Where is there left to go when politics breaks down into stark and implacable camps? The hidden peril of conflict

The latest junior doctors' strikes breached a controversial threshold when it withdrew emergency care. Ahead of the two days scheduled for the strikes, scare stories circulated talk of the NHS creaking - maybe encouraged by how the polls had previously suggested that public support would weaken.

In the event, support for the strike action actually remained in the majority with only a small percentage fall from before emergency care was withdrawn, with the public still largely seeing the government as culpable, and the NHS appeared to cope with the strain (Triggle, 2016; Broomfield, 2016).

The emergency threshold was breached and support for the strikers remained. That would seem to put matters in favour of the junior doctors. But the big question is - did the full strike change anything?

The short answer is... probably very little.

For those familiar with how things are actually achieved in politics - that is, usually through some kind of compromise - that shouldn't come as a huge shock. What the emergency strikes have not altered are the fundamental positions on either side of the divide.

The government didn't see the weakening of public support for which it might have hoped. And, short of those in other professions walking out in support, more akin to a general strike, the withdrawal of emergency care is as far as the strikers can escalate.

The doctor's duty of care means there are limits to the withdrawal of labour - unless a lingering rumour of mass resignations by doctors has any truth in it (Campbell, 2016). At this point, breaking the deadlock may require different kinds of resignations.

Not least forth in the queue for an exit has to the Health Secretary himself Jeremy Hunt, whose belligerence has allowed and encouraged the escalation of the dispute. The BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's union - has also firmly staked out a position specifically counter to that of the Health Secretary due to what they felt was a pointed threat to impose new contracts without negotiation.

On both sides, it seems only a toppling of their respective leaderships could allow for a change of direction while, as is often a priority in politics, saving face. The sides have so committed themselves to their respective courses, enough as to become completely entrenched, that it is hard to envision either being able to back down.

Therein lies the peril of competition and confrontation. Whatever can be said about the American, deeply partisan, political system, it is not a place where things are getting done. Instead, these grand monolithic forces butt heads, shaking the landscape and leaving people divided.

And that is the value of, not only compromise, but of cooperation. The ability to work with others is more than just cutting crude and dissatisfying compromises. It is also about creating a mutual respect that allows for healthy discussion, debate and an arena for grievance with effective means of redress.

A society at odds with itself would have a hard time finding resolutions in which all parts of society feel themselves to have a stake - which, in politics, is the short and medium term aim. Feeling represented is an important aspect of building engagement on the part of the public with the complexity of the challenges that their communities, their societies, face and the trust and comprehension of the outcomes.

That, more than anything else, puts Jeremy Hunt's name at the head of any list of those who need to resign. He has escalated and divided, an we are poorer for it: we have less cooperation, less engagement and less chance of an outcome in which all parts of society feel they are represented.

The Junior Doctors strikes are escalating, largely thanks to Jeremy Hunt's stubborn belligerence as deadlock goes unbroken

At the core of the junior doctors' argument has been that doctor's need to have safe schedules so that they can keep patients safe.

The next round of strikes by the junior doctor's are imminent, set to start Tuesday morning. They will run from 8am through 5pm, rather than the 24 or 48 hours time frame of other strikes, because the strike, in an historic first for the NHS, will withdraw emergency services (Triggle, 2016).

In previous polls, the possibility of the withdrawal of emergency services reduced, substantially, the support for the striking doctors from 59% down to 45% (Broomfield, 2016). Seemingly sensing an opportunity, the government side has been laying the scare factor on thick.

Stories of the apparent dangers posed by the strike have been coming thick and fast. Hunt's spokesperson has said that the strikes are disproportionate, will be damaging and come with huge risks (BBC, 2016), while Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS in England, has said that withdrawing emergency services crosses a line that will damage trust (Keogh, 2016).

This was followed by the General Medical Council warning that hospitals may struggle (Triggle, 2016{2}) and junior Health Minister Ben Gummer saying that patients are being put in harms way and the government is being held hostage (BBC, 2016{2}). Analysis has suggested that there are adequate measures in place, however, to ensure no one is endangered (Triggle, 2016).

The present stand-off is a result of, consistent with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt's escalatory tactics so far, and despite now admitting no such power in the face of legal action, a threat to impose contracts on junior doctors rather than honour the negotiation process (Campbell, 2016).

Thanks to these clear misjudgements on his part, support for striking junior doctors may be reinforced by the fact that it is Jeremy Hunt who is being seen as obstructive. On Sunday, he rejected a cross-party proposal to introduce his new contract first only as a limited trial, subject to independent review, to determine its affects and suitability (Campbell, 2016{2}) - which will only further antagonise the public.

Hunt is reported to have argued that "further delay just means we will take longer to eliminate the weekend effect" (BBC, 2016{3}). A frankly preposterous position considering the very basis for his 'weekend effect' argument has been demonstrated to be without basis (Cooper, 2015), that he appallingly continues to be allowed use as justification.

Whatever the faults of Jeremy Hunt and the deficiencies in his method, the latest strike will regardless test the limits of public patience. How long can public servants push strike action before public sympathy wanes? Taking with it the essential power behind any strike or protest movement - solidarity.

The NHS has proven itself to be a special case, ensuring broad public support afforded to these public servants that has been more difficult to raise in other parts of the public sector. But this latest escalation is entering new territory. Who will be most affected by the strike and resultant cancellations.

If there is anything that defines British politics it is the resilience of the status quo to anything but meagre and gradual reforms. But right now, the status quo needs to be altered to break to end a stubborn deadlock. It is to be hoped that the impending strike, or the strike itself, restores some sense to the negotiations. Yet the most likely outcome seems to be more deadlock, followed by more escalation, unless the government backs down in the only way it really can - by removing Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy Hunt is playing dangerously with escalation in dispute with Doctors over future of NHS as he imposes contracts

Junior doctors and supporters gathered outside the Manchester Royal Infirmary on 10th February, during the latest 24 hour junior doctors strike.

After months of wrangling, Jeremy Hunt has decided to impose contracts on junior doctors (Tran & Campbell, 2016). Hunt's decision came just an hour after the second major strike by Junior doctors, where strikers walked out for 24 hours in protest against extension of hours across the weekend (Triggle, 2016).

Negotiations have been ongoing for months, but had broken down on Tuesday after what Hunt, the Conservative Health Secretary, called his 'final offer' had been rejected (Campbell, 2016). Accusations were also flying that all parties had agreed an alternative deal in principle, only for Hunt to veto it (Stone, 2016).

Imposing the contract could easily further inflame an already controversial situation. Public opinion has been firmly on the side of the junior doctors strikes (Stone, 2016{2}), with Hunt being seen as personally culpable for the ongoing action called by the BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's trade union.

What Hunt may be counting on is that, in the initial phase, doctor's will have little choice but to put up and begrudgingly acquiesce. Then, to simply let the matter to blow over with time - gambling on the public having a short memory.

Yet the move could instead lead to escalation. So far the strikes have been 24 hours in duration and left emergency care intact. This move by the Health Secretary could push the opposition to longer strikes, with Healthcare provision reduced to a minimum, other medical professions walking in solidarity and larger public protests.

There have also been reports that the numbers of medical trainees have been dropping and that trained medical professionals have been moving abroad (El Sheika, 2016; Johnson, 2016). The BMA has been using these facts during the negotiations as leverage - and warning of a further exodus if unsafe conditions are extended.

However Hunt's move has called out doctors, expecting them to grumble but ultimately comply. Or may be for them to move into the private sector. There have been doubts about Hunt's commitment to a public, tax-funded NHS - the Health Secretary was a contributor to a book calling for a privatised health market in the UK (Stone, 2016{3}; El Gingihy, 2015).

The general feeling amongst Conservatives seems to be favourable towards a long term future of private sector solutions to social security. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith won some agreement from Prime Minister David Cameron for the idea of, in essence, privatising sick pay and unemployment benefits by forcing people to pay into savings accounts or to buy social insurance as cover (Mason, 2015).

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has risked escalation with his latest move. The BMA says it will consider all options to continue the fight, against changes it believes to be dangerous to public health (Triggle, 2016{2}). Who blinks first matters. Most outcomes could likely be considered a win of some sort for the Conservatives - which shows the cleverness of the game they're playing.

But the game they're playing gambles with social security, the safety net that ensures the common good. In this big moment in the future of the NHS, the Conservatives are showing a ruthless side by pitting the NHS's future against the interests of medical professionals. Its a reckless game in pursuit of prices and profits, but which ignores value - and the fundamental social justice of universal public healthcare.

Junior doctors strike ballot exposes reality of human cost behind Tory laissez-faire

Junior Doctors at Castlefields Arena in October, taking part in the People's Assembly Take Back Manchester protest march that was held in parallel with the Conservative Party Conference.

Last week ended with news that ballots had been sent out a for vote on whether doctors should go on strike (The Guardian, 2015). The decision follows the latest developments in the dispute between junior doctors and Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt (The Economist, 2015).

With Prime Minister's Questions as a back drop, Hunt attempted to see off possible strike action with an offer of higher pay to junior doctors (Campbell, 2015). Yet his offer of an 11% rise was heavily criticised for being massively offset by the redefining of working hours to run longer into the evening - cutting what could previously be defined as out-of-hours pay during anti-social hours.

A vote for industrial action will surely reignite the tense clashes between government and unionised public servants that have been so much a feature of the Cameron ministries. As with the tube strikes, fears over long shifts worked during anti-social hours have led to stand offs and tense meetings between public sector union leaders and Conservative government ministers (BBC, 2015; Cooper, 2015).

For the Conservatives, their response has been consistent. They have refused point blank to see the human impact of political and economic decisions. The approach of the Right over the last five years has been to simply dismiss or condemn public servant strikes as "irresponsible" and inappropriate (BBC, 2011; Wardrop, 2011; Evening Standard, 2015).

Yet Conservative decisions are having profound affects upon the lives of many people, not least public servants. There have been public sector and private sector job losses, a more frightening prospect for many as unemployment support has also been cut and restricted, and invasive pressures have been put upon public servants.

From doctors to tube workers, to low pay workers, the balance between work and life is being drastically tipped by a lurching grasping attempt by the market to snatch up the personal time of citizens (Jeffries, 2014; The Guardian, 2015). Hours are running longer and later, more temporary and more insecure. Refusal runs the risk of dismissal in favour of someone who will accept the conditions.

On the Conservative part, there is a denial of responsibility. As Conservatives shift the duties and burdens onto the individual, they stand by their laissez-faire position that it is not the place of the state to 'interfere' with how markets are shaping people's lives.

Yet the Conservative use of the laissez-faire approach does not seem to reflect its liberal origins. The difference between laissez-faire in the hands of the Liberals of old and the Conservatives of today, is that the Liberals saw work as a means to personal self-improvement and liberation.

In pursuit of those aims, of ensuring that "individual men and women may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly", Liberals moved away from laissez-faire - towards a more interventionist approach - when the realities of exploitation and poverty where exposed. The ideological and economic ground they abandoned has been occupied by the Conservatives.

In Conservative hands the high aims of laissez-faire look more like propaganda. The economy, as they're managing it, is hugely unequal. Their 'apparent' prosperity is built around the statistical distortion caused by the concentrated wealth of the 1% - through property and other assets holding inflated value - and through "competitiveness" - where investors and employers can be guaranteed cheap labour, from workers who live increasingly fragile and temporary lives filled with stress and anxiety.

This is laissez-faire within a strictly hierarchical, deeply unequal, conservatism organisation of society. A society where free time is treated as the privileged reward of success in a system based around wealth, assets and property. That system locks out the poor and the unfortunate, who have no chance of owning property at grossly inflated prices and for whom social progress requires some combination of debt, nepotism and extreme good fortune (Mason, 2015).

What the junior doctors are campaigning for affects all citizens. Safely run services and respect for the rights of citizens to lives outside of work. It isn't unreasonable to put alongside to those demands the right to some sort of security & consistency, and a guarantee against poverty, as demands on workers become greater and the safety nets to protect them become thinner.

The market may have competition but it is not fair, particularly in a society suffering from massive inequality. For a government to choose to stand by as people are stretched thin, used up & exploited, or cast recklessly adrift by market forces is for it to neglect its duty to social welfare. Whether they like it or not, Conservatives have to face to fact that the state has a duty to interfere and that it can do so for the common good.

Intervention doesn't have to mean state ownership. There are decentralised alternatives like co-operatives and a citizen's income that could empower workers and make them more secure. But what it does mean, is that a government has to be prepared to act and to look beyond the appearance of prosperity, as reflected in short term profits, to find better alternatives.

Cold, business-like, austerity narrative has a weakness: it leaves no room for compassion

David Cameron has tried hard to take for the Conservatives, from Labour, a reputation for a stern, serious, business-like approach to government. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron meets EDF workers, 21 October 2013 - Department of Energy and Climate Change (License)

At the Conservative Party conference On Wednesday, David Cameron gave a keynote speech described as that of a leader at the height of his powers (d'Ancona, 2015). That label suits the supreme confidence Cameron and the Conservatives are showing right now in their dominant austerity narrative (Jones et al, 2015).

So far David Cameron and George Osborne, his heir apparent, have controlled the political debate, making it all about fiscal responsibility. So confident are they in their position within that debate, they're now - apparently - trying to pitch their message to the centre and centre-left (Freedland, 2015).

However, the terms have started to change. The emergence of Jeremy Corbyn, and the popular movement surrounding him, has forced the addition of ethical and moral dimensions to the contest. The simple narrative of responsible versus irresponsible is now being clouded by a contrast being drawn between 'tough love' conservatism and the compassionate anti-austerity Left.

Since 2010 a political consensus has developed in the UK that focusses on Labour's alleged reckless profligacy and the resultant need for responsible management of the national finances - with the Conservatives pitching themselves as just the business-like grown-ups to save the country from the naive and reckless idealists.

But Cameron & Osborne might finally be overreaching with their effort to appeal to the centre and Left. While pushing austerity measures, originally pursued as merely corrective, into an extended and lasting policy, they seem to have forgotten how thin the support for their political 'consensus' is in reality.

In a country divided, where at least 34% chose at least a 'lite' alternative to austerity and 33% didn't participate, the remaining 33% who believed in further austerity, and so voted Conservative or Ukip, do not represent a consensus so much as the most well organised minority - with many of those who voted Conservative likely not to even consider themselves party supporters, let alone loyalists.

Those are shallow foundations from which Cameron is pitching to voters the idea that the Conservatives are the only party of the mainstream - laying claim to morality, nationality and sensibility as things represented solely by them. In itself, the attempt just reveals how far into right-wing territory the political consensus has swung.

Centrism is supposed to be about balance. It is supposed to bring together communities, individuals and traditions - appealing to democrats, liberals and conservatives alike - to create a society balanced between, and accessible by, all.

All Cameron's government has offered are right-wing solutions: restricting or taking away parts of the social security system, taking legislative action against strikes, and pushing market-based solutions wherever they can be forced onto public services. The Conservative brand of 'centrism' is profoundly unbalanced in favour of a meritocratic elitism, based heavily on the role played by wealth and competition.

As much as the Conservatives have made an opportunity for themselves out of the struggles of the Labour Party, they have left a door open for Labour to make a return to relevance. Corbyn's "We don't pass by" speech to the CWU's People's Post gathering, in Manchester last week, conveyed a compassion that is fast becoming the mark of the Left in opposition.

While junior doctors have struggled with their working conditions with an underfunded NHS, the Conservatives have turned a deaf ear. It has taken the threat of strike action, and the disruption it causes to 'efficient' services, to make the Conservatives take notice of their suffering.

Even then, the response has only been the offer of promises and guarantees that there will be proper monitoring, all while plans continue to be pushed ahead (Campbell, 2015). It was hardly a surprise, then, to see junior doctors taking their campaign onto the streets of Manchester alongside anti-austerity protesters.

Similar accusations regarding the lack of response by the political class to suffering have come from those warning of homelessness rising under conditions of increased debts, restricted welfare and a lack of affordable housing ((BBC, 2015; The Telegraph, 2015).

Hackney Council have come in for criticism for its handling of homelessness, after it threatened to criminalise homelessness and introduce fines for sleeping rough (Osborne, 2015). Singer Ellie Goulding has openly campaigned against the maltreatment of homeless people by London councils (Ellis-Petersen, 2015).

It aught to be a matter of concern for Cameron and Osborne that, despite Hackney Council being Labour controlled, in Goulding's campaign for better treatment of homeless people, it is to Jeremy Corbyn and Labour that she has turned, in search of someone to bring "some compassion back into politics".

It is in that contest that the Conservatives' self-assigned 'pragmatism' may finally count against them. A shift in the debate to include compassion will hurt a government that has chosen to bet the house on a cold lack of concern beyond a financial, profit-making, statistical assessment of economic 'success' which does not factor in the impact on individuals or communities.

With an increase in working poverty, linked directly to changes being made by Cameron's government (Wintour & Watt, 2015), the dominant austerity narrative in which Conservatives have shown such confidence is being exposed for its lack of human warmth.

All of a sudden, Corbyn looks to be exactly the opponent, with exactly the right tone, to trouble the Conservatives' thin hold on power. The Conservatives have tried so hard to take from Labour the reputation for serious prudent economic focussed politics. It would be a tremendous irony if, with the party strutting around as if it has finally assumed that mantle, the poisonous flaw in that reputation might just have been discovered.

Corbyn and the Labour Party pass their first big challenge - showing solidarity against the government's trade union bill

Trade Unions led this summer's London Tube Strike over the safety concerns tied up in the extension of services to running 24 hours. Photograph: Tube Strike by Barney Moss (License) (Cropped)

Today saw the second reading of the Conservative government's trade union bill. This was the first debate on the controversial measures, aimed by the government at stopping what they have called 'endless' strike threats. Following a morning on which Jeremy Corbyn's new shadow cabinet had been announced (May, 2015), Labour was in need of an issue on which they could present a united front.

If an opposition, particularly a progressive opposition, has any role at all it is to challenge power and the way it is used. The trade union bill presented the first, very early, opportunity for the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn to do just that. The measures to be debated included an extension - up to two weeks - of the notice required before strikes can be held, allowing employers the use of agency workers to cover striker shifts, and mandatory identification to be worn by picketers with their details to be provided to police (BBC, 2015).

The reading of the bill by minister Sajid Javid met a hostile reception from the beginning, with Caroline Lucas and Dennis Skinner setting the tone. The Conservative position was that their proposed regulations were aimed at stopping a malign minority of trade unionists forcing strike action - damaging to the livelihoods of other workers -  upon the broader general public (BBC, 2015{2}).

Elements of the bill were criticised by influential Conservative backbencher David Davis (Mason, 2015; Casalicchio, 2015). Davis described measures requiring strikers to identity themselves and provide details to police as more suited to Franco's Spain than "Queen Elizabeth II's Britain". Yet during the debate itself, Davis argued that the bill, stripped of its illiberal elements, would tackle one of the side effects of public sector monopoly, that withdrawal of public sector labour means withdrawal of the service - deeply inconveniencing the lives of the wider public.

However, human rights groups have described the bill as a dangerous restriction upon the human and democratic rights of workers that, in particular, makes it 'easier for the Government to be a bad employer' (Ogilvie, 2015). The bill has also been described as a vindictive attack on civil liberties, by Liberal Democrat former business secretary Vince Cable and the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress Frances O'Grady (Taylor, 2015; Cable & O'Grady, 2015).

Through first the Liberal Party and later the Labour Party, trade unions in the UK have sought better rights and protections for people in the workplace. In the early years that meant a mix of support of parliamentary candidates and organisation of large strikes. Yet over the years - though with some periods of resurgence - time lost to industrial action has dwindled to give way to negotiation and under the restraints of increases in trade union legislation (Bienkov, 2015).

The ability of public sector workers to strike, with an impact on the wider public, is part of the right to strike. As private sector strikes challenge the interests of their employers, in the form of their accumulation of profits from labour, public sector strikes challenge the interests of their employer, the government, in the form of their votes dependent upon public satisfaction. With employers holding an unequal power in being able to withhold employment upon which the lives of workers depend, it is not unfair that workers to also be able to withhold benefits from their employer - in fact it is recognised as a human right (Ewing, 2015).

Whatever the differences between the factions within the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn has been elected to lead, opposition to anti-union tactics likened to those of dictators - a poignant example of a disturbing conservative trend of attacking human rights, suspending liberties supported by legal aid or social security, and even naming opposition parties as a risk to national security (Dearden, 2015) - provides an easy point of agreement.

If the role of opposition - and the roots of what it means to be on the Left - is to challenge power, attempts to restrict liberty of peaceful protest and civic dissent should be able to unite the Labour Party. Especially since opposition to the bill has been supported across progressive parties, by Labour, Green and also Liberal Democrat MPs - whose leader Tim Farron said that the bill attacked trade unions who stood up "for workers' rights" and protected "against workplace abuse and bullying" (Farron, 2015).

There is no rule against being constructive in opposition. But a majority government has little need of aid in pursuing its agenda. Corbyn's first day has seen Labour taking a stand, showing some solidarity with the trade union movement - which alone is admittedly a small victory. And yet, it is the small victories and acts of solidarity out of which a larger labour movement is built.

Strikers and protesters are demanding a better future - how long will it take Westminster to catch up with reality?

In the last week, thousands of people have taken to the streets in protest. From strike action taken by NHS staff on Monday, protesting the refusal of a 1% pay rise (The Guardian, 2014), to the Trade Union Congress (TUC) 'Britain Needs a Pay Rise' protest on Saturday (Johnston, 2014), people are taking to the streets in opposition to public sector cuts and austerity - with more strikes planned for the coming weeks.

The NHS strike received wide support, being particularly broad on twitter, that once more demonstrated strong positive public feeling towards public services, and in particular the UK's health service. The TUC protest for better pay only confirmed the increase in opposition to the public sector cuts.

At the coalition's inception a narrative was laid out that stressed the apparent necessity of cuts to public spending. That narrative came with a promise: 'We're all in this together'.

That idea was challenged from the beginning (Butler & Malik, 2010), and the statistics gathered by the government's social mobility commission, chaired by former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn (Boffey, 2014) confirm that young people are being disproportionally burdened with falling pay, fewer opportunities, and in many cases left without either the ability to find work or to find homes.

This crisis extends beyond young people, however. Prices are rising as wages and social security continue to fall across the board (Roberts, 2014). That situation is deeply affecting people's confidence, and leaving them with little hope of a better future (Mason, 2014).

Combined with incongruous contradictions like refusing a 1% pay rise for all NHS staff but approving an 11% rise for MPs (Campbell & Johnson, 2014), or the super rich getting richer as the rest of us are getting poorer (Dorling, 2014), it seems that the cuts, if the necessity of them was ever conceded, have now been pushed far enough to become a bitter pill people are no longer willing to swallow.

There is a growing feeling that the cuts are an ideological project, rather than a commitment to a pragmatic public policy. Part of an ideology opposed to the government collecting and spending money on the behalf of the people. An ideology opposed to the wealthiest contributing a proportional share to the commons. 'We're all in this together' is looking like a hastily slipping façade.

Society is becoming absurdly unbalanced, and the economic crisis continues. At a time when conditions are getting more and more difficult for those hit hardest by the continuing economic crisis, taking away public services, reducing public sector employment and drastically cutting back public welfare & support is making that situation desperate.

As Thomas Paine reminds us (1795), there has to be something in it for the worst off within civilisation.

'In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period. But the fact is that the condition of millions, in every country in Europe, is far worse than if they had been born before civilization began.'

Otherwise, why should they care or participate? Today, Paine's words remind us of society's duty to ensure continued hope and enfranchisement of each new generation. But those obligations are being shattered by attacks on social security.

In response people are out in increasing numbers to strike, and to protest. They are resisting. Yet they are also finding it hard to make themselves heard where it matters. It is not a coincidence that these difficult conditions have been accompanied by the rise of far-right populism across Europe. As Charles Kennedy (2006) warned us:

'The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger.'

It was in these kinds of conditions that movements like the protests of May '68 in France emerged, when an entire fifth of the country's population went on strike. From Occupy, to the student protests in Chile, to the democratic movement across the Middle East and North Africa, and protests against austerity across Europe, people are taking to the streets to demand a better future.

In the UK, these strikes and protests are becoming a common sight. Public sector workers, trade unions and government commissioners are warning that society is slipping into dangerous levels of inequality and unfairness. How long will it take Westminster to catch up with reality?

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'Unite workers vote to strike in NHS staff pay dispute'; 26 September 2014.

+ Chris Johnston's 'Tens of thousands take to UK streets in pay protest'; in The Guardian; 18 October 2014.

+ Patrick Butler's & Shiv Malik's 'All in it together? Young people and the cuts'; in The Guardian; 8 December 2010.

+ Daniel Boffey's 'Alan Milburn says Britain is on verge of being permanently divided between haves and have-nots as young miss out on recovery'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Yvonne Robert's 'Low-paid Britain: 'People have had enough. It's soul destroying''; in The Guardian; 30 August 2014.

+ Paul Mason's 'The unending economic crisis makes us feel powerless – and paranoid'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Denis Campbell & Sarah Johnson's 'NHS strike: clinics close and operations cancelled in dispute over pay'; in The Guardian; 13 October 2014.

+ Danny Dorling's 'How the super rich got richer: 10 shocking facts about inequality'; in The Guardian; 15 September 2014.

+ Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice'; 1795. [Buy Now]

+ Charles Kennedy's 'How we lost people's trust'; in The Guardian; 4 August 2006.

Strikes make a strong statement, but need the support of many voices to make a debate

In the final months of 2011, the Occupy movement reached its crescendo. At its peak, the movement had occupied many important, central and highly visible areas of major cities. Since then, however, the movement has disappeared out of the mainstream. Occupy showed exactly how a progressive protest could be mobilised in a highly visible and effective manner, burning bright like a beacon for those disaffected. But it also showed how such a movement can also burn out after only a short while.

Meanwhile, other progressive, leftist, political protests against the economic establishment have rumbled on, quieter and receiving far less attention. The the trade unions have been in the midst of the UK's own anti-cuts, anti-establishment, protests. Even when they have managed to get coverage, they have struggled to find consistent support among activists, protesters, the general public and the political order. If the strike actions of history tell us anything, from May '68 in France to the ongoing Chilean Winter, you need all of these facets to produce comprehensive reform.

This has been particularly demonstrated by the latest round of trade union strikes (Taylor et al, 2014). Trade unions called strike action on 10 July, with over a million public sector workers walking out to protest low pay and zero hour contracts, as well as stagnant public sector pay at a time when the standard of living is falling and the cost of living is rising (O'Grady et al, 2014).

Yet, strike action has not been accompanied by a visible enough progressive, leftist, activism, and the general population remains largely passive. That in particular makes it easy for the trade union strike tactics to be criticised by David Cameron and the Conservatives, who want to put stricter rules on future strikes (Morris, 2014). The Conservatives, whose policies are being protested against, have been criticised by the Liberal Democrats and Labour for wanting a clampdown (Mason, 2014).

Whichever way that political posturing goes, a quick look at history will show that, either way, strikes alone can only apply so much pressure. They need support, and a general comprehension of their plight and of their cause, as part of a vision supported and actively campaigned for across the left (Chessum, 2014).

In France, in the May '68, students and workers held several protests and strikes that coincided, but were not coherent. The combined pressure of both movements managed to force President de Gaulle into calling an election. However the lack of unity among political parties on the left, their lack of connection to the protesters, and the lack of coherence between the protesters and the wider public, especially beyond Paris, resulted in a quite catastrophic defeat for the left.

What the protesters of May '68 did achieve was largely fractured and fragmented, won piecemeal by each of the groups. The workers negotiated a better deal out of the government, increasing pay and reducing working hours, and the students succeeded in winning concessions with regards to the running of a number of universities (Lichfield, 2008).

But the major victory was social. The movement broke new ground for personal freedoms and paved the way for some of the concessionary social legislation that followed (Poggioli, 2008). But comprehensive political change was missed, because the various groups did not pull together to build a coherent vision that sought for all of their concessions within a better framework. They made a statement, but did not launch a debate.

The slow success of the Chilean Winter emphasises this point. Still struggling on, after four years, confederations of students, workers and unions are slowly seeing reform. The protests began as a student campaign for the reform of the education system, and slowly expanded into a generally supported push for political reform.

In 2013, that campaign saw the electoral defeat of the political allies of conservative President Sebastián Piñera, with Michelle Bachelet a new socialist President elected, along with a new left-wing alliance (Collyns & Watts, 2013). Among those elected where the prominent figures from the student protests Camila Vallejo, for the Communists, and Gabriel Boric, for the Autonomous Left. Only through persistent, widespread and interlinking activism and support has this, and the other small concessions so far won, been possible (Aljazeera, 2014).

The message is clear: strike action alone is not enough. It is however a strong and visible statement. In order to make a push for real political reform however, rather than just to secure concessions, the visibility and broad inclusiveness, of a movement like Occupy, needs to be combined with a sustained activism. The aim has to be to produce a general comprehension and support of the aims and values of the movement. The strikes are a statement. Next comes the debate.

==========
References:
==========
+ Matthew Taylor, Rowena Mason, Helena Horton & Rebecca Maguire's 'Public-sector strikes: hundreds of thousands join rallies in pay protest'; in The Guardian; 10 July 2014.

+ Frances O'Grady, Felicity Dowling & Stuart Guy's 'Why we are going on strike'; in The Guardian; 10 July 2014.

+ Nigel Morris' 'NUT strike: David Cameron announces crackdown on strike action ahead of mass industrial action'; in The Independent; 9 July 2014.

+ Rowena Mason's 'Vince Cable opposes tightening industrial action law'; in The Guardian; 10 July 2014.
+ Michael Chessum's 'The anti-austerity left is re-emerging. This time it must take root'; in The Guardian; 20 June 2014.

+ John Lichfield's 'Egalité! Liberté! Sexualité!: Paris, May 1968'; in The Independent; 23 February 2008.

+ Sylvia Poggioli's 'Marking the French Social Revolution of '68'; on NPR; 13 May 2008.

+ Patrice de Beer's 'May ‘68: France's politics of memory'; on Open Democracy; 28 April 2008.

+ Dan Collyns & Jonathan Watts' 'Bachelet pledges radical constitutional reforms after winning Chilean election'; in The Guardian; 16 December 2013.

+ Jonathan Franklin's 'Chile's Commander Camila, the student who can shut down a city'; in The Guardian; 24 August 2011.

+ Aljazeera's 'Tear gas used at Chile protest over education'; 12 June 2014.