the 1992 election? (personally I always felt the”major” factor was not Major, but anti Welsh racism in the UK media, and among English people – but having some Welsh connection, that may be a minority view). All this period had a profound effect on the Trade Union movement, as, of course, did privatisation and outsourcing.

  Again, in the Lib Dems, we have this profound difference about what “left” means, whether it exists in any meaningful way, and whether, indeed, we are a part of, the left. And our views of the unions may well be influenced by how we identify in that area.

  Chris sh for instance – your comment about Labour views doesn’t seem to take into account that there are different wings in Labour, and certainly nuLabour / Blairites would undoubtedly take the view you express. But a more mainstream Labour view would probably welcome a more activist Union input, which could encompass strikes where felt to be effective. Of course people affected by strikes don’t like them much, but the question is, what other mechanisms can people with little power in society exert? Tabman – your comment about useful and necessary is quite true, but you must surely agree that the likes of the right wing media, business lobby groups, wealthy party donors, etc, have been much more effective in influencing policy outcomes over the years. I would have thought as the democratic party, we should be striving to level this playing field.

  The economic process these days is, arguably the reason why we are in the state we are in, and internationally we need to do something about it.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 10:47am

  @Chris_sh

  “But there was barely any of that lot left before this government came along ”

  Thanks for the invitation to clarify. I’ve obviously not expressed myself well there.

  When I was growing up there always seemed to be strikes and riots which were involved many people filled with fury and hell bent on class war. I’ve watched the numbers get less and less over the years. At the Carlisle rally there was not a trace of any of that. There was an organised element of it at the Tory Conference protest march but it was only – what – a few hundred people as far as I could tell. There are traces of it in some unions but it’s tiny, tiny pockets.

  When the summer riots struck – showing how alienated chunks of British youth are, there was no link at all with the unions. But if this government keeps pouring fuel on the bonfire anything could happen. I grew up among riots. I don’t want to see that back. Healthy unions naturally stamp out that kind of behaviour as good people stand for office and get elected. Weak and very stressed unions find it harder as those people may stand for office in places where nobody else will.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 10:58am

  Re: lurch to the left, lurch to the right.

  I think the actually problem is a lurch by Westminster into shall, naive views which do not understand real life or society.

  The ‘Tory right wing’ is actually a bunch of anarchic libertarians. Anarchic libertarianism isn’t any kind of politics really, it’s just ignorant vandalism carried out by arrogant and un-self-aware young men (mainly) who seriously lack life experience living in a bubble. We need working class people in government not because the are left wing or right wing but because they have the awareness and insight into aspects of Britain Westminster lacks. Alternatively we can put in highly educated and credible people who work day in day out on frontline Britain and also have that insight. Some of our councillors fit that bill.

• Chris_sh 16th Sep '12 - 10:58am

  @Tim13
  I do realise that there are many views within the Labour Party, like all parties it is a broad church of opinions and views. I’ll certainly admit to mostly reading Labour Uncut to see what’s going on though.

  “But a more mainstream Labour view would probably welcome a more activist Union input, which could encompass strikes where felt to be effective.”

  Some of those mainstream views are easy to agree with, as I said, if a party that is supposed to represent the workforce only has 9% of it’s MPs from that workforce then something has probably gone askew. It will be interesting to see who the unions will want to replace though – will they include such people as Harman, or is she considered OK because she is left enough?

  Having said that, I’m a lot less likely to vote Labour if they just stuff the House with Public Sector union reps, nor will I support them if they just want to continue the class war or revert to old days of “solidarity action” etc (which is what the likes of Unite are talking about).

  “personally I always felt the”major” factor was not Major, but anti Welsh racism in the UK media”
  I’m not so certain about that, it’s a long time ago but I do have a recollection of TV item where Kinnock was talking to one of the (very) old guard (whose name escapes me at the moment). One bit of advice he was given was along the lines of “don’t spend all your time smiling or the people won’t trust you”. Meanwhile Kinnock was stood there with what looked like the widest forced grin that you can imagine. I just don’t think he could connect enough with the wider electorate for them to trust him whereas Major did, so perhaps he was just trusted more when it came to marking the paper.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 11:02am

  That first sentence should have read:

  I think the actual problem is a lurch by Westminster into shallow, naive views which do not understand real life or society.
  (in order words stop looking at how far left of right we’re going – look instead at the depth.)

• Jedibeeftrix 16th Sep '12 - 11:09am

  @ Tim – Again, in the Lib Dems, we have this profound difference about what “left” means, whether it exists in any meaningful way, and whether, indeed, we are a part of, the left. And our views of the unions may well be influenced by how we identify in that area.”

  Yes.

  I have seen many lib-dems argue that left-right is irrelevant as politics is much more more complicated than that, and how it is a mistake to be defined by your opponents internal struggle.

  They are both absolutely right, and tragically wrong.

  Yes, anyone who has looked at the political compass knows there is more than a single axis to politics.

  This however is utterly irrelevant if your ideas don’t speak to the dilemmas of the age.

  The previous hundreds have been dominated by the left -right battle between capitalism and socialism………… And the off-tangent lib-dems battles were quite frankly irrelevant to the great questions of the day.

  Two poles competing to attract the greatest weight of public opinion, locked in visceral and adversarial conflict with each other. This is the way the British public understand politics, and to ignore that is to become a pressure group.

  What labour achieved one hundred years ago was convincing the public that they represented a better pole to oppose capitalism than liberal ideology could provide. By the time this change had occurred union membership had passed seven million, half way to its mid century peak. By the time the next election arrives union membership will have sunk to seven million as it’s ideas seem ever less relevant to 21st century problems.

  The question is; are the lib-dems determined to convince the public that they, once again, are the most effective polar opposite to the Tories?

  Worrying about proportionality in the Commons is yesterday’s answer to the inability of the lib-dems to be relevant in the face of the labour movement, do you want success or the righteous purity of eternal opposition?

• Tabman 16th Sep '12 - 11:44am

  Tim13 – the aim of the Labour movement since its inception has been to kill off Liberalism as a political force in order to be the sole unopposed challenger to Conservative authoritarianism, in aim in which it very nearly succeeded.

  Every time we have got too large, Labour have sought to “kill us with kindness.” The same process has started again with Balls’ cosying up to Vince.

  There are numerous recent examples in the private sector of great union/management relationships working through recent problems, such as going to four dsy weeks, pay freezes or cuts in order to preserve jobs through the recession have shown. This is totally at odds with the confrontational approach of the likes of Serwotka.

  Where we see good practice we should praise it, and we should oppose strongly its opposite.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 12:27pm

  Good comments Jedi.

  Liberalism was always there but parties need a sufficient mass to achieve depth and quality and the liberals didn’t have that so most liberals fitted into or worked alongside people in other parties. But now class war is over and liberalism is more relevant again while labour has lost its way.

  Liberalism has traditionally split into economic liberalism (negative freedom – remove the barriers to freedom in law but don’t worry whether people can get through the doors which are then open or not) which is more like traditional conservatism and social liberalism (positive freedome – we also need to resource people so that they can get through the open doors) which is sits more easily with socialism. I think this distinction, which is not based on class war, is also beginning to collapse as the major barrier between the first and the second positions was the investment of money. But the cyber-age opens very low cost doors to freedom which did not previously exist. We could use the possibilities this brings to unify the two arms of our party.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 12:31pm

  Tabman I think both narrow/self-interested socialism and socialist policies which operate to the benefit of society as a whole have always existed. I think society is much less tolerant of the former these days.

• Tim13 16th Sep '12 - 12:36pm

  I would amend your words, Tabman, to “since the formation of the Labour Party”, by which time some people had lost patience with the innate conservatism in parts of the Liberal Party. But it is far from a linear or uncomplicatedly oppositional relationship. I would also add that it was the aim of some within the Liberal Party to kill off the nascent Labour Party, so I think we have to be careful in our arguments.

  I agree with you insofar it is good for all sides to work together in employment relationships, and I have always strived for that end in my role as a personnel person. However, I think we part company when you see less of a role for “the confrontational approach of the likes of Serwotka”. I think people like that are valuable to demonstrate that ordinary people can get “off their knees”, and oppose the powers that be in society. I think comparisons with the 1880 – 1930 period in Britain are very apt – we have an opportunity to play a different role this time around, and get hugely better outcomes. Unfortunately, we have started badly, by managing to lose many of our left-leaning supporters. We have encouraged further the gap between the haves and have-nots. Hopefully sense is now being seen, and we will move towards a more radical position justified by events and the state of the country and the world (end of rant, for the time being!)

• paul barker 16th Sep '12 - 2:18pm

  The reason some trade unions are routinely reffered to as “dinosaurs” is because they often seem stuck in the past & because they seem to be dying out, presumably as a result of failing to adapt.Its a poor metaphor but useful shorthand for a complex argument.
  Evidenc for both parts of the argument came last week with news that union membership has fallen by half since 1980 & the TUC decision to look at organising a General Strike.
  There are probably many reasons why less people now want to join unions but part of the problem must be their association with labour or far-left politics & with strikes, demonstrations & more recently, breaking windows.

  Far from moving with their times much of the current union leadership seem to be living in a semi-mythical past – somewhere between 1917 & 1968.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 2:19pm

  to bring this conversation back full circle – to truly deliver liberalism we need to deeply understand society. And in many cases the people who we need to actively engage in order to do that are the leaders of the unions, who have to deal with their members’ experiences of society as it is, not as politicians think it is.

• Richard Swales 16th Sep '12 - 3:44pm

  @Rebecca, so your previous pay deal was that there would be no money put aside for your retirement at all, but that the power of the state (makes the laws, controls the police) would later be directed to force your fellow citizens to pay for it, a matter about which they would have no choice? Now apparently the government has said they are not willing to do it anymore, at least not to the same extent, and because the government is all powerful (makes the laws, controls the police).

  The mistake you made is the same one made by people who think it’s a good idea to lend money to the mafia, when the other side is so powerful, you assume that they can bully someone to pay you, but they can also just bully you not to pay. And no, I don’t have any sympathy in either case.

• Richard Swales 16th Sep '12 - 3:55pm

  the second paragraph above should end with “.. there’s nothing you can do about it”.

  I think it’s worth mentioning though that in modern times strikes and heavy union activity is almost always when there is a monopoly employer. So in the USA there are a lot of strikes in sport where the teams run pay cartels, and not many in schools where each county school board negotiates with the teachers and a teacher can move to the next county if he thinks he deserves more, whereas in the UK, strikes in sport (where we have a free market) are unknown but we have strikes where there is one national body setting pay and conditions in health, schools etc.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 4:11pm

  Richard I don’t really understand your point.

  There is a Teacher’s Pensions Scheme. Current teachers can opt into it. If they do the government also contributes on their behalf. What’s paid in is shared between the retired teachers who paid in in their time.

  It is what it is. It works. Provided you don’t get a government which is so ignorant it thinks that it’s a fund not a scheme and decides to pretend that it would be fine if it forced people to stop contributing to it. Fortunately this government did eventually managed to understand the issues.

• Chris_sh 16th Sep '12 - 4:45pm

  @Rebecca Hanson

  Thank you for the clarification.

  “When I was growing up there always seemed to be strikes and riots”
  As someone who was born in the early 60s, I can relate to that statement (especially as my own father was Labour thru & thru – cut him in half and read it in the rings etc).

  “There are traces of it in some unions but it’s tiny, tiny pockets.”
  That statement I do have issues with, although I understand that if your own Union has a moderate stance then it may seem that way to you.

  Obviously I don’t need to tell you Unions are democratic organtisations, which means those who lead them must have been supported by a majority of the membership (or at least the membership that bothered to vote). Admittedly it may have been the vocal minority that decided this, but as the vocal minority often have more say than the silent majority then they will probably set the direction (that isn’t a dig at unions, I consider political parties to be the same way inclined).

  Leading Unite we have Len Mcluskey, someone who previously supported Militant – nicknamed Red Len (probably by the right wing press), the Chair of Unite’s National Political Committee is Dave Quayle, he is the one saying “We want a firmly class-based and left-wing general election campaign in 2015”. Len Mcluskey’s COS is Andrew Murray who, I believe, was a member of the Communist Party of GB until fairly recently. Of course, it is said that Unite may yet merge with the PCS (currently headed by Mark Sewotka), but even if they don’t. they have stated that they are working closely together. I seem to recall that the Indie speculated that McLuskey was in favour of a merger as there were to many “right” wing candidates who may take over when he leaves, where as Sewotka is years away from retirement and could take over the merged unions.

  That is just a snippet of course, we’ve not even started to talk about the unions trying to eject Progress, or that well known moderate Bob Crowe, plus probably many more cases.

  As a matter of interest, did you manage to keep a straight face when you corrected your post to include “(in other words stop looking at how far left of right we’re going – look instead at the depth.)” – when the next paragraph (on the origanal comment) started with the phrase “The ‘Tory right wing’ is actually a bunch of anarchic libertarians.”

  I think I’ve often seen you commenting on John Redwood’s blog so you must be aware of many of his views, are you saying that you actually class him as an “anarchic libertarian”?

• Richard Swales 16th Sep '12 - 6:13pm

  @Rebecca, if previous teachers are paid out of the funds contributed by new teachers then what you are describing is a Ponzi scheme. What happened to the funds they (or the first members) contributed during their own careers? Anyway, if the government needs to use money taken from private sector workers to keep it going then my original point stands.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 6:20pm

  No it isn’t because there’s no pyramid or similar instabilities unless you’re going to suddenly decide we don’t need teachers any more.

  Like most public sector pensions schemes previous generations decided that is was wise to designate a substantial proportion of pay as being pension contributions on which the employee would miss out if they didn’t join a pension scheme in order to persuade them to join. So the ‘government pensions contributions are/were part of their pay which they got as pension instead of as cash’. They’re ‘money taken from the private sector’ in the same way teacher pay is because they are teachers’ pay.

• Richard Swales 16th Sep '12 - 6:30pm

  @Rebecca, that still doesn’t answer the question of what happened to the money previous teachers paid in, why isn’t it around now to pay them out? If people have historically got out more than they paid in (or was paid in on their behalf) above any investment gains, then what you are talking about is a Ponzi scheme, albeit a particually stable one given the steady supply of new members. The question is, why didn’t the profession at any stage object to the way the scheme was being run? The answer to that question is that they thought the government would mug private sector workers to make up the shortfall later on. As I understand the issue now is that the government isn’t willing to do it for them.

• Steve 16th Sep '12 - 6:42pm

  @Richard Swales.
  1. The teacher’s pension scheme runs a surplus – teachers thus subsidise the services received by the rest of the population, including those working the private sector.
  2. It is categorically not a Ponzi scheme (is this the Daily Mail?) given that the current pensions are paid by current teachers.

• Rebecca Hanson 16th Sep '12 - 7:09pm

  Well there’s only really two possibilities Richard. Either that’s the way it was originally set up or it was raided by the government. If you care I’m sure you’ll be able to find out what happened.

• Oranjepan 16th Sep '12 - 10:08pm

  Two points.

  1. the structure of trade unions as ‘democratic’ organisations is undermined by their partisan, undemocratic behaviour – workers will be better served by separation.
  2. the purpose of cartoons is to inspire comment – obviously this has been very successfully.

• Richard Swales 17th Sep '12 - 11:22am

  @Rebecca, I don’t care. I just want you to keep your hand out of my pocket. Presumably the union that represents you oh so well would find out what has been happening to your money under their noses.