Huge turnout for Nov 30 shows new developments in activity, and some political mistakes

Huge turnouts in rallies and marches across Scotland have given the lie to those politicians who have been accusing union leaders of bullying and intimidation. In Glasgow and Edinburgh march and rally attendance topped the 10K mark in each city. Glasgow had to put on an overflow rally meeting to cram ‘em all in. IIn Edinburgh the sight of SNP MSPs joining ConDem MSPs going through union picket lines inspired double the ‘permitted’ number of marchers to cram into the square outside the parliament and listen to an equally inspired Rodney Bickerstaffe demolish the attempts to divide public and private sector workers. “If one person has a leg cut off,” he said does that mean everyone has to have their leg cut off, because it’s not fair?”.  

Rallies and marches took place across Scotland. In Kirkwall, Aberdeen, Moray, Inverness, Motherwell, Dundee, Falkirk, Dumfries, Glenrothes, Paisley, Livingstone. At all of them organisers were reporting double plus the numbers expected. While an estimated 300,000 took strike action in Scotland, around 30,000 also went on marches and rallies, picketed and gave other support.

In Glasgow ‘UNISON have filled the gathering point on their own!’ tweeted the PCS. The demonstration started at 12.30pm and the last got moving at 14.15pm! Those who could get in to the Barrowlands heard UNISON’s Scottish Secretary, Mike Kirby point out that “It could cost this country up to £15 billion to support the millions of private sector workers who have been locked out of saving for their retirement."

A number of commentators watching the rallies have been struck by the changing nature of the strikers. Trade unionists, they were certainly, and angry they were too, but they were not the traditional ‘middle-aged male’. Mike Kirby and Dave Prentis both pointed to the key role being played by women in leading the strikes, and others including the president of the National Pensioners Convention, Rodney Bickerstaffe noticed the high proportion of young people involved in the action. Many of the strikers were involved in their first industrial action, and some of the unions taking part - especially small clinical professional bodies - mark a new development, never having taken strike action before.

Are we seeing a new generation of activists taking the  lead? It is maybe too early to say that this marks a significant shift in the levels of collective activity in the young, or in women, or that there is an ‘arab spring’, but there is certainly something in motion that political and trade union leaders ignore at their peril.

The political fallout from the strikes will be interesting, given the  new numbers of activists. My old colleague Dave Watson has blogged about the position here in Scotland and I think his analysis is sound, if a little easy on the major tactical errors made by the Scottish Government. Yes there are very good trade unionists in the SNP ranks, but they are more than outnumbered by their backwoods colleagues. First Minister, Alex Salmond, who rejected union calls for a suspension of the Scottish Parliament, was booed when his picture was held at the Glasgow rally. 

The ConDems in Westminster, too, have seriously misjudged the mood of the nation. Opinion polls and media straw polls for some time now, have been showing increasing support for the strikers, and Tory ministers like Francis Maude and Danny Alexander have been thrashing about trying to find a tactic to demonise trade unions. Now Cameron’s pal, Jeremy Clarkson has let the cat out of the bag. Calling for strikers to be shot in front of their families, is exactly the logical conclusion of Tory government and Daily Mail vitriol. Not that Cameron will be pleased by his dinner pals intervention. The Tories - instead of going on the offensive - have had to spend the day distancing themselves from their fascistic supporter. The BBC too (not for the first time) have spent the day digging themselves deeper into a hole. One does wonder what it would take for the BBC to actually address the damage this presenter is doing to them? As it is they flounder gracelessly making ‘apologies’ that compound the felony.

Media and government attacks will get shriller as November 30 looms - here (hopefully) is some sense.

As the day of the biggest strike in recent history looms we can expect well-heeled government ministers like Francis Maude and Danny Alexander to ramp up the levels of hysteria, media commentators to attack the ‘unfairness’ of ‘gold-plated’ public pensions (from the right) or bemoan the ‘choice of target’ for the strikes (from the centre-left) and politicians to attack each other over tactics. In such a febrile atmosphere, it is handy to hold onto a few counters to the main myths peddled by such people.

Here are some. Public pensions are affordable now, and are likely to become more so in the future. Who says so? Not the PCS or other ‘militant TU leaders’ but the Assistant Editor of that comfortable read for Tory ministers, the Daily Telegraph! Yes Jeremy Warner, back in March pointed out that the Hutton report had identified that these pensions have peaked at 1.8% of GDP currently, and even without his ‘reforms’ will now decline steadily in cost. (interestingly, while he repeats the ‘crowding out’ myth, he also argues for better pensions in the private sector) - ‘there is something plainly unsatisfactory about "race to the bottom" policy, or levelling public sector pensions down to the disgracefully low standards that rule in the private sector.’

Of course, it is also the case that public sector pensions support the private sector. Something that polemicists on the other side tend to overlook as they scream about paying for ‘gold-plated’ bureaucrats’ pensions . As well as fair pensions meaning that pensioners can buy goods and services from the private sector, public pension funds are huge investors in private industry. And, as they are successfully and sustainably funded - UNISON estimates that £300m more is going into the Scottish LGPS before investment income, than is being paid out in pensions - that means, as Scottish Secretary, Mike Kirby says ‘Current attacks on both pensions and on public sector employment will be bad for the schemes - and in the long run bad for the economy. The UK Government won’t be putting any of the money they raise or save from stealing from pensions into the schemes - just using it to pay back debt run up to bail out their friends the bankers’.

The strikes are understood and generally supported by the public. Despite the constant battering of government and media attacks, the BBC is today reporting that 61% in an opinion poll they ran believe public service workers are justified in going on strike over the issue. That backs up previous straw polls run after the large UNISON vote to strike. These polls were run in the rabidly anti-union Daily Star, whose readers out-polled the liberal Guardian in support of strikers, and back to our old favourite - the Daily Telegraph. (Might have to think about changing my reading!).

Of course, many of those polled will be strikers or colleagues or family or friends themselves. The voting turn-out in the union ballots is phenomenally good, despite what Francis Maude and others say. Many of the MPs who lead the attacks on trade union democracy a) would give their eye teeth to have levels of support like these and b) are themselves directly responsible for the difficulty in getting improved turnouts in union ballots. Using on-line technology would have helped, (as indeed would workplace ballots), and at least one of those methods has been approved in principle, but not yet put into law. Even so, the ballots from the 30 unions, across many thousands of employers (UNISON itself balloted members in nearly 9,500 employers) show a huge consistency and massive level of support. The best summary is on the impressive ‘Pensions Justice’ site.

The level of support and the breadth of union coverage on this dispute also answers some of the (deliberately?) misinformed attacks by some ‘sympathetic’ commentators that pensions is the ‘wrong issue’. That unions should all co-ordinate a strike over ‘cuts’. Would that they could!! Failing to understand the realities of ‘Trade disputes’ in legislation despite having had them explained, could be put down to deliberate disinformation, more likely it indicates a deep-seated prejudice that is proving immune to reason.

Finally, the (somewhat cheesey, but well-intentioned) supporters single continues to build support. Watch and buy it here. The AFL/CIO (after Wisconsin) went for Tom Morello’s ‘Union Town’!!

See you on the picket line!!

Does increase in ‘constitutional froth’ mar our Scottish media?

In a previous job, a colleague used to regularly advise us to be aware of what he would call ‘froth’ in some reporting of the political scene in Scotland. By that he meant stories that were headline news in some or even all newspapers, and consisted of opposing politicians attacking one another. These stories (of which there were many) were distinguished by the topic of the debate/discussion being either of minor importance, or incapable of any kind of resolution by the combatants involved, eg a consultation.

This has come to mind again recently. It currently seems that a whole raft of spats are being created in the media by pronouncements from Scottish or  Coalition Governments (or Labour Opposition). From consultations on gay marriage, and Scotland’s rail travel, through pronouncements about the impact of independence on the Scottish economy and renewable energy targets to even the furore over ‘doing-gate’ in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the sight of our politicians attacking one another over the constitutional question is becoming less and less edifying (or significant). 

To add to the spectacle, the reporting of these tiffs - from uncritical adoption of the participants’ view of their importance, to the sensationalist bigging-up of the ‘rows’ - seem to blank out sensible analysis and investigation of the issues at all. How much of this is due to continual cuts in journalistic and editorial resources, and how much due to the predetermined political stance of the media in question needs further study, but it does not lead to good reporting.

Now I don’t want to suggest that the individual topics and issues have no validity or importance, at all. Heaven forfend that I might suggest that the Catholic church secretly approves of gay marriage, for example! Or that CitiBank may have a vested interest in rubbishing renewable energy per se. But it is interesting how these disputes tend to end up concentrating on the ‘Referendum’ when we all know that this is some years away, and will not be able to be run successfully unless Westminster and Holyrood come to some agreement (or at least armed neutrality) on key issues. It isn’t even yet clear whether the SNP want a one or two question referendum - or what that would mean for any result!

Am I alone in thinking that at least part of the reason for this froth is to distract us from the key issues that impact on people in Scotland, and the failure of both legislatures to address these? And that this suits both of them?

After all, is Alex Salmond be pleased or upset that George Osborne attacks Scotland’s investment record? Is George Osborne? Is Salmond reasonably happy to be seen as a ‘modern, liberal-thinking FM’ over gay marriage? And while the archaic and macho operations of Westminster are indeed something to be opposed (as we all did in the Constitutional Convention, hoping and planning for a more co-operative and mature Holyrood!) is the SNP ultimately pleased to leave a vacant seat in the Scottish Affairs Committee and wash its hands of a scrutiny of the Scotland Bill where it doesn’t have a majority? Incidentally, the best comment on this episode must be by Joyce MacMillan in her Scotsman piece (on her blog here).

So there can be good reporting. We do have journalists (like Joyce, but not only her) who can blow away the froth and get to the nub of the issue. But increasingly this role is reserved for the commentators. News reporters tend to slot happily into pre-ordained nationalist or unionist tracks, using hyperbolic prose to inflate partisan pronouncements and prejudices into ‘facts’ or suggestions of ‘facts’. (I thought the idea - seriously mentioned by a senior Scottish reporter on Wednesday - that the Electoral Reform Society was part of an anti-SNP ‘conspiracy’ was the nadir of this tendency!)

The latest fight appears to be over an almost unbelievable consultation document on Scotland’s rail transport from Scottish Government agency, Transport Scotland. If you hadn’t had previous with this agency, then it might even look as though the outrageous suggestions in this document were there deliberately to be able to be removed as a ‘listening response’. I have to say that my experience suggests that they are not that forward thinking. But as Scottish Government ministers line up to distance themselves from their own organisation, a suspicion must remain.

At the end of the day, when people are crying out for an economic policy that addresses the crisis we are in, and uses the excess profits of the finance industry to support those who are suffering because of the fallout from the banks’ criminal risk taking, how are our governments responding? Apparently, by ignoring these problems in favour of claim and counter claim about ‘running Scotland down’ or ‘breaking Britain up’.

When two establishments are trying to tell us about the overwhelming importance of the constitutional question, we need more from our media than unquestioning/sensationalist reporting - from whichever side of the constitutional divide. It is also particularly important when the parliaments both have a built-in majority, compliant in one case, and scared in the other, that they are held to account. In this our media has a crucial role. When will we see it adopting this important task?

Stirring the clear yellow water of independence

I was rudely awakened this morning by the sound of the normally calm, urbane and sophisticated Gerry Hassan shouting at some poor unfortunate on GMS! Intrigued as to what had exercised our commentator I listened further. Turns out that this outburst had been occasioned by a disagreement over Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore’s claim that independence would require two referenda to be administered before being achieved.

Gerry was otherwise minded and his ‘opponent’ Alan Trench got both barrels. (Although we found out later that both actually agreed on the advisability or otherwise of this approach.)

But it did suggest to me that Michael Moore might have inadvertantly raised an important procedural point. At what stage does a referendum take place? And what agreements have to be in place before it actually achieves what it sets out to do?

Amidst all the fog of independence-lite, and devolution-max, a number of crucial questions remain to be clarified before clear question(s) could be put to the Scottish people. Ones that immediately come to my mind are - monarchy or republic? boundaries? single currency or sterling? armed forces and defence? There may well be more and each of these - I would hazard - might cause disagreements, not just between unionists and nationalists, but even within the ranks of nationalists. Debate on them could take some resolving, but might make considerable difference to the views of voters. How much would an ‘independent’ Scottish monarchy under a ‘UK’ crown, using ‘UK’ currency, and defended by ‘UK’ troops be ‘independent’ for example - whether the ‘K’ stood for ‘Kingdom’ or ‘Kingdoms’? Would we be more independent in the Euro - shall we ask our Irish, Greek or Portuguese colleagues? Land boundaries might be obvious (leaving aside the question of Berwick-on-Tweed) but what about marine boundaries?

Would any negotiations around these (and other) questions be resolvable by agreement? What happens if the parameters are not agreed? Could we simply leave them to some constitutional court. At one time we might have looked to the UK Supreme Court, I suspect its even-handedness might now be a little more in question! So where would we go now? Europe?

This murky water, I think, is where Michael Moore has placed his size 11s. If we are talking one referendum, then the answers to these (and no doubt other) questions need to be clear to we who are voting. If not, then any early referendum would be about aspirations and would need to be followed by negotiations. On the outcome of these would rest any further vote.

It might be, as Gerry alluded this morning, a device for the British state to draw out and confuse the discussion, but I suspect two factors suggest that this isn’t likely. One, is that within nationalist ranks it seems there are some who are already flying kites on some of these very questions - coming down too definitively on one side or the other may not be in the interests of a united pro-independence campaign. Secondly, are we so sure that Cameron will be too concerned about a separate Scotland? It might be in his political best interests.

Meanwhile, the important (and more concerning) statement that the UK government was not inclined to devolve any more powers under the Scotland Bill, has almost slipped by unnoticed. Is this a ConDem double bluff? Do they want to hand such a key stick to the nationalists?

Party time for all in Scotland? 1 - the Scottish LibDems

Now that the final losing Scottish party leader has had the visit from the ‘men in grey suits’, it is perhaps appropriate to look at what the results might lead to for all our political parties.

For the LibDems it is clearly desperation alley. Tavish’s too-precipitate resignation (from a LibDem party perspective who with any credibility is available to take over?) is surely so he can say more forcefully what he was hinting at in the final days of the campaign. That is that participation in the ‘cuts coalition’ - in particular after a General Election campaign predicated on ‘ a LibDem vote is a vote against Tory cuts’ - is leading to a massive haemorrhage of the LibDem vote, especially in Scotland where it was never the volatile ‘floating voter’ option that it is south of the border.

Ironically this will not lead to a break-up of the coalition. Indeed the spectre of a mass cull of LibDem MPs by the electorate north and south of the border if an election was to be called will concentrate their minds wonderfully. Plus, of course, Nick Clegg knows this is his only chance of a sniff of power - possibly for ever - and is most unlikely to threaten that. Despite his sabre-rattling over the NHS, he is only demanding what Tory cabinet ministers are already planning for the NHS in England & Wales.

In any case he and the rest of the ‘orange-bookers’ in the LibDems are probably more at home with the Tories in the UK Government than they are with the mainly social liberals of the Scottish Party. However, a split in the party is most unlikely at this stage for the reasons above and below!

Is Clegg himself likely to be challenged? After all the party faithful have allegedly only stuck with the strategy of accepting coalition to deliver PR, and this must now be dead for the foreseeable future. But the LibDems have always been capable of ignoring almost diametrically opposed positions of its elected representatives, and this won’t stop now. 

More likely is a quiet drift away of activists, similar to the Labour Party’s losses in the Blair years.

However, it is likely that the Scottish party will take an increasingly separate line from that at Westminster. Who the new leader is will tell us this. Whether it improves the Scottish party’s position is doubtful. It will take more than this to overcome the betrayal their voters feel. In particular voters do not like to be obviously lied to, as Clegg admitted doing when he said on TV that he knew during the General Election campaign that major and urgent cuts were needed, yet continued to call for a LibDem vote to prevent such cuts. Neither will the coalition change tack on its economic policies. 

The Scottish electorate is now very sophisticated. They know how to vote tactically to deliver their message. This time the message has been primarily aimed at the LibDems (and also at Labour), last year it was aimed at the Tories. Who is next in the firing line?

There is a better May - unions and artists come together to take the next step in the campaign

Yesterday Glasgow Friends of MayDay, a new group of activists and artists set up to increase support for Glasgow’s MayDay celebrations, launched our 2011 programme. It is a series of events covering the three days before Sunday May 1 when the traditional MayDay March and Rally takes place in Glasgow.

Actor and director David Hayman, musicians Dave Anderson and Arthur Johnstone, and poet Tom Leonard will all perform concerts from Thursday 28 to Saturday 30 April at the STUC Centre. There will also be a night featuring film and a lecture on the UCS work-in, 40 years ago this year; stand-up comedy as an antidote to the Royal Wedding; and a Northern Soul night. The full programme is
available on http://may1st.org.uk

There are a number of reasons behind all this cultural activity. Firstly, we want to challenge the ConDem government’s attack on MayDay, by rejuvenating the International Workers’ Day celebration in Glasgow. Working with the Glasgow TUC and the STUC, far from scrapping the holiday, we aim to extend the celebrations and in following years build events in local communities as well, ensuring that they too can enjoy MayDay celebrations.

We also want to challenge the Tories’ economic policies. After the huge success of the 26 March Demo in London this will be another step in the campaign to defend public services from their cuts and say that There is a Better Way.

It is entirely appropriate that this is a broad cultural and artistic celebration. The arts are facing the same attacks as public services. In taking part in this, artists are linking with the main campaign.

We are particularly delighted that Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite, is to be the keynote speaker. Trade unions are facing direct attacks by this government. Far from all of us being ‘in this together’, it is clear that they plan to mount another attack on the rights of working people. The government plans to dismember the only major institution campaigning for working people and their families. Successful celebrations such as May Day send a signal that ordinary people see through their divide and rule tactics.

MayDay celebrations have been part of Glasgow’s calendar since the early 1900’s.  In the past we welcomed such stars as Paul Robeson, and Daniel Ortega. Maybe it is a little early to aim for the 70,000 that joined the 1918 march, but we hope to work with community groups and others to raise the profile once more.

Tickets for the events can be obtained on line at http://www.eventbrite.com/org/863793523?s=3059565

Action on pensions would be part of the anti-cuts campaign

It was only to be expected that the report of the Hutton review into pensions should mean the opportunity for big business supporters to have another go at the fair pensions provision in the public sector, but it is a pity that an otherwise balanced and well-informed columnist, Iain MacWhirter joins such unusual attackers (Sunday Herald - 13 March 2011). This is the latest in a series of his irregular attacks on the pensions of our nurses, police, classroom assistants, social carers et al, and seems to be on the point of becoming obsessive. He isn’t alone in these attacks, but they usually come from well-known free marketeers and private sector defenders, not independent (in the true meaning of the word) commentators.  

He also seems to think that Trade Unions work ‘top down’ and that all any General Secretary has to do is snap their fingers and the membership walks out. Quite the reverse is usually true. Union members - particularly those in the public sector - put up with a lot before becoming angry enough to strike. But attacks on their the pension they agreed to, contribute to and depend on, is something that does irate them sufficiently. Any TU leader would be well advised to think carefully before suggesting a line similar to Iain’s.

Unfortunately, in the past, Iain’s attacks have not exactly been accompanied by any clear arguments or indeed factual justification - he has in the past been known to quote approvingly from that bastion of anti-public sector misinformation - the Tax Dodgers’ Alliance in support of his campaign. This time he uses more reputable sources, including  the Institute of Fiscal Studies, although the figures he comes up with do seem similarly questionable. In particular the government figure of £7,800 for an average public sector pension seems very high, when we know that the average in one of the biggest schemes (Local Government) is only £4,000+. How is this average almost doubled? Certainly other public sector schemes are unlikely to vastly inflate the average, given that they are all based on salary, and that no public sector pay is that large. And the small number of very well-paid public sector staff (yes, there are a few, mainly in the Civil Service and NHS schemes) are unlikely to raise the overall average.

However, one way this figure might have been increased is if the pensions awarded to senior private sector bankers who have been bailed out by public sector investment are taken into account. I don’t know if this has occurred, but I have seen other figures from think tanks and others that now include these people as part of the ‘public sector’. This is significant in two ways. One, it distorts the real cost of public service provision by adding in the inflated bonuses and other private sector waste, thus assisting the arguments of the ConDems and others who point to these inflated figures as justification for ‘cutting the public sector’, although almost never the ‘new’ part of it. On the other hand it does provide a useful highlight for those who wish to see it, illuminating just what sort of salaries and pensions senior managers in the private sector receive. Whatever the reason, that figure needs further explanation.

Of course most people working in the private sector get far less than either figure, and Iain’s view appears to be ‘because we private sector staff have had our pensions robbed, then the public sector should as well’. Bitterness - however well justified - has never been a particularly good basis for public policy decisions, and is not so here. It is true that many decent, affordable, private sector pension schemes have been shut to new entrants/ removed completely/replaced by far cheaper (to the employer) schemes (delete where applicable), but that does not mean we should accept the demands of the same robbers who perpetrated these scandals to do the same to our public service workers. 

The real ‘pensions apartheid’ is the difference between the level of pensions enjoyed by many private sector directors and senior managers and the levels that they are now forcing their workers to accept. One of the reasons for the private sector average being so low, is the closures and cutbacks that private sector directors and managers have forced their workers to accept. Decent pensions for our workforces in both the public and private sector should be a right, and employers should be forced to face up to their responsibility. Where they don’t we should support workers in the fight to achieve and maintain a decent pension - whether they are in the private or public sector. Indeed one of the strongest private sector dispute in recent years - at INEOS in Grangemouth - was on exactly this issue.

Should the attack on public sector pensions advocated by Lord Hutton lead to an industrial dispute (and the leader of the largest public service union has already called for the government to negotiate), public service workers should be supported in their campaigns, in exactly the same way as private sector workers fighting for a decent pension. Hopefully this co-ordinated attack (and let no-one doubt it is co-ordinated) will be met by a co-ordinated response across the public and private sector workforce, starting with a massive demonstration on March 26. The stories of ConDem scab preparations to undermine and defeat the workforce in the event of public service strikes remind all of us of a certain age of Thatcher and the miners. No-one is pretending that public service workers and their unions are miners, and any major dispute will have to be handled with great subtlety. But it WILL BE part of the overall struggle against the false economy being adopted by the governments in the UK. To suggest that low-paid public sector workers should simply sit back and accept these attacks will be damaging to the overall campaign and, far from threatening future joint action with the community over cuts, could help to make the links stronger.

Netrooting around London

On Saturday, hundreds of 'activists' - of a variety of ages, shapes and political creeds - piled into the TUC in Bloomsbury to listen, talk and discuss - as well as tweet, blog and video - the role of 'new media' in building campaigns. Billed as Netroots UK the conference was backed by the TUC as well as a whole range of bloggers and progressive online campaigners - eg Clifford Singer (False Economy and The Other Taxpayers Alliance), Sunny Hundal of Liberal Conspiracy, Anna Nolan of the Robin Hood Tax Campaign and Chris Coltrane of UK Uncut among many others.

By the way - if you aren't yet a fan of UK Uncut, have a look at its website, which gives the lie to the theory that if people are on the web, they aren't campaigning in the streets!

I was there, and my pre-event anticipation was evenly balanced. On the one side hoping that this was going to be the beginning of a major drive to use on-line campaigning in the drive against the ConDemNation, and on the other, fearing that it would descend into either futile hand-wringing, or the sectarian infighting so common when the left get together. It was, of course, none of these. Although there were attempts by some to lead us down the road to the People's Front of Judea - the conference sensibly resisted that, and indeed the other option of turning into a 'lefty wankfest' predicted by one of the more cynical of my TU colleagues here in Scotland.

Helped by the aim being more about identifying how different media can assist in campaigns and what they are good for, the conference spent most time in workshops looking at particular campaigns and use of specific tools - the use of Twitter during student occupations to 'widen the room' and deliver information from within the occupations minute-by-minute impressed me greatly, as did the use of Google maps to spread the information on where the police were 'kettling' demonstrators during the tuition fees demos!

Twittering was going on apace during the sessions, and identified strengths and weaknesses. I had a conversation with a friend I hadn't known was at the event Indeed I never actually found him in the flesh!), but it was also used to comment on sessions as we experienced them and often overplayed the 'cynical hack' persona. Why is it the journos too often think that they should be the only ones whose view of issues is valuable?

It also struck me that there is really nothing new under the sun. The session on getting your message across to the wider media was so like a short media training course I expected Mary Maguire to appear! (we got Kevin Maguire instead). Likewise the need to plan your campaign, set your targets and be aware of your weaknesses. Nigel Stanley's (TUC) analysis of arguments we have so far failed to win, was much more useful than Sunder Katwala's (Fabian Soc) superficial  '30% are for us, 30% are against us'.

Ultimately the day also avoided the error of trying to put all our campaigning eggs in the digital basket. On-line is an increasingly important challenge to the mainstream media and should be used more - especially by those of us who don't think that mainstream reports us fairly. But it is not a substitute for face-to-face contact (any more than print is). We need to use it. So why were there so few delegates there from the (UK) Trade Unions - especially their Comms teams?

Cable gaffe does not mean Coalition in trouble - just the LibDems

Vince Cable’s ‘gaffe’, and those of other LibDem ministers, has - as many commentators have speculated - shone a light onto some deep fissures in the ConDem coalition.

However, it is not between the LibDems and the Tories that this split has widened, but in fact between the social and the economic Liberals - between the ‘Orange bookers’ (including Mr Cable, himself) and the local populists. Now we see why those of us in Glasgow, have little or no memory of Mr Cable’s period as a Cooncillor. He just wasn’t that good!

His excessive outburst about Murdoch -  does he really want to wage war? - means it is the liberal marketeers - in both the LibDems and the Tories - who are rubbing their hands. And it is why they can still support the old buffer. How else could they allow Mr Murdoch to increase his stranglehold on the UK media?

I can’t think of any politician - of the right or the left - that thinks (in public anyway) that News International gaining unfettered control of another major media organ is good news for us or for politics. But to the free marketeers, anything that stands in the way of millionaire businessmen spending their money the way they want, is bad economics. And, despite all the arguments to the contrary, they are predisposed to let Rupert have his way. That is, those who are not already predisposed to suck-up to him anyway. Vince has now allowed this to happen.

To all those who speculate about Vince’s resignation, or enforced reshuffling and any consequent split of the coalition, I would point out the overwhelming desire amongst key LibDems to cling onto power at all costs. Even at expense of the party itself, which is now far more at risk. Don’t overestimate the loyalty of Clegg, Laws, Alexander et al.

Any split will almost certainly not happen for a while if at all. The illusion of power is probably the hardest one to wake up to - particularly if your party hasn’t experienced it in living memory. But this latest affair has exposed the differences between the Orangeers - Nick Clegg, David Laws and Danny Alexander et al - and those party members who grew up during the period of the Liberal (in particular) campaigns on local democratic issues.

The Orange Bookers have far more in common with Cameron and Osborne than their election pronouncements would lead anyone to believe. The BBC  in 2008 reported Clegg as ‘advocating a huge increase in private sector involvement in schools and the health service. "Marrying our proud traditions of economic and social liberalism, refusing to accept that one comes at the cost of the other - on that point, if not all others, the controversial Orange Book in 2004 was surely right."’

He argued for the creation of schools financed by just about anybody - parents, charities or voluntary and private organisations, suggested radical reform of the NHS, allowing patients to be treated free in the private sector and opposed tax increases.

So, don’t be surprised that if splits come, they are in the LibDems, rather than between the LibDems and the Tories. But this will not, of course, mean a split in the government. Nick & Co will be as at home (maybe more so) in the Tory Party than their current abode. 

And don’t think that even this will happen soon. Vince has fed the story that the LibDems are a ‘radical wing’ in the coalition. It may be an illusion, but don’t bank on any LibDems waking up to it soon.  Power is - after all - what all those shiny-faced newbie party workers came to work for the party for!