I'm not unreasonable. Even the most radical of reforming governments wouldn't be able to implement its full programme in its first 100 days (coping with capital strikes and facing down a coup might prove to be distractions). Starmer is not offering anything like this. His programme is one for restoring the legitimacy of governmental authority and modernising the state. Tilting the balance away from capital toward labour is definitely not on the cards. We can't well have "working people" getting ideas above their station. The issue therefore is not pace, it's content.
Consider these two exhibits from the last week. Angela Rayner's bill of workers' rights was unveiled (again) a few days ago. And, what do you know, we have yet more watering down. How long before they become purely homeopathic? The "rights from day one" now allows bosses to impose a nine-month probationary period on new employees. Introducing the single status of worker, which had already been weakened to allow for two different statuses "as a step toward one" is ... subject to further consultation. As is the right to switch off from employer harassment outside of working hours, ending pay discrimination, and strengthening parental and carers' leave. A fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families this ain't. And on top of that we have to wait another two years for this to take effect anyway. Labour: never knowingly urgent in helping the workers it was set up to represent.
And then there's the row about P&O ferries. When they sacked 800 workers a couple of years ago to bring in scab labour on much lower wages, it was so outrageous that even the right wing press and Tory ministers condemned them. Nothing came of it, because Tories are always going to Tory. It is verboten to encourage the slightest expression of class-based collective action around workers' interests. As recently as three days ago, Labour was singling out P&O as a bad employer. This was following transport minister Louise Haigh rightly describing the firm as a "cowboy operator". But not any more! In the world of Starmer and the new guru of politics, big business exists and it's there to be kowtowed to. So with the threat P&O's owner, DP World, was going to pull out of a Downing Street business vanity summit and put a £1bn investment on hold, Starmer stuck his foot out and sent Haigh tumbling under the nearest bus.
It's almost a pattern of behaviour. Starmer likes to talk about working people as if they're the salt of the earth, but if they are looking for support from this government and/or relying on them to strengthen their hand in the workplace, he's more interested in salting the earth. Perhaps the Prime Minister would change his mind if P&O workers clubbed together and bought him a spa weekend for two in the lake district.
Over the last hundred days the only thing Starmer and his cronies have fought for with any conviction is their right to trough freebies. We've seen his back office helpers boasting about how they stitched the Labour Party up, the attack on Winter Fuel Payments not to "save money" but to wind back universalism, the renewed fondness for the PFI scam, the decision to not give needy kids immediate relief, and fog-horning from the roof tops about clamp downs on social security support for the disabled and the mentally ill. Labour took office because voters wanted to see the back of the Tories, and an end to Tory policies. Instead, these hopes have been cast aside. We've had one hundred days of sod 'em.
4 comments:
As the Chinese would say to us, "You can change the party in power, but you can't change the policies."
For those who might have skipped bible study, I’m assuming the title is a reference to Sodom, a city destroyed for its departure from Old Testament norms.
Bet your glad the 'grown ups' are in charge. No childish backbiting or petty arguments, no seeking presents before they will do anything, well thought out policies that help their base, no petulance at criticism, clear communications rather than rival briefings, no changing their mind from day to day.
It's a reference to 120 Days of Sodom, the book by the Maquis de Sade which was later turned into a very "challenging" film. The title of THAT was a reference to the biblical city (which in real life may have been destroyed by a meteor; once saw an argument to that effect).
Post a Comment