Church and State: Archbishop leads Church of England into newly interventionist stance

In the past fortnight, the Archbishop Justin Welby has adopted a particularly outspoken stance. Unusually for the Church of England in recent times, Welby has taken a series of - very public - interventions in mainstream politics.

The trend was kicked off with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report on economic justice, which called for greater public intervention and higher taxes on the rich, of which Welby was both a signatory and public advocate.

Next the Archbishop took the stage during the Trade Union Congress 150th anniversary conference, to give a speech in which he compared Jesus to trade unionists, favourably, and likened the mission of trade unions and Christians.

And then, finally, Welby announced that the Church was looking to financially intervene - the Church holding numerous major financial investment in a considerable portfolio - in the collapse of Wonga, a major pay day lender, in order to protect those with debts from being preyed upon.

As might be expected, these interventions have raised eyebrows and annoyed people on all sides of the political spectrum - from the The Guardian to The Telegraph. On the one hand a line was drawn between addressing spiritual need and addressing economic hardship, and which the Church of England should be concerning itself with. On the other hand it was felt that Welby had waded in with too crude and analysis. And there were, of course, the criticisms of the Church's own stake in Amazon - itself accused of workers rights violations and poor working conditions.

So what kind of active role can the Church play?

For secularists in Europe, there was a long fight to get the institutional powers, including the churches, out of the public business. In Britain, however, that was more muted struggle, as the Church largely stepped back in time with the Crown.

But the Anglican Church remains a State Church which still has a stake in political power and seats in the House of Lords - and an undemocratic say in political decisions. Then there is the issue of public funding for the Church's listed buildings.

In all, that makes for a complicated position from which to intervene in public life. As a kind of independent social enterprise, there is absolutely a role the Church could play - much as any other charity or civic body should have the right, and perhaps the responsibility, to speak up and contribute to the public discourse.

But the Church is not independent and that does need to be carefully weighed and considered.

For progressives, there is a dilemma when progressive ideas receive the support of a big establishment body. It is nice to hear that alternative ideas have made their way into the halls of power. But the establishment remains an impediment.

Achieving progressive change, pushing for an alternative, means at some point winning over the establishment. But eventually even the reformed establishment will need to be overhauled as well - and the State Church is about as establishment as you can get.

Macron and Popularity: The President of France has yet to win a sceptical public back over to the political process

Photograph: LEWEB 2014 Conference - in conversation with Emmanuel Macron by LE WEB (License) (Cropped)

The victory of Emmanuel Macron attracted the attention and plaudits of centrists across Europe, desperate for a way out of the slump that has undermined social and liberal democratic parties. But the talk in many countries of needing their own Macron and En Marche is all just buying into a myth, because the rise of Macron was an illusion.

Reports this last month talked of Macron and his government already facing a decline in public support. But what those reports ignore is that support was never that high in the first place - the election landslide was more due to the electoral system than a swell of support.

Macron's movement was perhaps well organised or made a particularly well tailored pitch, but En Marche mostly benefited from a system that favours voters' picking their least worst option - which served En Marche who were the heirs of the collapse in the credibility of the centre-left and centre-right.

Macron took just 24% in the full field first round of the Presidential vote, and La Republic En Marche took 32% on a first round legislative election turnout of just 49%. These numbers delivered political power, but not broad public support or high approval. There was no rising wave, just a window of opportunity.

The problem for Macron is not that he has been discredited, but that he has yet to win voters back to the political process. Taking power on the support of a quarter and a fifth, his approval ratings will begin low, with scepticism high and everything to prove.

Turning political power in decent approval ratings was never something that was going to happen overnight. The pledges of Macron were built around big promises with no easy solution, like cleaning up politics.

The difficulties faced by Macron and En Marche were underlined when, within the opening weeks of his new office, his MoDem political allies and their leader Francois Bayrou were hit by corruption investigations.

The other big promise Macron made was to reform France's labour laws, famous for their scale and complexity. It is an issue on which there is a clear public support for action, but no real consensus on what action.

Macron has his own ideas, but has set about a negotiating strategy, rather than trying to force it through. Even trade unions have gotten around the table for talks - with the two of the largest unions even declining to take part in protests against any watering down of labour protections.

While the left under Jean-Luc Melenchon and the union CGT push for protests and strikes, Macron's consensus approach with no legislative surprise has got enough of the key players involved to reduce action to the harder left organisations that media find it easier to discredit.

But the dissatisfaction with politics in France is too broad to be convincingly reduced to the bellyaching of the radical left. And despite the lean times and discrediting of the centre, neither the radical left nor the far right have taken a decisive advantage.

The people of France are not itching to rise up for either extreme, but nor have they fallen back in love with the Republican centre. Macron was never the unquestioned messiah and he has yet to win the public over.

The election results showed all of this. The approval ratings just confirm it. The task ahead of Macron is to rebuild the Republic and he has no gordian solution. A facsimile of Macron in another country would face the same problems.

Macron's ascendency is not the revival that liberals crave, nor are his low approval ratings the death knell of moderate-led reformist capitalism for which socialists are straining their ears. Macron got enough support to get through the door.

But to stay there, Macron and En Marche must win people back to the political process. Sure, his failure to reengage people would be a blow to neoliberals trying to cling to power. But it would be just as bad for progressives of all stripes, for whom public faith in democracy and a politically active and interested people are a cornerstone.

Pay Cap: Hammond focus on 'overpaid' public sector workers is just a distraction from Tories failing those in private sector

Photograph: NATO Summit Wales 2014 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (License) (Cropped)

After a month of being pummelled over the issue, the Chancellor Philip Hammond tried to reframe the issue of public sector pay cap debate. The core of Hammond's approach was to draw a comparison.

That comparison says that workers in the public sector have it good compared to what those in the private sector were dealing with. Don't be fooled. The Tory angle on public sector pay is a distraction. One that covers for the party's failure to deliver for private sector workers.

In the private sector, low pay and precarity prevail. Working poverty is a reality in 2017.

And the Tories response is to using poor conditions in the private sector to justify undermining conditions in the public sector. And, in time, be sure that pitting workers against one another in envy will be turned back to the further diminishing of the conditions of those in the private sector.

The Conservatives do continue to speak of these restraints on pay, and low pay, as if they are temporary. A part of a restructuring process. But their intended solutions stink of permanence or a lack of vision that narrows their view to piecemeal policy solutions.

For instance, when Justine Greening, the Education Minister, addressed a social mobility conference. She told them that the government's plan was to tailor education towards giving people the high-level skills they needed to achieve their own advancement.

She promised a meritocracy. A system that rewarded hard work with advancement.

But that pledge is belied by the economy under the Tories. Yes, unemployment is down according to statistics (with some glaring flaws). But it isn't a coincidence that unemployment is down while self-employment, second jobs and precarity are all on the rise.

It is something that can be seen clearest in those places where Thatcher's dismantlement of the public sector industries hit hardest. Having skills and the will to work hard isn't enough. Social mobility begins with money. With huge, long term investment.

It isn't enough to pursue personal empowerment, expanding knowledge and skills, if they're are rendered impotent by their environment. Putting achievement down to personal work ethic is an evasion. An excuse not to reform. There can be no piecemeal solutions.

Only holistic, joined up approaches will make a difference. Only coordinating trade unions and worker's rights, a universal welfare settlement that counters precarity, and tackling the cost of living - and many other aspects - will address the deep problems in Britain.

And the Conservatives that have shown this is not, and will not, be their approach. To them, it appears, the struggle - held at bay by 'dependence creating' community support - carries a moral worth.

The world of work is changing. Perhaps even making towards its end. For progressives, an ideology that praises an anxious, desperate struggle for being a test of moral character is not a safe framework for ushering in that future.

It is even less so in the hands of a party that excuses how it has failed private sector workers by stirring up discontent with public sector workers - and who wish to further deconstruct safety nets even as working poverty spreads still in 2017.

Hammond's distraction just papers over the cracks. Punitive action against public sector workers does nothing to improve the conditions in the private sector. The problems of the day call for progressive solutions, with long term investment backing efforts to fight anxiety and build far more life security into working life.

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.

"We don't pass by" - Jeremy Corbyn lays foundations for compassionate narrative based on renewing belief in public service

Jeremy Corbyn addresses a thousand people in Manchester Cathedral at a meeting organised by the CWU for their People's Post campaign, while several thousand more assemble outside.

Last night, Jeremy Corbyn had a strong message of support for the CWU's People's Post campaign. Yet just his presence alone was a great success for the Communication Worker's Union, as he drew an audience of around eight thousand people to the Manchester Cathedral meeting - the majority of whom were gathered outside for a parallel overspill event.

As part of the week of protests parallel to the Conservative Party Conference, it capped off a successful weekend for the People's Assembly that saw sixty to eighty thousand people assemble to march against austerity.

Jeremy Corbyn opened his speech with another of his recent references to the media coverage of himself, dismissing personal attacks by saying he really doesn't care about them:

"Once you get out of the swamp of personal recriminations people have to listen to the political arguments"

He also praised the politically active young people turning out for events like those this weekend, who he said had been 'written off by the political establishment'.

The focus of Corbyn's speech was on his belief in public service. Along with Dave Ward, the General Secretary of the CWU, there was praise for the post office as a strong force for good that connected people. The was also praise for the grandness of the principle behind the Universal Service Obligation.

Corbyn set his comments within the context of the importance of the public sector's role, echoing fellow speaker Natalie Bennett's sentiment that the private sector is 'no answer' for public sector provision of essential public services.

Corbyn also told the audience, echoing others at the People's Assembly rally on Sunday, that the campaign for the 2020 election starts now, not two or three weeks before 7 may 2020, and that campaigners need to start now to win ordinary people's hearts and minds over to hope. He expressed confidence that he, Labour and the anti-austerity movement would succeed.

The event also featured Kevin Maguire of The Mirror acting as chair; Owen Jones - who looked particularly fired up; and Natalie Bennett - who, looking more comfortable and confident than six months ago, received a warm welcome from a crowd that clearly had a lot of empathy with the Green Party's leader and her message.

Ultimately though, this was Corbyn's moment. This was another chance for him to lay out his new politics, with a different approach that is more reasonable and more democratically engaged with civil society. It was also a chance to lay the foundations for a new and more compassionate narrative, with which to oppose austerity based on renewing people's belief in public service. He summed up that message with the words: "We won't pass by".

The task now ahead for Corbyn and his team now is to maintain the momentum of the social movements that have come together against austerity. It was clear, however, that the majority of the crowd appeared to have turned up to see the new Labour leader and he was met, and departed from the hall, to standing ovations. If Corbyn can pull in near ten thousand people to hear him speak everywhere he goes, estimations regarding his chances of victory in 2020 are going to start changing dramatically.

Anti-austerity 'Take Back Manchester' event tries to prove that the Left is back in fashion

Billy Bragg plays to the crowd of protesters gathered at the start of the the march, which saw 60,000 people walk the streets of Manchester around the Conservative Party Conference.

The tone was set for several days of People's Assembly 'Take Back Manchester' protests at a day long gig on Saturday, organised by Sam Duckworth at the People's History Museum in Manchester. The event was headlined and closed out by Billy Bragg, who saved a rendition of The Red Flag for his encore - an anthem that Jeremy Corbyn's election seems to have brought back into style (Dearden, 2015).

The 'Take Back Manchester' protests, aimed at bringing the anti-austerity campaign right onto the Conservative doorstep at their autumn conference in Manchester (Pidd, 2015), follow an upsurge in activity after the shock Conservative election win. That surge has been given new energy by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party (Young, 2015; Kuenssberg, 2015).

Billy Bragg told his audience on Saturday night that he'd been a member of the movement so long, it had become fashionable again. And that's a message that the People's Assembly is keen to impress upon the Conservatives - that the days of austerity are numbered in the face of a resurgent popular democratic Left.

Natalie Bennett addresses the crowds assembled at Castlefields arena at the end of the march.

That message was at the heart of what the speakers had to say to the crowds gathered in the sun at the Castlefields outdoor arena. Natalie Bennett told the crowd that the sun was shining on their movement - in this case figuratively as well as literally, on a beautiful Sunday evening.

Stood on the stage in the sunshine, Charlotte Church told the crowd:

"They can hurl abuse at us and we will fight back. They can scare people into thinking one way, but we can educate people into thinking another. They can claim that protest doesn't work, but we can prove protest has worked, does work and will work for us now."

Owen Jones followed by saying that a broad movement was needed to achieve these things, organised from the bottom up. Mark Serwotka went much further, arguing that the trade unions needed to stand together, as the real opposition to the government, and close to outright called for general strikes.

The emphasis everywhere was on the power of the popular movement and not without good reason. Without the support of a broad social movement, the new campaign for an alternative cannot succeed. The new leader of the Labour Party cannot succeed.

On Saturday, Billy Bragg told the audience that he believed that the last election proved that the times are still in flux. That there is a world to win. But Bragg followed up with a word of caution. He said that the real enemy was cynicism - which needed to be replaced with hope and the belief that victory was possible.

If the People's Assembly and the trade unions are to build a bottom up movement and have a sustained impact, then Jeremy Corbyn - who addresses the Communications Workers' Union this evening in Manchester - will have an important role to play. Whatever lack of loyalty the parliamentary party has offered him as the new leader of the Labour, the wider social and trade union movements have adopted him as their figurehead.

But Corbyn needs to be wary. Alexis Tsipras has shown perils and difficulties of serving the people's idealism within the depressingly pragmatic political mainstream (Cohen, 2015). If Corbyn can be a lightening rod, the focal point and agent of the wider movements, he could be both the coordinator and the public spokesperson for the movements aims.

Yet, ultimately, it will require the sustained attention, energy and engagement of those taking part to overcome the austerity narrative, because a political party alone in the political sphere is not enough (Rogers, 2015). Only a sustained campaign - debating, educating and informing - can change public perceptions and give people a reason to believe in an alternative.

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.

Principle, compromise and the politics of the status quo

If there is anything that any political establishment does not like, it is an unflinching unwillingness to compromise. If you won't deal with the establishment and its priorities, you will find yourself frozen out to the fringes.

Considering the fact that politics demands so much of those who take part - expecting them to leave idealism at the door - it isn't too much of a surprise that people's interest in the political arena drifts away. Nor that others encourage people to walk away (Brand, 2013).

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are only the most well known to have been faced with this difficult dilemma.

Clegg and the Lib Dems, by choosing a tawdry compromise - compromise itself being a virtue, not a vice, when attempting to achieve all of the best things without any of the worst - and accepting a coalition with the Conservatives, made a pragmatic choice: to get things done, within the system presently in place, and risk the ire of their slighted support on the left. That choice has so far only burned them.

In 2010, with a potential coalition looming, more than one comparison was made between Clegg's situation and that of the former Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald.

Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister in the 1920s and 30s, chose to defy his party and form a multi-party national government to deal with the Great Depression - following the stock market crash of 1929. MacDonald and Labour found that, restricted as they were in their views to a classical economic approach and balanced budgets, they were unable to respond to the crisis.

MacDonald would not listen to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, who suggested that the country aught to engage in deficit spending - using the cheap credit available to nation-states - in order to cover financial commitments and stimulate a recovery. As unemployment rose drastically the Labour Party split, unable to resolve their differences.

The King encouraged MacDonald to form a National Government - a coalition between all three major parties, in the national interest - to manage the crisis. By forming a government with the Conservatives, however, MacDonald was labelled a traitor and expelled from the Labour Party.

MacDonald paid the price in infamy for making practical compromises with the establishment, in order to achieve his aims. Other have instead paid a price for refusing to compromise their principles.

Louis-Joseph Papineau was the Speaker of the Assembly for Lower Canada, the French-speaking predecessor to the French-Canadian province of Quebec. He would not deal with the British Empire's unelected, and unaccountable, colonial governors, who he felt were allowed to run rampant and ruled through their Chateau Clique.

Papineau was amongst the leaders of Parti canadien, and the founders of its successor Parti patriote, combining Canadians of many backgrounds form French and Irish, to English. He was opposed to British commercial exploitation of Canada and Canadians, led boycotts against British goods and campaigned for responsible government in Canada - government and economic policy accountable to the people.

His resistance ultimately led to open rebellion, which he had opposed at the Assemblée des six-comtés when other had spoken of revolution. Despite not taking part in the rebellion, his arrest was nonetheless ordered, and was forced to flee into exile. By the time his name was cleared, and he was able to return, the country had already changed drastically. The Canadian provinces had been unified, as part of attempts to assimilate the French-speaking population, and the issues of the day had moved on.

Carlo Cattaneo was another who found himself frozen out. Cattaneo - a writer, as well as founder and editor of Il Poletecnico, a journal committed to the positive sciences, to interdisciplinary work and to practical applications - was a federalist and republican in 19th century Italy.

Cattaneo supported the Italian states in their fight for an unified Italy, against the various interfering outside forces. However, when the campaign was brought in line with the ambitions of King Vittorio Emanuele II of Piedmont-Sardinia to become King of Italy, Cattaneo would not go against his federalist and republican principles, by supporting a monarchy, and so withdrew.

By doing so he maintained his principles, but was not involved directly in the shaping of the new Italy. The game of politics does not always, however, reward you any better for trying to work within the bounds of the system than working outside of them.

Millicent Fawcett, leader of the Suffragists, discovered this in her long campaign for women's right to vote. Her long association with the Liberal Party, even with adamant support from many of its most learned members and thinkers, did not manage to advance her cause.

Fawcett, and her Liberal MP husband, were considered to be Radicals and supporters of individualism, trade unionism and other liberal causes, and were active in the Liberal Party. With her husband's death she withdrew for a while, before returning to public life in the role of the leader of the NUWSS (National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies).

Despite her personal connections to the Liberal Party, the Liberals persistently avoided dealing with the issue of women's suffrage. Much as the Liberals managed to drive away the Trade Unions by failing to address the causes close to them, they drove away Fawcett's Suffragists by failing to listen and act.

She ultimately resorted to switching their support to the Labour Party, in protest at having campaigned for and supported a party, within the system, and not received their wishes for reform in return. While ultimately successful, it took extraordinary circumstances for the establishment to listen, let alone to grant reform, even where it was sensible, just and supported by members of the establishment itself.

In the face of reason and progress being stifled in the defence of a status quo that crudely bundles progress together with extremist forms of change - from the chaotic, to the militant, to the reactionary, the fascist, and the totalitarian - is it really any wonder that people are disaffected by politics?

Is it much of a wonder that they feel voting to be only an endorsement of a broken and corrupt system (Brand, 2013), and that they promote resistance to it?

Political systems need to be adapted to end these kinds of crude resistance to reason and progress. There have to be a better ways of resisting tyranny than to stifle campaigns for social justice and social welfare. If, within our present political systems, we cannot move forward and make our world better, then our next step has to be reform - lest our brightest minds and best ideas are suppressed in the name of an institutional mediocrity.

==========
References:
==========
+ Russell Brand's 'Russell Brand: we deserve more from our democratic system'; in The Guardian; 5 November 2013.

+ Tom Clark's 'Nick Clegg and the ghost of Ramsay MacDonald'; in The Guardian; 9 May 2010.

+ Will Straw's 'Lib-Con coalition? Only if Clegg does a Ramsay Mac'; on Left Foot Forward; 26 April 2010.

Where are the Radicals? A short history of radicalism

At a time when protests are rife and the established progressive parties are disappointing, it is astonishing that no parties pushing a more radically progressive agenda have emerged to fill the obvious gap. Even existing progressive groups, such as the Green Party, are struggling to pick up more votes and seats (Sinclair, 2014).

The Left in Britain is fragmented, split between Greens, Trade Unionists, Co-operativists, Socialists, Liberals, Social Democrats and Democrats. That situation has been replicated in other countries as well. Globalism goes on apace, the state is whittled away by ideological cuts, and the nominally main party of the British Left, the Labour Party, are failing at being radical because they don't understand it (Behr, 2014).

Labour has, over the long years, become a centralised mainstream party, shaped by the system of majority voting. It has resigned itself to certain orthodoxies, and accepted conservative economic beliefs as definite outlines of a reality to which it has to conform - not necessarily because the party believes in it, but because that narrative has become so well publicised that it has been necessary to adhere to it in order to appeal to the majority.

That situation has driven radicals out to the fringes, away from electoral power and away from policy decisions. But it didn't get this way overnight.

A Short History of Radicalism

So why aren't there any radical parties?

Radicals first sprang up as a political and electoral force around Europe during the 19th century at the time of the liberal revolutions. The term came to refer to liberals who were not satisfied with gradual reform or small concessions gained from the old monarchic order, or with the limited 'free institutions' - elected parliament, protections of the freedoms of belief and speech, and protections of property -  that mainstream moderate liberals aimed to achieve and settled for (Collins, 1971).

While democrats pursued greater political power to place in the hands of the people, and socialists sought to represent and enshrine that idea in a dictatorship over the state institutions, the radicals pursued, ever persistently, each new social reform after the other: extending voting rights for men and women, worker's rights, pensions and more.

Radicals could be found across the political divides between democrats and liberals, between socialists, anarchists, and trade unionists. They found support for worthy progressive campaigns across the left, across party partisan divides. In the UK, suffragists like Fawcett and trade unionists worked with the Liberal Party in the late 19th and early 20th century to secure women's and workers' rights. The Poor Reports of Rowntree in York, and of Booth, Potter and Collet in London, produced rational assessments of society that informed and shaped Liberal and Labour policy throughout the 1900s.

Radicalism in Western Europe

The story in Spain, Germany and Italy largely followed similar scripts to one another. When the liberal revolts of the mid-1800s failed to take hold, and the mainstream liberals settled down within their 'free institutions', the radicals found themselves largely pushed to the fringes.

In Germany the failure of the 1848 revolutions was followed by a long and intense period of conservatism. By the time free institutions re-emerged after the Second World War, it was into a Germany with modern, and organised, mainstream parties. Spain's long period under the far-right Franco regime, after the divisions and civil war of the Republican period, served only to frighten the majority of the Left into the shelter of whichever was the largest and most stable opposition group. That same affect compounded the modernisation and centralisation of Germany's political groups.

Fear of the threat posed to liberty by the Far-Right has forced the Left to centralise.

In Italy, though, the various groups on the left, with their partisan fighters - who had joined the Republican side of the War in Spain and then fought against Mussolini's Fascists in their own country during the Second World War - came out of The War with their own wide spread support. Each of the parties of the left had their own backers and their own anti-fascist records with which to maintain their separate identities for a time.

Radicals by name found themselves at home in many groups, among social democrats and socialists, or with the Republican Liberal Socialists of the Partito d'Azione. That party even saw itself, however briefly, at the head of a post-war coalition government. But infighting and an unwillingness to co-operate with those opposed to progress, or who had associated with fascists, proved their undoing. Fear of the Far-Right struck once more, forcing the Left to huddle together under one conforming banner.

Only in France did radicals manage to achieve a persistent presence in the political mainstream. However, despite the Parti republicain, radical et radical-socialiste being a major player in governments across the first half of the 20th century, being in the mainstream led to the same problems as those faced by radical progressives in Britain and elsewhere. The demands of gathering support and retaining power hindered the drive for ever more reform.

Fear and Conformity

The same fear of the far-right had long affected Britain also, where the labour movement had fought long and hard to get a foothold within the institutions of government. To make sure that conservatives and those on the far-right could not undo their long work, Labour drew all the left and centre about themselves. But the demands of holding onto those supporters, and balancing and trading off their ideas against each other, and making sure not to alienate other potential voters, stifled any spirit of radical progress.

The political system has not helped. The same safeguards that protect a country from Far-Right usurpation and dominance, within modern western states, also makes sure that progress is difficult to achieve. This, it seems, is to be the crowning glory of the political capitalist model. Progress finds itself bundled in with extremism, and is restricted and restrained in the name of perpetuating a status quo.

Fear and hunger for power have bred conformity. Power coalesces around the most widely socially acceptable faction, regardless of reason. It is brought out into the mainstream, leaving the radicals behind in the shadows, marginalised. Today, these kinds of radical campaigners, thinkers and groups continue to exist. But they are scattered across a fragmented political left and our present, majoritarian, electoral systems assures that they remains so.

This had led to a rather distorted perspective within politics. Arguments and reasoning become financial rather social. We count the cost rather than the value of new ideas, regardless their social worth. The NHS continues to be privatised, despite the fact that polls suggest that most would pay more in tax in order to maintain its independent and comprehensive social spirit (Grice, 2014). The government even continues to pursue its heavily criticised welfare policies (The Guardian, 2014), even though there are radical policy options out there, such as Basic Income, designed to eliminate poverty and social insecurity altogether (Elliott, 2014).

When big ideas are not pursued, not looked into or tested, at the behest of fear - the fear of upsetting the status quo and ushering in change - we have really lost our way. If our present systems are not designed to let us improve our world, then we need to start arguing for something better. We need to argue for a system that protects us from ignorance and domination, by encouraging reason and progress, not settle for a system that stifles all change in the name of an imperfect, uneven and thoroughly poor compromise.

==========
References:
==========
+ Ian Sinclair's 'Why does the left ignore the true progressive party – the Greens?'; in The Guardian; 6 January 2014.

+ Rafael Behr's 'Labour doesn't know what radicalism looks like'; in The Guardian; 2 July 2014.

+ Irene Collins' 'Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe'; The Historical Association; 1971. [Buy Now]

+ Andrew Grice's 'Britain prepared to pay more tax to support the NHS, poll finds'; in The Independent; 30 June 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'Iain Duncan Smith to signal more reform of 'dysfunctional' welfare system'; 11 August 2014.

+ Larry Elliott's 'Would a citizen’s income be better than our benefits system?'; in The Guardian; 11 August 2014.

An Alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrats could do so much more

In the news this week has been talk that, come 2015, negotiation between the UK Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats over an alliance or coalition at the next election could be very likely (Mason, 2014). It isn't an outcome hard to imagine, as the parties have much in common and have been down this road before.

The recent commitment by Labour to a government of, should they be elected, 'big reform, not big spending' certainly closes a lot of the gaps between the two groups (Sparrow, 2014).

The Lib Dem wing closely associated with the Orange Book, a work encouraging the market liberal strain of thought within the party, would certainly be able to work with the new Labour Party direction (Priestland, 2014) - as long as they remain open to various political, social and economic reforms, that don't involve expanding the state, or state spending (Mason, 2014).

Yet it seems like there is a much more that the two parties could do. From interest in social liberal causes, like decentralisation and the extension of liberties, to progressive economics, like co-operativism and mutualism, both parties have a strong progressive heritage.

Right now, though, both sides are too concerned with meeting the present political orthodoxy. Under pressure from the right and left-wing strands of pressure groups, Labour have tried to walk the tightrope between the two. On the one side, the left-wing Trade Unions have called strikes and been active at protests, yet at the same time seen their influence within the party reduced by internal party reforms (BBC, 2014).

On the other, the right-wing has pressured Labour to seize the political centre and play to the interests and concerns of the middle class. To encourage the capitalist market and related ambitions, and to distance themselves from the policies of state management, public ownership and nationalisation of the past.

Among those applying that pressure has been former Labour leader and Prime Minister Tony Blair (Wintour, 2014). He has said that Labour needed to stay in 'reality' with their progressivism, and not be derailed by delusionary ideological views. Yet, when Ed Miliband, the present Labour leader, spoke before a trade union audience, he still made conciliatory noises supportive of rail renationalisation (Wintour, 2014{2}).

However, the latest step Labour have made, to commit to 'big reform, not big spending', demonstrates a first real commitment to Labour's right-wing, to a market liberal direction. And that move brings the party very much in line with Clegg's market liberal Lib Dems.

An alliance between the two, though, would not have to go in such a mainstream, pro-Market Capitalism, direction. The two parties certainly have much more progressive ideas in common.

The late Roy Jenkins, formerly a leading member of both parties, described the two parties as sharing in a great liberal tradition (Jenkins, 2001). From the decentralisation of power, such as the Liberals' support for Irish Home Rule to Labour's realisation of Scottish and Welsh devolution, to the campaigns for social reforms, such as pensions and the NHS, the two parties have a major heritage of social liberalism.

On the matter of economics, both parties have expressed their support for co-operatives and mutuals. The Labour Party has a long standing relationship with the Co-operative Party and the Liberal Democrats have also stressed the importance of worker stakeholdership, in their call for a John Lewis economy (Ashton, 2012).

The Left has long been divided between these two parties, despite their having much in common. If they are able to negotiate an alliance at the next election it would be a significant step forward for Leftist politics in the UK. And yet, an alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems has so much potential there is the danger of it proving to be a massive let down. To avoid that, they need to be brave and take the risk of not sticking to the moderate, middle of the road, middle class capitalist agenda.

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.