Half United We Also Fall (Part 2)

So where was I? Oh, yes, the Unions, "who held the country to ransom in the 1970s." It's fantastic, isn't it, to listen to individuals, whose Daily-Mail-fashioned view of the world, in their own eggshell minds, has now entirely usurped fact, objective thought, or even genuinely personal opinion? Apparently, it's now what they actually 'think.' Worse, it's what actually 'happened!'*

"Everyone's entitled to an opinion!" Well, yes, of course, barring genuinely offensive thoughts (and those usually tend to 'slip' out anyway), but my contention is that the planet would be so much the richer were those 'formulated opinions,' based far more upon genuine personal insight and a closer observation, rather than upon the festering bigotry that is being spoon-fed by the likes of The Daily Mail.

"Apologies" to the Mail; it's just that more than one or two individuals whom I happen to know partake of this paper's particular brand of social intolerance, covert racism and jingoism. In fairness, many of the 'alternative' tabloids offer a similarly repugnant slant on current affairs. Hope that clarifies this point.

My frustration- it should really be far more widely shared- is that individuals whom I know to be, in many respects articulate, urbane and 'seemingly open' to contra-opinions, daily subject their minds to this ostensibly right-wing propaganda. A particular favourite of one elderly lady is, "I think Mrs Thatcher was good for the country."



Thank you, Romel

Well, where to start? An 'opinion' 'formulated' through decades of Mail-Express-Sun-Telegraph exposure. There really should be some sort of protective mind-cream that one can slap on- SPF 100+ should do the trick! My particular response, tongue-bitingly proffered, is usually, "Good? Please be more specific." And, of course, that's often where the short 'discussion' tends to stall, based on the thoroughly-well-documented fact that Mrs T did nothing of value for the working people of the UK. We live today, in her demented wake, with the ballooning damage that her plague of greed has biblically visited upon 'our' planet.

Other oft-encountered preludes to 'opinion' might include, "I know what I think!" Hmmm! And, "The Daily Mail is an easy 'source' of news and, politically, I 'know' where it's coming from." Somewhat like stretching out 'harmlessly,' beneath a sizzling summer sun, uttering the words, "I know I should really bother with some skin protection but..." And that's fine, as long as you 'know' you're effectively perfectly protected within an invisible and impervious shell.

My recollections of the 1970s, in so far as the Unions were concerned, are based largely upon power cuts and an almost rabid hatred of Unions in general, care of the family newspaper at the time, the Daily Mail. T'was then a 'more serious' paper, broadsheet format, so pretending to take a more objective view of the world. That 'we' have seen even this remnant facade of decency stripped away- now bullish tabloid and proud!- also marks an alarming shift, in very much the wrong direction.

When the lights went out we lit candles and pondered the possible conclusion to the film or drama that we may have been watching. What was never really made clear, at the time, was that when a Union action spilled over, to affect the wider public, that this had invariably been by 'mutual consent,' the action of the Union's members with the 'consent' of the Management/Company. That is not to write that the action was ever the most desired option of management, but then this could also have been fairly written of the Union. The point of 'agreement' would have been that the requested improvement to working conditions or pay would have been denied, thus permitting power cuts or other Union action to broaden. Had the workforce not been unionised, then, perhaps pay and conditions would have been permitted, instead, to worsen; Management and Company would have been content and the outcome would invariably have been deemed no longer newsworthy.



Also to Tela Chhe

Perhaps, before 'we' consider jumping, so heavy-footed, onto the anti-Union bandwagon we should make time for such ponderances.

I recognise that many visits to one's GP are now far more akin to a short interview with a particularly frugal accountant. Several years ago I had an anomaly burnt from my forehead. "A wise precaution, as these aberrations can sometimes develop more malignant cells," would have been an approximation of my then GP's diagnosis. More recently, "Let's wait and see, shall we?" appears to have sufficed. Well, a hearty thank-you, and best wishes to your family, Doctor. At what point in the future might I be permitted to question your appraisal of my health?

The Health Service may be sinking fast, in the hands of the Tories, but had Clement Attlee's and Aneurin Bevan's Labour Party, as heavily funded by the Unions, not been victorious in the 1945 Election, then we might have found ourselves with immeasurably more pressing health concerns, some of us.

When the Luddites set about opposing the introduction of greater technology, initially into the textile industry, battling with the British Army and generally smashing up the place, there was actually a strong rational, and a moral standing, to their methods. Backs against the wall, they were effectively fighting for their livelihoods, their means to feed, house and clothe their families. "But you can't fight 'progress!" the bosses, and what ever passed for The Daily Mail at that time, would have wailed.



Thanks also, to Brian Talbot

Nor should we. But what we should do- much like that naive TV programme, 'Tomorrow's World,' was always 'suggesting' might happen- is to ensure that technological progress, or any other kind for that matter, is doled out relatively fairly. Otherwise we find ourselves operating under a different kind of apartheid, whereby 'our' society surmises itself increasingly subdivided; the wealthy and the rest, men and women, whites and non-whites, the healthy and the sick, Muslim and non-Muslim, Christian and Pagan. Certain divisions are already evident, others less so, a comprehensive list would occupy more space than one might imagine. The point being that 'progress' unevenly divided is only really 'progress' for some sections of society, that it might transpire to be precisely the opposite for the rest of us, invariably the majority. And that, historically writing, the Unions and their ilk have been a means of attempting to ensure a fairer distribution of 'progress.'

When The Tollpuddle Martyrs were being vilified by the 'free' press- was it even referred to then, by its current misnomer?- and being sentenced to transportation to Australia (by no means then the holiday destination it is today), it was because they had attempted to collectively gain better working conditions. Well, 'we' couldn't have Unions holding the country to ransom, could 'we?'

And when The Suffragettes found themselves with too much free time, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, all of that confounded railing-chaining and mail-burning wasn't just because they were bored, it was because- administrative cock-up, political oversight, call it what you will- somebody had 'forgotten' that half of the country had no right to vote. Oops! Emily Pankhurst was so outraged that she attempted to head butt the King's horse!

When the 'right to vote' was finally extended to women in the UK, less than 100 years ago, it was still thought prudent to ensure that only the landed classes would be  troubling the polls. A societal concession aimed more at prettying-up the vote than affording it the opportunity to do any serious damage to the status quo. Most women still had to wait a further decade, until 1928.

Bizarrely, my late grandmother, given her Sun-reader great affection for Mrs T, and oft-spoken soft spot for, "the darkies," whilst living in Apartheid South Africa, would, quite likely, have regarded The Suffragettes as extremely bothersome.

Until the mid 18th century less than 3% of the UK population were permitted to vote; not markedly less, I would imagine, than the percentage of viable voters who today make any significant difference to the system. Had collective bodies of men, like the Sheffield and London Corresponding Societies- surely Unions by any other name- not campaigned for universal manhood it is doubtful that those languishing in the parliamentary bars would have deigned to even notice, or care. And, when, in the afterglow of the French Revolution, voting rights were reluctantly extended, care was again taken, to ensure that only the landed gentry would be on hand to largely endorse the inequality that parliament habitually chose to perpetuate.



And, finally, thanks to Adam Foster

Procrastination and obfuscation were pretty much the order of the day, and for many days henceforth, until, reluctantly and with a fair deal of snot and tears at every minute concession, universal suffrage was achieved. Kicking and screaming, it took approximately a century to get there, during which time a great many collective bodies- shall we term them, "Unions holding the country to ransom"- had been or were involved.

Lest you should, mistakenly, consider it a case of job done, let me refresh your ailing memory, regarding two highly topical instances of current regression within 'our' social system.

Firstly, there is the instance of non-Unionised Sub-Postmasters, whereby The Post Office were freely able to blame and recoup monies from more than 100 workers, because of a recently discovered glitch in The Post Office's computer software. Non-guilty individuals were duly ordered to make up non-existent shortfalls of up to £9,000 and, in some cases, also made to serve gaol sentences. The corporation duly used its enforcers, the legal system, in order to hasten a resolution. Best not to overburden the system with bothersome things like justice or facts. "What's that you say? A computer glitch? Oops, sorry! No hard feelings." Thank the Lord above that there weren't any troublesome Unions to muddy up the waters.

And secondly, I hear that The National Farmers Union- this one a 'good' Union, a boss's Union, much like the Confederation (Union) of British Industry- is currently pushing for the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. No doubt so that they will be able to give their workers a whacking great, inflation-busting pay-rise, or, alternatively, perhaps a significant cut in employees' already overly-low wages. Who could possibly say?  

Perhaps, when all is said and done, all options perused and considered, if one is really so very, very anti-Union, one should wash one's hands of all of their doings. Go on, dig your heels in, none of that working wage nonsense for you, none of that interfering NHS shenanigans, none of those workers' rights- shortly to be extirpated anyway- and do be careful not to vote against anything Union. Of course not, it was the bloody Unions who fought for and earned the interfering right to vote anyway. Dirty, dirty voting!

Feudal Britain here we come! Have you missed us?

* It's not what actually happened.