The Guardian vs McCluskey

This post was written by Richard on December 20, 2010
Posted Under: Uncategorized

Giving Len McCluskey the space to outline a stirring call to arms to a battered union movement seemed like a good, progressive move, but then everyone’s favourite liberal rag has steamed ahead with a staunch piece of anti-union propaganda.

I’m going to assume (along with others) that this is the work of Julian Glover, because there’s a smug, self-satisfied air of self-proclaimed leftiness, an assumption that ‘everyone knows’ that strike ballots are good, Blair was bad and the Coalition is the bad guy. (All very strange from a paper which supported Blair, then the Lib Dems). But I’d be willing to forgive and forget, if it weren’t for this vile diatribe:

“The labour movement will not be able to defend and renew what it cherishes if it follows Mr McCluskey up the blind alley of deficit denial, indiscriminate opposition to all cuts, and a programme of strikes which large parts of the country will see as an attack on rather than a defence of the public realm. The labour movement is now in a minority. A large majority of the public are not in unions and do not vote Labour.”

“There are millions in this majority who nevertheless feel threatened by cuts, who fear for the future of the economy and who think the government is too doctrinaire – but who do not approve of increasing deficits, who accept that sacrifices have to made (and shared fairly), who approve of the trade union laws of the 1980s (even if not of Mrs Thatcher), who think Labour can learn positive as well as negative lessons from Mr Blair, and who are not excited by battling the police or a new wave of strikes. Mr McCluskey’s priority ought to be to reach out to these people, showing he understands their lives and looking for innovative ways of addressing their anxieties. Instead, like a true Bourbon, he sadly sounds as if he stopped thinking in 1979. What a waste.”

Woah. Let’s start with the declining union membership.The reason that union membership is so low is not just because of anti-union laws or the decline of industry, but also because of a lack of militancy within the movement. By beating the drums, McCluskey is getting people to join. Union membership is on the rise.

As for the voting public, Richard Seymour has argued well that if we take into account the fact that the government had to be formed through coalition, alongside decreasing voter turn-out, then the Tory vote has actually never been lower than it is now. And arguabley those who don’t turn out to vote are, in general, alienated Labour voters. Again, a more militant party would increase the Labour vote.

There are two ways of reading the second paragraph. One is that McCluskey needs to find ways of talking to people who aren’t yet convinced of the left’s arguments against the Coalition government. But the other is as a call to ignore the left’s counter-arguments and, whatever happens, never, ever to take strike action.

Of course, Glover wants a nice reasonable end to all this nuisance. Not strike action, but rather something innovative. Like what Julian? Asking the boss nicely to not cut everyone’s wages? Letter writing to your local riot police? Perhaps all the Guardian interns could be subcontracted to Acas, as a gesture of solidarity between moderates.

The references to ‘deficit denial’ show that Glover is unwilling to read any of his own paper’s content on disaster capitalism, and the repeating of the Cameron-esque ‘sacrifices to be made’ is evidence that no one in the Guardian editorial office is paying attention to Brooker or Rowson’s satire. And the dig at being ‘excited’ by battling the police shows that they’re certainly not reading what Paul Lewis and Matthew Taylor have been reporting from the streets. Frankly, it’s quite repulsive to know that people are up for treating police violence against protesters so mockingly.

I just hope that some of the better Guardianistas read what their editors want the readership to believe, and how low their opinion of your reporting is. And when the chips fall, I hope you all go on strike, just the way they don’t want you to. It’s perhaps fitting that the editorial begins with the name of one of the most notorious traitors of the French revolution.

Like this article? Print it, email it, Stumble, Facebook and Tweet it:
  • Print
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Live

Reader Comments

Carl Packman

Brilliant, speedy, on the ball as usual, but remember there are more rightwhingers and coalitionistas in the Guardian than Glover, don’t go getting yourself sued you’re a force for bloody good!

Written By Carl Packman on December 20th, 2010 @ 1:46 am

Big respect, you pipped us to the post on this one. I’ll pop a comment on directing people over here. Here’s our response. Lets get the blogosphere to make the Guardian backtrack by lunchtime!

Written By Political Dynamite on December 20th, 2010 @ 1:49 am

I was stirred to comment on this on the Guardian website, I’ll repost the comment here:

“This is an ill-considered article which actually refuses to engage with most of what McCluskey wrote.

OK, the Labour movement is in a minority, but every movement that has ever existed has been, in an absolute sense, in a minority. The Conservative Party comprises a minority of the population too, as do its supporters. What’s your point?

In fact, by backing the Coalition of Resistance, Unite is recognising to an extent that a defence of public services requires an alliance of workers and users.

The “stuck in the past” argument is tiresome when it is applied to anything, because it conveniently side-steps reality. If co-ordinated strike action does take place in 2010, it is clearly not a thing of the past, because it is happening in the present. Calling something an anachronism is just a way of refusing to engage with it or analyse it properly.

I’m no fan of McCluskey (I’m much further to the left than him) but I will absolutely defend him against these lazy caricatures, and he is right to call for renewed union militancy.

What is the Guardian’s alternative – that we should vote Liberal Democrat again, perhaps…”

Written By EddM on December 20th, 2010 @ 1:50 am

Best blog post I have read at the thirdestate (admittedly I have only been subscribing for the past month).

Still you hit all the nails on the head in the coffin of the Guardian editorial’s shameless anti-left, anti-working class, obsequious pro-government propaganda.

Written By New1deas on December 20th, 2010 @ 2:58 am

Unless a european wide union of coordinated action is pursued;each individual government will pick off single country protests with ease.

Written By James on December 21st, 2010 @ 11:12 am

What was the context of this comment on balloting McCluskey’s supposed to have made, is it just about the pointless bureaucracy Thatcher & Blair introduced into the balloting process to take the teeth out of it or is he opposed to balloting per sé? And in what sense if the latter – does he believe officials should have the first and last say on action or does he favour spontanaeous wildcat action?

Written By Kaze no Kae on January 8th, 2011 @ 2:01 am

Add a Comment

required, use real name
required, will not be published
optional, your blog address

Please leave these two fields as-is:

Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 480,474 bad guys.