Which Side are you on?

[gallinello]

Visited the ICA yesterday evening to see a screening of Ken Loach's banned documentary: WSAYO?

A moving, committed piece of political cinema; it showed the brutality of Thatcher's well-paid, militarized, police force, the experiences of miners, their wives and families, and the songs and poems that the strike produced.

The film was bookended by a talk, interview and discussion with the director himself, touching upon the history of the strike (how the Tories had been planning this conflict well in advance and had, in place, a well-thought out strategy); the nature of documentary film-making, then and now; current economic and political struggles; Iran, and the failure of the Left to unite and offer a credible, fighting alternative to the three parties of the Right.

An inspiring, stimulating evening and the good news is that this documentary can be seen this Saturday (20/06) night on Channel 4. So Dulwichites can view and decide for themselves!

Let the ranting commence........

[macroban]

> banned documentary

Really? A little revisionism here.

Where do I join the East Dulwich branch of the Fourth International?

[blah]

Were you around for the Miners strike gally ?

Thatcher, the Filth & the Monolothic unions all used the duped workers for their egotistical political games.

left or right - its just another coloured flag to wrap yourself in - sometimes we get so involved in the semantics, we lose track of where the root problems lie.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Were you around for the Miners strike gally ?

Probably NOT working then but he/she has read about it on the Internet and watched many Left-Wing Documentaries so is now an "authority" on the Subject.

One of us spent 16 years in The Coal Industry Gazza.

Even met Joe Gormley ( Who's he? did you ask?)

I'll give you a clue, its either me or you....:))

....and it almost certainly isn't you M8...:)

[blah]

shitty shitty times TLS

[Tony.London Suburbs]

blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> shitty shitty times TLS

There were blah---especially having to work a 3-Day Week M8....

Some of us didn't have to do anything until The Government made us work 3 days...and without electricity...( true)

[Tony.London Suburbs]

The second part is the "true" bit...no bleedin' electricity...can you positively imagine the lil darlings coping now...B)

[gallinello]

Ah, the intelligentsia of ED have risen from their slumber!

In '84 I was a 19 year-old postman, Labour Party Young Socialist activist and UCW Union Rep. We used to have regular collections for our brothers and sisters in the NUM and mining communities. We all gave what we could, because we believed that an injury to one section of our class was an injury to all of us!

I haven't actually seen too many left-wing documentaries and I don't need to trawl the internet; I've got plenty of history, politics and economics literature - from all spectrums! - on my bookshelves and, like most of us I suspect, I carry around a personal, subjective history in my memory.

Tony, you were a miner and a printer? My god, what a popular character you must have been during all these bitter, class struggles. What with your forward-thinking, progressive views 'n' all!

Saturday night, Channel 4!

In addition they will also broadcast director Mike Figgis and Turner Prize-winning artist Jeremy (Dulwich resident!) Deller's film The Battle Of Orgreave, which features a reconstruction of the famous clash between miners and police, and the documentary Strike! When Britain Went to War, made by Blakeway Productions.

Open up your minds, and your hearts!

[macroban]

> Labour Party Young Socialist activist

RSL?

[woofmarkthedog]

gallinello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, the intelligentsia of ED have risen from their

> slumber!

>

> In '84 I was a 19 year-old postman, Labour Party

> Young Socialist activist and UCW Union Rep. We

> used to have regular collections for our brothers

> and sisters in the NUM and mining communities. We

> all gave what we could, because we believed that

> an injury to one section of our class was an

> injury to all of us!

>

> I haven't actually seen too many left-wing

> documentaries and I don't need to trawl the

> internet; I've got plenty of history, politics and

> economics literature - from all spectrums! - on my

> bookshelves and, like most of us I suspect, I

> carry around a personal, subjective history in my

> memory.

>

> Tony, you were a miner and a printer? My god, what

> a popular character you must have been during all

> these bitter, class struggles. What with your

> forward-thinking, progressive views 'n' all!

>

> Saturday night, Channel 4!

>

> In addition they will also broadcast director

> Mike Figgis and Turner Prize-winning artist Jeremy

> (Dulwich resident!) Deller's film The Battle Of

> Orgreave, which features a reconstruction of the

> famous clash between miners and police, and the

> documentary Strike! When Britain Went to War, made

> by Blakeway Productions.

>

> Open up your minds, and your hearts!

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's times like this i feel so very angry at my middle class parents, for making me so out of touch & stupid. I mean at 19 I was tossing myself off , eating spag bol and riding round fields on an old motorbike for kicks (not at the same time mind you)

I used to think being sent to boarding school at 4 years old as cold, harsh & un-loving, but character building.

Now I'm having to rethink all that, reading threads like the one above.

Oh Blo*dy hell..

[gallinello]

Socialist Organiser Alliance supporter, but had Militant friends; found them all too dogmatic though, like Marxist Salvation Army types!

Oh no, you tricked me, Macroban, you drew me out into the light, cover's blown!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

gallinello Wrote:

... in the NUM and mining communities. We all gave what we could, because we believed that an injury to one section of our class was an injury to all of us!

gallinello : I'm being genuine here M8.

This is why I will always like and enjoy the company of people like yourself.

Guys who GENUINELY who have big heart who are compassionate and care for the wider Community. If I lived near you I would have done the same. The Left sympathisers are, in many ways, much nicer people than Right-Wingers and certainly less selfish. In most cases I would suggest.

(at this point I admit I would even, almost certainly, like that damn pain-in-the-arse Sean as well though we would irritate each other, no end.

Its just that, as you know, two sides to every dispute.

gallinello:

Tony, you were a miner and a printer? My god, what a popular character you must have been during all these bitter, class struggles. What with your forward-thinking, progressive views 'n' all!

tls: I was neither galli.

I worked In Fleet Street and Bouverie Street ( opposite The Sun) for The National Coal Board.

I wasn't a Miner but a White-Collar worker in the financial side of the Industry.

They de-centralised the White Collar workers to Sheffield/Donny and Nottingham.

[Marmora Man]

The title of this thread is itself a statement of intent.

Why should the population of this country be divided into sides?

I would suggest that the majority of the UK population seeks nothing more than a quiet and pleasant life with sufficient material and cultural assets to provide for themselves, their family, their entertainment and their aspirations.

Different political parties offer different routes to this nirvana - and the rational among us pick and choose from the political menu to select a preferred government. Reducing politics to a tribal battle between "them" and "us" is divisive and potentially as explosive as the racism rightly deplored in other threads.

A moving, committed piece of political cinema; it showed the brutality of Thatcher's well-paid, militarized, police force, the experiences of miners, their wives and families, and the songs and poems that the strike produced.

That extract doesn't ring out as an objective and balanced view of the 1984 Miners strike - it seems to me that this "committed piece of political cinema" is aimed at portraying a one sided polemic.

I'm sure the Government planned for a possible miners strike - 9 years before such a strike had almost brought down a moribund government with an outdated policy, damaged the economy and initiated a general election on the question of "who governs". It would have been irresponsible not to have a contingency plan. Equally I'm sure the leaders of the miners unions had similar considered this - and presumably put in place their own contingency plans.

Gallinello is I'm sure still a committed political activist - I'm a committed political participant too. Good luck to us both. However, replaying the "Thatcher Years" after 25 years and casting them as solely a period of brutal class war is not only incorrect but is also hardly relevant to today's issues. It makes me feel that Gallinello hasn't progressed in his / her political thinking and philosophy over the last 25 years.

[gallinello]

TLS, respect to you!

I know that there are two sides to every dispute, but there comes a time in these conflicts when one has to decide which side to take.

Loach's documentary takes its title from a song written in the '30s, (if you're interested) :

In 1931, coal miners in Harlan County were on strike. Armed company deputies roamed the countryside, terrorizing the mining communities, looking for union leaders to beat, jail, or kill. But coal miners, brought up lean and hard in the Kentucky mountain country, knew how to fight back, and heads were bashed and bullets fired on both sides in Bloody Harlan.

It was this kind of class war -- the mine owners and their hired deputies on one side, and the independent, free-wheeling Kentucky coal-miners on the other -- that provided the climate for Florence Reece's "Which Side Are You On?" In it she captured the spirit of her times with blunt eloquence.

Mrs. Reece wrote from personal experience. Her husband, Sam, was one of the union leaders, and Sheriff J. H. Blair and his men came to her house in search of him when she was alone with her seven children. They ransacked the whole house and then kept watch outside, ready to shoot Sam down if he returned.

One day during this tense period Mrs. Reece tore a sheet from a wall calendar and wrote the words to "Which Side Are You On?" The simple form of the song made it easy to adapt for use in other strikes, and many different versions have circulated.

Edith Fowke and Joe Glazer, Songs of Work and Protest, New York, NY, 1973, p. 55.

Come all you good workers,

Good news to you I'll tell

Of how the good old union

Has come in here to dwell.

CHORUS:

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on?

My dady was a miner,

And I'm a miner's son,

And I'll stick with the union

'Til every battle's won.

They say in Harlan County

There are no neutrals there.

You'll either be a union man

Or a thug for J. H. Blair.

Oh workers can you stand it?

Oh tell me how you can?

Will you be a lousy scab

Or will you be a man?

Don't scab for the bosses,

Don't listen to their lies.

Us poor folks haven't got a chance

Unless we organize.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Right On My Man!

Makes a mental note to read "The Road To Wigan Pier" ...

[gallinello]

Marmora, how the political landscape/culture has mutated into the society in which we live today has everything to do with the brutal class conflict of 25 years ago, and, therefore, documentary evidence from those times, and the testimonies of the social subjects who participated in those conflicts, is correct, vital and relevant to contemporary issues.

Loach produced and directed this document as an attempt to counter the distortion and lies being generated by the Media of the day.

And, whilst you feel confident in bandying around terms such as objectivity and subjectivity, I'm curious to know how you are able to question my political and philosophical development over the intervening quarter century, do we know each other?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

As Max Boyce would say " I WAS THERE!"...>:D

[Marmora Man]

And, whilst you feel confident in bandying around terms such as objectivity and subjectivity, I'm curious to know how you are able to question my political and philosophical development over the intervening quarter century, do we know each other?

No we don't know each other. However, by posting your views you put them up for question. I met and argued with many holding the views you profess back in the 70's and into the 80's. Your views appear to be unchanged, while the political dialogue has moved on.

NOTE: Both in my first post and this I used the words "it makes me feel" and "appear" - these are my opinion - I'm not stating them as fact but as a debating point.

[AllforNun]

In addition they will also broadcast director Mike Figgis and Turner Prize-winning artist Jeremy (Dulwich resident!) Deller's film The Battle Of Orgreave, which features a reconstruction of the famous clash between miners and police, and the documentary Strike! When Britain Went to War, made by Blakeway Productions.

F...ing hell when a blazer wearing Dulwich College boy makes a film about the Miners and Channel4 four wrap it all up in a revolutionary flag......we are all truly fucked.....let's torch 4 and send the liberal fascists who reside within down the mines.

[gallinello]

NOTE: Why don't you address the first two points/paragraphs, Marmora?

It MAKES ME FEEL that you haven't progressed in your political thinking and philosophy over the last 25 years, and that truly saddens me. After reading your postings of the last week, with particular reference to the pre- 1948 Health 'system', (or rather, lack of one!):

"Pre 1948 there was, contrary to popular belief, a pretty decent healthcare system. Consultants worked fro free in charitable hospitals, employers ran 1p week subscription clubs to also subsidise healthcare etc."

It APPEARS that your political views are positioned somewhere in the middle Stone Age, but I'm aware you will probably take this as a compliment you old, Paleolibertarian, Tory-Boy, you!

[Marmora Man]

Gallinello:

Which Side Are You On? was commissioned for transmission as part of the South Bank Show but was not shown because of its "highly partial view on a controversial subject". London Weekend Television, the commissioning company, felt that it was more of a political film than an arts film.

Loach's brief was to make a programme that showed what the striking miners were writing and singing. He felt that this was what he delivered and was angered that the programme was banned on the basis that it overstepped official guidelines on political impartiality.

Loach has always felt that no documentary can ever be neutral or 'balanced' (and nor can the news) and he acknowledges that he made the film entirely from the miners' point of view.

Gallinello - the above came from a film review site.

I don't feel the need to address every point every time I comment on a post - however, I'll give it a go this time.

Para 1:

You use the term "brutal class conflict" - what evidence do you have for this? I would suggest it was an industrial dispute, albeit one that government had prepared for and the miner's union hadn't. I'll grant you that there was brutality - but on both sides and where it happened neither party comes comes out well. Documentary evidence - where is that - Ken Loach the director admits that his film was not / is not a balanced piece of history.

I'll grant you also that yesterday's history informs today - but a simplistic and partisan description of events is not history. My position is that events, industry, industrial relations, social relations, political activity and theory have all moved on significantly since 1984. Re-engaging in old discussions about past difference does not take today's debate forward.

Para 2: Ken Loach made his film to portray another side of the dispute. It doesn't make it any more accurate or truthful, just a different perspective.

Taking on the final para in your most recent post:

How does referring to history "Pre 1948 there was, contrary to popular belief, a pretty decent healthcare system. Consultants worked for free in charitable hospitals, employers ran 1p week subscription clubs to also subsidise healthcare etc." demonstrate that I haven't moved my political position?

A little research into social history will reveal that what I said in the lines you quote is true - the health system pre 1948 wasn't perfect, but it existed and helped the majority of people through a network of community, charitable and municipally funded hospitals, clinics, district nurses and GP practices, individuals received financial support where necessary from Saturday Clubs and other health funds managed by trades unions.

Today's health system isn't perfect either and there are many criticisms that can be rightly levelled at todays NHS. The pre 1948 system worked and and relied upon self belief, responsibility, self help, community spirit and philanthropy. All traits I applaud.

I have worked in the NHS and still work in the healthcare sector. When I joined the NHS I took onboard the "group think" and supported the prevailing view that it was the finest health system and the envy of the world. After a few years knocking about the world and experiencing different health systems I am able to challenge that group think.

I agree I'm a libertarian - but not an unthinking one. I have voted for the Conservatives and will probably do so again. I have campaigned for the Liberals in the past and have also deliberately witheld my vote - I did not vote for the Heath adminsitrations in the 70's. Does this admission make me evil? Or not worth listening to? Or not worth engaging in debate with?

[gallinello]

Marmora:

" My position is that events, industry, industrial relations, social relations, political activity and theory have all moved on significantly since 1984. Re-engaging in old discussions about past difference does not take today's debate forward."

How many workers have been sacked at the Lindsey oil refinery? Just watch the spread of solidarity strikes as the workers react to this latest example of class conflict.

Whilst we have economic oppression and this current crisis of Capital deepens; with hundreds of thousands of more job losses yet to be visited upon our citizens, I'm afraid my analysis and belief system will remain fixed on the need to overthrow this rotten, outmoded, unjust, wasteful system.

Incidentally, I consider you neither evil, unworthy of listening to, or engaging with, in political discussion, but our positions are quite obviously at polar extremes of the spectrum. Although, the withering away of the State, now there's a discussion to be had....

By the by, will you watch the transmission on Sat. night, in order that we can discuss?

[Marmora Man]

Gallinello,

I will record the programme and review later.

The Lindsey Refinery workers are on an unofficial strike. They were asked to return to work - they didn't. Legislation has existed since the 70's that allows an employer to dismiss staff under such circumstances. The leaders of the strike appear to be both unaware of this legislation or have determined to ignore it.

Either way they let their members down - bad tactics on their part compounded by stating unequivocably on the Today programme this morning that they will only return to work if every single worker is re-instated. That kind of rhetoric is again poor tactics. That it has arrived at this point is, to my mind, evidence of poor management by managers and union leaders - not conspiracy against "the workers".

In better managed businesses the management and staff work together in the best interests of the ongoing business - cf: Honda and other car manufacturers minimising redundancies and going on short term working - everybody shares the pain but in the long run the business survives.

I do not see any of this - the miners strike, or the Lindsey refinery strike as class conflict. They are industrial disputes - about how to best manage the business in the interests of all - workforce, shareholders and management. I very much doubt there will be many, if any, solidarity strikes.

The forthcoming part privatisation of the Royal Mail is, I assume, an issue close to your heart. Yet the Royal Mail must take action to reduce its costs and improve efficiency - and in particular action to improve management and resolve the vast pension liabilities. I have heard much rhetoric from those on the left about fighting the planned part privatisation - and undoubtedly the current weakness of Brown's government has made the plan less likely to succeed. If the opposition succeeds, and the Royal Mail continues unchanged - then it will damage the long term prospects of the Royal Mail. Is this class conflict, a dispute about strategic options, a question of who manages or simply another industrial dispute in an area and cultural relic of the archaic nationalised industry mindset. As an observer it looks like the latter to me.

Good to read a post from you to me that didn't contain an insult - thanks.

[gallinello]

Marmora,

You are correct when you say that the plan to break up OUR Postal Service is an issue close to my heart. Although I left the Post in the early 90s, I still have good comrades and new connections within that sector, forged quite recently through my current union work.For this reason I'd like to provide you with a little information to explain today's example of class struggle.

Following the 2007 postal dispute, an agreement was struck that ensured both the company and the union worked together to improve efficiency. This agreement has ensured that the company has built steady profits. The last part of that agreement is to agree modernisation of the business. Royal Mail are now ignoring that element of the agreement and implementing arbitrary cuts in costs without modernising.

Dave Ward, CWU deputy general secretary, said: "Royal Mail is blocking modernisation by refusing to negotiate change with the CWU. We have offered a moratorium on all strike action if Royal Mail will suspend executive action and enter into meaningful negotiations. We want to bring forward the successful transformation of the business by working together. They need to honour the 2007 national agreement and work with us to achieve that. There is growing unrest across the country as Royal Mail tries to impose damaging cuts and changes without the input of union reps. The future of the business must be safeguarded through careful planning, not shooting from the hip. Postal workers deliver a first class service but the current cuts and attitude of management threatens that and worsens services. Royal Mail can avert this strike action by pulling back from arbitrary cuts and negotiating modernisation with the CWU."

Fighting invective from a politically-motivated Baron, or reasoned, balanced words from a pragmatic workers' representative?

Incidentally, I meant the closing line of my penultimate response to you to be taken as affectionate recognition of your political stance, not as an insult.

[Marmora Man]

Gallinello,

The Royal Mail situation as I understand it. There are actually four separate businesses:

1. Royal Mail - letter and packet delivery

2. General Logistics Systems, a pan-Europe company providing parcel, express services and other logistic services

3. Parcelforce Worldwide, the express parcel service and the UK arm of GLS

4. Post Office Ltd - running post offices

in 2007 a parliamentary committee described the Royal Mail as much less efficient and less profitable than its main European peers, stating that it was ?the least profitable postal company amongst its Western European peers, and the only one to make an operating loss." The report gave reasons for this relative inefficiency, they were

a. The network mail centres and delivery offices, which have not been rationalized

b. The lack of automation in sorting and walk-sequencing

c. Inefficient working practices

d. Pay set above market rates, leading to a situation in which labour costs at Royal Mail Group were among the highest of European postal companies.

In addition I understand that every 1% fall in GDP creates a loss of approx ?300m in Royal Mail Revenue - so taking 2008/09, 09/10 and probably 10/11 into account the Royal Mail is looking at the loss of ?1b in revenue, this in a business that is scarcely breaking even at present.

Given the above I want to make a few points - on which I'd be interested to hear your thoughts:

1. The postal service of UK is just that - a service. It has no role above and beyond the efficient collection, distribution and delivery of letters and parcels. It could be a for profit or a not for profit service ? but it must be efficient and should not cost the tax payer money.

2. Since its inception in the mid 19th century until fairly recently is has been, effectively, a monopoly service. Such a position usually erodes enterprise and imagination in a business.

3. Changes in communications has impacted severely upon the basic service - faxes, e-mails, independent courier services have all reduced the market for Royal Mail services.

4. The Royal Mail business model no longer seems fit for purpose.

5. To survive it must adapt and change - but, in the words of the old Irish joke, if you want to get there I wouldn't start from here. For years Royal Mail has trimmed a bit here, cut a bit there, modified delivery times a little, changed targets but it has not been subject to any fundamental overhaul.

6 Royal Mail management and the CWU seem to have different interpretations of the agreement to work together to modernise.

7. Both the management and the CWU seem to be rooted in an out of date model of business and consultation ? and if they cannot move on from this Royal Mail is destined to fail slowly and at great cost to the tax payer, its staff and the declining number of users.

I still don't see any of this as a "class struggle" - it looks like a failing business that needs radical action to keep it whole and operating. The first priority must be maintaining the business in existence, once the patient is off life support other issues can be tackled. I can understand that you argue from a left of centre / marxist and presumably a belief in state ownership - but to me the issue has nothing to do with political theory and is a more pragmatic question of how best to deliver a service. Your description was about process - not about the ultimate purpose and business role for the Royal Mail.

If I were a manager within RM I would want to be radical:

a. Divest any loss making, or potential loss making services where the competitors are already far ahead.

b. Rationalise mail centres and delivery offices ? selling off redundant real estate, ideally to fund the pension shortfall.

c. Work with staff to resolve the inefficient working practices, lack of automation and proper use of IT for sequencing. (I have no knowledge of these ? but anecdotes from friends who worked as postmen during university years and many recent articles on the subject all indicate there is scope for improvement).

d. As part of c. above negotiate pay deals that, over time, reduce the total staff cost of the business ? both by reducing the absolute number of staff and also their rates of pay. My experience of public sector would suggest that such actions would fall as hard, or harder on the middle and senior management as on front line workers ? and that is right. Management should exist to make the work of those delivering (no pun intended) the service simpler, in the public sector all too often this is not the case and they simply get in the way.

PS: Apologies for length of post but I read yours at lunchtime and then thought about my response while travelling.

Also - on withering of the state - I would love to see it happen.