Athos
Well-Known Member
Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour.
Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags
- Thread starter Prince Rhyus
- Start date
- Status
The problem is that it relatively easy to reach the low hanging fruit of the orange tree (pay rise on the railways) and much harder to pluck the apple from it's tree (oppose library closures).
Athos
Well-Known Member
Harder still when the focus is on recruiting more and more fruit pickers, whilst discouraging any of them from going up the ladder.
That's not what's happening though - there are far fewer orange trees and given their popularity and the importance of frozen orange juice futures to our economy means that the orange pickers have far more power than five times as many apple pickers in the thousands of orchards around the land, and with people being able to simply order fresh apples off the internet as well...
ETA: and the apple pickers know that which is why they look askance at the people selling 'Orchard Worker' and demanding taller ladders irrespective of what their "leaders" are doing...
Athos
Well-Known Member
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
There's a lot to say and it's the last day when I can post on these boards for a while.
First The Past
1 As technology moved on and capitalism began needing more of a workforce and women started entering the workplace - it became crucial for male trade unionists to organise women which could only be best done on the basis of equal access to all jobs and grades and equal pay. By 1976, 50% of mothers are in paid employment in some form. It is even higher for single women.
The division and segregation the workplace is imposed by ruling-class norms forced downwards.
Two years after the Equal Pact in 1976-77, you still have stuff like this appearing all over the place from official managements and ruling-class bodies:
“the work of a filing clerk... this work is sometimes given to a junior, an office has only itself to blame if it does not care to see that the person responsible for filing really does know what she is doing and why”
“Recruitment of Young Men in the BBC in London: Computer Operations... interesting career for young men”
“work of a shorthand typist... no doctor will necessarily expect his new secretary to understand medical terms without explaining, or telling her where to look them up”
It was the same thing with colour bars imposed by managements often informally with no paper records at all.
Unions obviously collude with this behaviour in many instances - but it's management imposed division.
But importantly, standard feminism even women within trade unions were dismissive of working-class women below. UPW did have women as reps - particularly at Mount Pleasant and on the phones and in clerical side - and none of them any more than the UPW leadership tried to oppose the persecution of the London militants who tried to organise a London-wide strike in support of Grunwicks strikers (could have brought forward the 'winter of discontent' by 2 years).
Grunwicks itself is full of recrimination, but the base of unions (inevitably under capitalism only 18 months after the Sex Discrimination Equal Pay 1975 Act) with men as the majority was much more supportive than the leaderships.
2 Male supported Equal Pay strikes actions
The Equal Pay legislation was used in several instances to completely re-order structures at work.
In the context of pay freezes in some firms men had pay frozen and women were placed onto those rates.
An improvement - equality, but both men and women received sub-inflation increases - so good and bad.
Other firms solidified the segregation by marking out separate grades with separate pay. It was firms doing this by and large not unions.
The male-supported struggles that came against the practices were wider than just Trico's -
Cockburn Valves, General Motors are strikes with full male participation. The threat of strikes all over AUEW divisions ensures equal pay changes in Electrolux, Zenith Carburettors, Tress and elsewhere. Sometimes after the failure of tribunals, which allow the grades loophole to be exploited. Courtauld's sees strikes at several plants securing regrading and equal pay.
Other events like Garner Steak House, various quickly defeated and hence long-forgotten textiles strikes see low-paid men fighting for low-paid women - and vice versa obviously - but because of the structure of unions they do not see the support they deserve. There's a fear of turning X into new Grunwick's, of scuppering Labour's government, of putting 'Britain' out of business. So the strike pay is minimal and the support is almost purposefully absent.
As mentioned, just about every successful struggle is against some layer of TU bureaucracy aswell as the firms.
Internally, the unions that seemed to take promotion and training of reps most seriously were AUEW-TASS and Actors' Equity plus various parts of TGWU.
So, all in all, the behaviour of unions leaves much to be desired on sexual equality grounds. This would have been mitigated by positive discrimination within unions, but not wholly overcome. (AUEW had a positive education and training scheme for women well before 1975.) Given that unions endorse the principle 'fair day's pay for fair day's work' inevitably the struggle of unions screws people/members at the bottom women, migrants new into the labour force, and low-paid unskilled workers. (A good book on this is Twilight Robbery Trade Unions and Low Paid Workers).
That's inherent in all unions, even women dominated ones, bringing us to today:
Today.
1 Unions are now not white male working-class bodies, but have large women memberships and women reps. There is now a woman TUC Gen Sec and women reps outnumber male ones in UNISON trumpeted by U magazine recently it suggests it's not the accent, colour or sex composition of the unions that's the problem but the bureaucratic and pro-capitalist approaches. Would 50-50 wholly representatives overcome that - in part maybe, but not totally.
2 Equal pay - as in the total absence of job segregation via socialised pregnancy and childcare - requires total social change and the no standard unions can produce that. 'Standard' feminism suggests women in board-rooms and women trade union leaders once promoted by general reform-campaigns (where is the social power for this - never answered?) an equalised reality at work will emerge as a result.
It fails to appreciate that cleavages between women at the top (of the union or company) and women below will inevitably emerge. This has sort of happened in UCU after the election of a women gen sec a slate of women on its council, and a majority of women as members at least in its FE division), some assumed that the concerns of women (in the least paid, most insecure contracts) would improve after merger and new training money from the higher-education subs, in fact the opposite has happened. The casualisation continues and increases, whilst the morale and instinct to join amongst women and male non-members remains high (not blaming them).
3 The historic equal pay cases today are a function of the general (sexist) capitalist approach of trade unions. To win equal pay on historic pay claims doesn't help the union in the eyes of the employer or in terms of the unions' own system of working within capitalism (get subscriptions and mediate conflict so you can offer something to the employer in the here and now).
There's still hundreds of thousands - not an exaggeration - of women who worked in the textile industries in the 1970s and 1980s who don't have work pensions at all, and whose contributions were systematically under-recorded, screwed up or just absent. Dozens of bankrupt firms and dodgy firms. There are women who are still missing actual pay from the 1980s. Are the lawyers taking up the case? No. Are unions? No. Are mainstream feminist movements? No. (It doesn't mean lawyers, unions and feminist organisations have nothing to offer anyone).
If we're serious about a consistent criticism of trade unions we could well argue on the grounds of why no support to young workers (in apprentice or junior roles) or disabled workers. Certainly disabled workers that are members of trade unions could very well argue that they have given more to trade unions that they, as a category of people, have ever received in return. Those marginal to the labour market are not introduced into the labour market by unions. All of this should be part and parcel of any serious class-based critique of trade unions. Standard (hate the word bourgeois) feminist critiques and immigrant critiques unless they have a solid understanding of who imposed what can all to simply collapse into a critique that says 'get immigrants and women as full-timers and higher and things will get better (for who?) as a result' - missing out the key part their militancy on behalf of/from working-class immigrants and women.
It's simply not a given that minorities dominating a union bureaucracy result in more militant struggle - the only real way to get really representative unions (representative of the working-class).
Brings it onto
Numbers
1 Union membership peaks at the end of Thatcher's first year at 13.3million at an overall density of 57% of workforce.
It is, as described, something that happens in spite of the recession driving out people from work (and membership) from 1976-79. If you plot the late seventies you see overall employment flatlining or contracting, at the same time as overall membership is increasing - in part caused by closed shop systems that come into place with the TULR. The trade union movement still - even at its height - doesn't really break into the bedrock layers of agricultural workers, service workers and small-workplace workers. The missing 43% of the employed is largely made up by the middle-class professions on the one hand, the self-employed (including lump construction), part-time workers, small workplace workers and the lowest rungs of the legal economy (small warehousing, cleaning firms, hotels'n'tourism, textiles, food processing etc) aswell as those in non-union large firms like IBM on the other.
In general there's no way for it to break the lower areas so - if it was able to organise those places freely and happily, it would have been powerful enough to overturn the whole system.
Similarly, if unions were fully representative bodies of migrants and disabled people by comparison with the general population, that would by definition imply strong constantly struggling constantly absorbing bodies, whereas they are bodies that try to damp down struggle and act in a sectional manner to ingratiate themselves with capitalists.
First The Past
1 As technology moved on and capitalism began needing more of a workforce and women started entering the workplace - it became crucial for male trade unionists to organise women which could only be best done on the basis of equal access to all jobs and grades and equal pay. By 1976, 50% of mothers are in paid employment in some form. It is even higher for single women.
The division and segregation the workplace is imposed by ruling-class norms forced downwards.
Two years after the Equal Pact in 1976-77, you still have stuff like this appearing all over the place from official managements and ruling-class bodies:
“the work of a filing clerk... this work is sometimes given to a junior, an office has only itself to blame if it does not care to see that the person responsible for filing really does know what she is doing and why”
“Recruitment of Young Men in the BBC in London: Computer Operations... interesting career for young men”
“work of a shorthand typist... no doctor will necessarily expect his new secretary to understand medical terms without explaining, or telling her where to look them up”
It was the same thing with colour bars imposed by managements often informally with no paper records at all.
Unions obviously collude with this behaviour in many instances - but it's management imposed division.
But importantly, standard feminism even women within trade unions were dismissive of working-class women below. UPW did have women as reps - particularly at Mount Pleasant and on the phones and in clerical side - and none of them any more than the UPW leadership tried to oppose the persecution of the London militants who tried to organise a London-wide strike in support of Grunwicks strikers (could have brought forward the 'winter of discontent' by 2 years).
Grunwicks itself is full of recrimination, but the base of unions (inevitably under capitalism only 18 months after the Sex Discrimination Equal Pay 1975 Act) with men as the majority was much more supportive than the leaderships.
2 Male supported Equal Pay strikes actions
The Equal Pay legislation was used in several instances to completely re-order structures at work.
In the context of pay freezes in some firms men had pay frozen and women were placed onto those rates.
An improvement - equality, but both men and women received sub-inflation increases - so good and bad.
Other firms solidified the segregation by marking out separate grades with separate pay. It was firms doing this by and large not unions.
The male-supported struggles that came against the practices were wider than just Trico's -
Cockburn Valves, General Motors are strikes with full male participation. The threat of strikes all over AUEW divisions ensures equal pay changes in Electrolux, Zenith Carburettors, Tress and elsewhere. Sometimes after the failure of tribunals, which allow the grades loophole to be exploited. Courtauld's sees strikes at several plants securing regrading and equal pay.
Other events like Garner Steak House, various quickly defeated and hence long-forgotten textiles strikes see low-paid men fighting for low-paid women - and vice versa obviously - but because of the structure of unions they do not see the support they deserve. There's a fear of turning X into new Grunwick's, of scuppering Labour's government, of putting 'Britain' out of business. So the strike pay is minimal and the support is almost purposefully absent.
As mentioned, just about every successful struggle is against some layer of TU bureaucracy aswell as the firms.
Internally, the unions that seemed to take promotion and training of reps most seriously were AUEW-TASS and Actors' Equity plus various parts of TGWU.
So, all in all, the behaviour of unions leaves much to be desired on sexual equality grounds. This would have been mitigated by positive discrimination within unions, but not wholly overcome. (AUEW had a positive education and training scheme for women well before 1975.) Given that unions endorse the principle 'fair day's pay for fair day's work' inevitably the struggle of unions screws people/members at the bottom women, migrants new into the labour force, and low-paid unskilled workers. (A good book on this is Twilight Robbery Trade Unions and Low Paid Workers).
That's inherent in all unions, even women dominated ones, bringing us to today:
Today.
1 Unions are now not white male working-class bodies, but have large women memberships and women reps. There is now a woman TUC Gen Sec and women reps outnumber male ones in UNISON trumpeted by U magazine recently it suggests it's not the accent, colour or sex composition of the unions that's the problem but the bureaucratic and pro-capitalist approaches. Would 50-50 wholly representatives overcome that - in part maybe, but not totally.
2 Equal pay - as in the total absence of job segregation via socialised pregnancy and childcare - requires total social change and the no standard unions can produce that. 'Standard' feminism suggests women in board-rooms and women trade union leaders once promoted by general reform-campaigns (where is the social power for this - never answered?) an equalised reality at work will emerge as a result.
It fails to appreciate that cleavages between women at the top (of the union or company) and women below will inevitably emerge. This has sort of happened in UCU after the election of a women gen sec a slate of women on its council, and a majority of women as members at least in its FE division), some assumed that the concerns of women (in the least paid, most insecure contracts) would improve after merger and new training money from the higher-education subs, in fact the opposite has happened. The casualisation continues and increases, whilst the morale and instinct to join amongst women and male non-members remains high (not blaming them).
3 The historic equal pay cases today are a function of the general (sexist) capitalist approach of trade unions. To win equal pay on historic pay claims doesn't help the union in the eyes of the employer or in terms of the unions' own system of working within capitalism (get subscriptions and mediate conflict so you can offer something to the employer in the here and now).
There's still hundreds of thousands - not an exaggeration - of women who worked in the textile industries in the 1970s and 1980s who don't have work pensions at all, and whose contributions were systematically under-recorded, screwed up or just absent. Dozens of bankrupt firms and dodgy firms. There are women who are still missing actual pay from the 1980s. Are the lawyers taking up the case? No. Are unions? No. Are mainstream feminist movements? No. (It doesn't mean lawyers, unions and feminist organisations have nothing to offer anyone).
If we're serious about a consistent criticism of trade unions we could well argue on the grounds of why no support to young workers (in apprentice or junior roles) or disabled workers. Certainly disabled workers that are members of trade unions could very well argue that they have given more to trade unions that they, as a category of people, have ever received in return. Those marginal to the labour market are not introduced into the labour market by unions. All of this should be part and parcel of any serious class-based critique of trade unions. Standard (hate the word bourgeois) feminist critiques and immigrant critiques unless they have a solid understanding of who imposed what can all to simply collapse into a critique that says 'get immigrants and women as full-timers and higher and things will get better (for who?) as a result' - missing out the key part their militancy on behalf of/from working-class immigrants and women.
It's simply not a given that minorities dominating a union bureaucracy result in more militant struggle - the only real way to get really representative unions (representative of the working-class).
Brings it onto
Numbers
1 Union membership peaks at the end of Thatcher's first year at 13.3million at an overall density of 57% of workforce.
It is, as described, something that happens in spite of the recession driving out people from work (and membership) from 1976-79. If you plot the late seventies you see overall employment flatlining or contracting, at the same time as overall membership is increasing - in part caused by closed shop systems that come into place with the TULR. The trade union movement still - even at its height - doesn't really break into the bedrock layers of agricultural workers, service workers and small-workplace workers. The missing 43% of the employed is largely made up by the middle-class professions on the one hand, the self-employed (including lump construction), part-time workers, small workplace workers and the lowest rungs of the legal economy (small warehousing, cleaning firms, hotels'n'tourism, textiles, food processing etc) aswell as those in non-union large firms like IBM on the other.
In general there's no way for it to break the lower areas so - if it was able to organise those places freely and happily, it would have been powerful enough to overturn the whole system.
Similarly, if unions were fully representative bodies of migrants and disabled people by comparison with the general population, that would by definition imply strong constantly struggling constantly absorbing bodies, whereas they are bodies that try to damp down struggle and act in a sectional manner to ingratiate themselves with capitalists.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
On:
We wont get militant struggle by simply declaring genuine (purposeful to migrants/women) struggle is impossible unless you have wholly representative memberships in your unions.
Positive training especially for non-university people of all colours and increased membership of separate sections will come with struggle.
We wont get militant struggle by simply declaring genuine (purposeful to migrants/women) struggle is impossible unless you have wholly representative memberships in your unions.
Positive training especially for non-university people of all colours and increased membership of separate sections will come with struggle.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
That's why it's an analogy.
I don't have a problem with "organising together to fight to change their own class organisations". I'm just wondering how long the fight is supposed to take, cos they're still separate and that's a bit fucked up after 40 years of working on the problem.
The post I linked referred to events which happened in the last decade. The unions actively colluding with employers to undermine the single status agreement they were supposed to be implementing. The single status agreement that was made necessary by the failure to implement the Equal Pay Act of three decades earlier.
The structures need to change, but not the ones that echo divide and rule? I disagree.
See now this is better at least argue against an aproximation of what is happening.
Single Status is far more complicated than what you're saying actually - but what it boiled down to is it affected unions ability to ensure the smooth running of capitalism, so it took a while for the movement to collectively deal with it...
I clearly said all structures need to change (which obviously incudes self organised groups) - self organisation is not the same as divide and rule, do you really think a group of disabled workers who feel their colleagues are not taking their issues seriously should not organise themselves to convince them to - and then continue to organise to ensure things don't slip back or new situations that arise can't be dealt with?
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Unions are actively colluding in all sorts of ways now, colluding to let English lessons for house-wife (domestic labour) immigrant women be cut, so that English for new immigrants in work scenarios ESOL for WORK remains protected. Colluding to let new entrants to pension schemes be disadvantaged whilst the broad whole of the membership on earlier.
About the equality re-grading challenges was that it potentially left many worse off under management impositions, hence some unions were content to go along with the status quo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/apr/18/pay-cut-workers-recession
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Misrepresentation? I'll let that one pass in the interest of friendly co-operation, whilst clocking it with a sticky out tongue smiley.I think this is a misrepresentation of what happened actually- there are two processes at work in parallel that both lead to organisational inertia.
1. There is a professional bureaucracy that seeks to perpetuate and defend its position (and that can be subdivided into various broad camps - but all with that essential element in common), and some members will see building a complex corporate structure as part of that, although they are on the decrease in my view as people wake up to the power of combining network theory with organising as ways of reducing democracy.
2. The need for the union movement to create democratic structures for lay activists to organise themselves (by idenity, industry, sector, workplace, geographical area etc) which have come together piecemeal in different ways in different unions, some of which have then merged further complicating the issue and where no committee, branch, sector group or industrial joint committee or whatever is prepared to abolish itself or it's conferences, meetings, forums etc...
I make no value judgements on either and I don't think either are "bad" however they are clearly not adequate to face the challenges of the future - and they will change - though not necerssarily in the right way or in time.
On the size thing - there seems to be two equally valid schools of thought.
A. Small, proffessional unions that are generally 'apolitical' and focussed can create a clear and strong identity and win real influence in a single relatively skilled industry which is immune from offshoring/undercutting etc.
B. One (or two or three) big union(s).
You've missed out the other two processes from your analysis, namely
3) the role of the unions is modify the employers' demands to their members; and
4) the handing over of many workplace disputes to the judiciary.
I agree with 3 and 4 can I assume you agree with 1 and 2?
If so I think we have an understanding to move forward with, and I will go back to consult my fellow posters before coming back with something that attempts to meet both our aspirations.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I agree with 3 and 4 can I assume you agree with 1 and 2?
If so I think we have an understanding to move forward with, and I will go back to consult my fellow posters before coming back with something that attempts to meet both our aspirations.
You can't assume I agree with anything unless I specifically say so, brother. And I'll not be conceding any points until I've downed tools for a while and made myself a hot drink and had a fag.
Will anyone back you up though? And how will that look to all the poor lurkers who rely on the posts you provide?
Also shouldn't you have provided alternative 1 and 2's rather than contiuing the sequence which surly suggests and acceptance of them and a desire to go beyond rather than to ignore?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Back me up in what? As for lurkers, they're people that either don't have the interest or the confidence to post. They're as likely to be relying on your posts, as mine, or anyone else's.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
And as for your edit, note that I said I was going to have a hot drink and fag before I specifically agreed with them or not, so don't jump the gun to assuming I agree or disagree with them.
Is it an authorised tea break?
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
It's not my place to tell women workers what to do, in the 1970s in Italy working-class women were fed up of the discrimination and began organising separately as working-class womens' unions/'nuclei'. It was effective on its own terms, abortion within a few years, massively increased pregnancy allowances, lots of other things too. Then there was a series of setbacks - heavy repression amongst other things - in the later 70s and 80s, and that organisation was weakened.
It's just tactics - separate sometimes, together sometimes - aiming in the same direction always. Cross-class alliances - immigrant or women - I do have reservations about.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Really?
You liked sihhi saying this:
but I have to walk you through what it means?
Jog on.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Fuck authorisation.
Right, having had my first hot drink and fag I've come back this. I don't disagree with 1 and 2 as far as they go. But unless you factor in 3 and 4 it's not approaching a complete picture (to the extent that a complete picture is possible).
Where I disagree is your division into two schools of valid thought, because there are more valid schools of thought than that including neither one or two, or a more effective combination of both.
What grass roots members want are mainly (a) effective collective bargaining for terms and conditions that includes/is relevant to all jobs in their workplace and (b) effective representation for individual and collective disputes. Yes?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Pretty sure I am using the term in the same sense as sihhi. In terms of the workplace, a highly skilled woman has more in common with a highly skilled man than she does with a low-skilled woman. Hence the lack of progress made solely on the basis of having more women in positions of power within unionism. People with power abuse it, regardless of whether they look like the traditionally dominant group or not.
The EHRC estimated the pay gap for middle-class women who have kids as 4%, compared to 58% for working-class women. Which group do you think dominates in the women's sections?
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
It's not really my place to say why cross-class alliances for women will not work in the long run for working-class women. But in the case of immigrants - the cross-class alliances have been a 'FAIL'.
On the surface it looks better and better.
There are more immigrant MPs from the traditional sources (subcontinent, West Africa and India) than ever before. Plus, the first ever Chinese immigrant politician, Anna Lo, (admittedly only in devolved politics) was elected in 2007 a massive breakthrough and Meral Ece became the first ever Turkish-speaking politician in 2010. But the kinds of people promoted are middle-class people, or in the case of Meral Ece working-class who became middle-class by virtue of the cross-class alliances of anti-racism in the 1980s.
At first a librarian (working-class) then co-opted onto Islington Council's Race Equality Unit, then chief officer for Haringey Community Health Council - in its 1980s high-watermark Bernie Grant era - displaying its commitment to anti-racist healthcare.
Then a Labour councillor in Hackney, whilst doing anti-racist, 'Turkish community' project management work. Labour in Hackney screws itself by hiding a paedophile, half of its councillors become Lib Dems including her. Carries on becomes a Cabinet member in the council for health when Lib Dems win control, does well enough to get appointed by Harriet Harman onto the Home Office's Ethnic Women Councillors Taskforce (anyone remember it?), eventually gets appointed as a Lord.
But by this time the working-class connection is completely severed even though it was probably there in the Race Equality Unit days - wouldn't have been chosen if it wasn't. (Does anyone remember what Islington was like in the 1980s)
The maiden speech in the House of Lords in 2010 hits all the right notes, slave "heritage", loyal service to the 'good parts' of 'empire', the anti-Nazi World War crusade, the childhood of poverty, the work ethic of migrants, inner London in the old days, against poverty, pro-'rich social diversity', immigrants still ending up poor and in crime, terrible damage to mentally-ill immigrants, "disproportionate numbers" etc etc etc
It's all 'correct', but completely inert, and was by chance proved so in 2011 when tweeting:
Middle-class woman attacking 'chav' woman.
This is ultimately what municipal anti-racism produces.
Unless 'privilege politics' really sorts itself out, it's a new version of something that's been around before and doesn't end well.
On the surface it looks better and better.
There are more immigrant MPs from the traditional sources (subcontinent, West Africa and India) than ever before. Plus, the first ever Chinese immigrant politician, Anna Lo, (admittedly only in devolved politics) was elected in 2007 a massive breakthrough and Meral Ece became the first ever Turkish-speaking politician in 2010. But the kinds of people promoted are middle-class people, or in the case of Meral Ece working-class who became middle-class by virtue of the cross-class alliances of anti-racism in the 1980s.
At first a librarian (working-class) then co-opted onto Islington Council's Race Equality Unit, then chief officer for Haringey Community Health Council - in its 1980s high-watermark Bernie Grant era - displaying its commitment to anti-racist healthcare.
Then a Labour councillor in Hackney, whilst doing anti-racist, 'Turkish community' project management work. Labour in Hackney screws itself by hiding a paedophile, half of its councillors become Lib Dems including her. Carries on becomes a Cabinet member in the council for health when Lib Dems win control, does well enough to get appointed by Harriet Harman onto the Home Office's Ethnic Women Councillors Taskforce (anyone remember it?), eventually gets appointed as a Lord.
But by this time the working-class connection is completely severed even though it was probably there in the Race Equality Unit days - wouldn't have been chosen if it wasn't. (Does anyone remember what Islington was like in the 1980s)
The maiden speech in the House of Lords in 2010 hits all the right notes, slave "heritage", loyal service to the 'good parts' of 'empire', the anti-Nazi World War crusade, the childhood of poverty, the work ethic of migrants, inner London in the old days, against poverty, pro-'rich social diversity', immigrants still ending up poor and in crime, terrible damage to mentally-ill immigrants, "disproportionate numbers" etc etc etc
It's all 'correct', but completely inert, and was by chance proved so in 2011 when tweeting:
Middle-class woman attacking 'chav' woman.
This is ultimately what municipal anti-racism produces.
Unless 'privilege politics' really sorts itself out, it's a new version of something that's been around before and doesn't end well.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
From a expenses account in pre-dictatorship hungary. Above me i can little bits of some digital shit or something.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
That's the most mystic comment you've ever made.
You also have/had a reputation of making generally mystic comments.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Good question. They didn't report it IIRC.
And I've just realised I misreported that stat. They gave the overall pay gap as 16% and then estimated the % of lifetime earnings lost by women who had children as 4% and 58% respectively.
I'll go dig out the report.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
That's the most mystic comment you've ever made.
You also have/had a reputation of making generally mystic comments.
There just be a smiley for 'I'm dropping the acid now, will re-commence making sense in approx. 18 hours'.
- Status
Similar threads
