Post on unions 23/09/2011
Posted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset, at 09:41, Fri 23 September 2011:
Last week I was fortunate enough to meet Eddy Shah and his charming wife Jennifer at a Conservative drinks reception I was addressing in James Gray’s North Wiltshire constituency. Mr Shah led the fight back against over mighty unions in the 1980s during which he received death threats against him, his wife and his children. The print unions were notoriously aggressive and Eddy Shah’s courage in facing up to them was an essential part of Margaret Thatcher’s reforms. Never again could the private sector be held to ransom by union bosses who had no mandate and were ultimately set on undermining the democratically elected government.
However, in the public sector the trade unions remain strong as were shown at the recent TUC gathering. Some are threatening a bigger dispute than the General Strike of 1926. As this was a disaster for union members, especially the miners, it is not a wise choice of historic comparison from their point of view. The dispute would be about public sector pensions. These have become a source of contention partly because of the difficult economic situation but also because of increases in life expectancy which make it unaffordable for people to retire at or below sixty. Naturally such changes are unsettling but they will not reduce existing entitlements and the public schemes have become so misaligned with those in the private sector that reform is essential.
All sensible people hope there will not be strikes on this issue. Sadly the rhetoric of the trade unions is extremely combative. If it continues it would be a direct challenge to the democratically legitimate government which could not be allowed to succeed.
www.jacobreesmogg.com
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Henry, 11:14, Fri 23 September 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
The withdrawal of labour or participation should ideally be a "last resort".
The problem is that if a combatant has no other "effective assertive capability" at their disposal, then “extreme measures” (the use of force and violence such as military operations, suicide or political assassination you mention) inevitably become their ONLY resort and if lacking redress by other more civilized methods WILL TEND TO BE USED.. .
Since desperate and cornered angry people are dangerous, a “superior prince” (as Niccolò Machiavelli or Sir Humphry Appleby would say) will ensure opponents in any confrontation do have some means of acceptable retirement from conflict and lesser cards to play and such a “Prince” will ensure reasonably effective ALTERNATIVE means of “graduated” non-violent and less harmless action are always available… e.g. Graffitti is “better” than smashing windows… tomatoes and eggs are better than throwing stones and bottles.. Paint bombs better than grenades… This requires ingenuity imagination and creativity .. In the past “working to rule” has been a very effective alternative method of industrial protest. The Suffragettes likewise CREATIVELY invented a whole range of very effective non-violent petty nuisance actions and publicity stunts still in use today.. “Hunger Strikes” are a “weapon” of protest and gaining publicity and attracting sympathy…
Thinking outside the box, I would creatively suggest INSTEAD of striking and picketing, industrial action (especially by “essential workers”) might make a more effective political protest BY SIMPLY CONTINUING TO WORK WHILE REFUSING PAYMENT (other than “expenses” maybe)….
Posted by Tony Hooper, 11:34, Fri 23 September 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
To praise Eddy Shah so shortly after his arrest and bail on sexual claims raises a serious question mark over your judgement Jacob in my view.
Posted by Henry, 03:32, Sat 24 September 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
@ Tony:
Surely under English Common Law we pride ourselves that someone is COMPLETELY "Innocent UNTIL proven guilty".. ? :)
Also:
An ad hominem argument? (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1]
The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Posted by Terry O'Sullivan, 08:00, Sat 24 September 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #
Jacob. With the greatest respect your comments are simply those of a person completely protected from reality.