Workers revolt over globalised labour. Will the Left listen?

While Gordon Brown tries to create a new world order in Davos, the Refinery strike in North Lindsey and its support at other power stations demonstrate the level of anger towards the economics of immigration and globalised labour. Total's employment practices show that we have gone further than merely allowing immigrants to come to Britain and compete for work; the unrestricted movement of goods, capital and labour encourages employers to treat workers as another unit of resource to be transferred at will across national borders. After all, it is rational to shop around if a saving can be made and why not ship in Italian and Portughese construction workers rather than using locals?

BBC and Sky News report the view of the Labour Government: “But a Downing Street spokesman said the IREM contract had been agreed 'some time ago when there was a shortage of skilled labour in the construction sector in the UK'.” So much for British jobs for British workers - and this is at a time of rising unemployment. But how skilled are the requirements of this work? And haven't the government been spending taxpayer billions on training schemes to fill the skills-gap?

The problem is that under EU law, this practice is entirely legitimate. The free market in labour was conceived initially, I think, as a a way of rivalling the United States, getting beyond petty national interests; there was probably some assumption about a social market and fair treatment of workers; big business would have liked the flexibility this freedom would bring; and liberals would cherish the freedom of movement and resulting creative diversity: the so-called vibrancy which all enlightened people are supposed to celebrate. Consistent as Total's labour policy is with internationalist ideals, it offends many of our deeply-held moral assumptions, namely that a company should be working with the community where it makes its money; that governments have a duty first and foremost to defend the interests of its own people. These views are now-old fashioned, parochial; consequently they are discarded by an alliance of the enlightened voices of the internationalist Left and the more down-to-earth financial motivations of global Big Business.

We see how the free market in labour allows the development of a amoral version of free-market capitalism, where workers become another unit of resource, like goods and capital. They can be moved about from country to country if the economics are right - or more correctly, if the politics allow it, because the politics to a large extent determine the economic rules of engagement. With restrictions on the movement of labour, employers would be required to look for their workforce in the country where they operate. Such a framework might still allow some high-skilled workers to be employed, but we have to realise that flexibility in the labour market changes company behaviour: it is not just that a company will find a better-qualified person elsewhere if they need to: they will actively look for people outside because it is likely they can take on people more cheaply, who are prepared to work in conditions that the companies like. Why shop on the High Street when you can shop on the Internet? Why employ from a pool of British workers when you have an EU-wide (often world-wide) pool available, some of whom, by simples laws of probability, are more likely to fit the bill.

The free-market in labour allows companies to aggressively undercut local labour; if this leads to higher unemployment in the area of operations, that is not their problem; in fact, the Government are happy to support the long-term unemployed using the taxpayers of middle-income and low-income earners. State-sponsored Welfarism and globalised free-market economics complement each other very well. If you were a low-paid or even middle-paid worker, why would you work when you can get money on the dole and immigration policies are driving down your wages? When to work is to lose housing benefits, child credit allowances and to pay more taxes? - and companies can drive down wages if they don't want to pay the going rate. The workers think it is not a level-playing field.

They are right, it is not a level-playing field. This is why the workers are revolting. And how revolting they must seem to commentators on the left who are already criticising Gordon Brown for his British Jobs for British Workers speech in front of the Unions 18 months ago. They say correctly, like Krishnan Guru-Murthy on Channel 4 news, that Gordon Brown's promise is inconsistent with the EU law and globalising agenda which he supports: EU laws for EU workers. Well done, Krishna, for highlighting the Government's hypocrisy. But Guru-murthy was wrong in implying that the speech somehow created the discontent. The injustice is real and deeply-felt by workers across Britain, not just those with leverage like the Power workers. It gave the strikers a hostage to fortune, a phrase they could throw back in the Government's face; but it didn't create the issue.

The workers' union, Unite, are stressing that they have been lobbying the government on the issue: “Unite has raised the growing problem of UK workers being excluded from important engineering and construction projects at the highest levels of Government”; they must have been doing it very quietly. There is some talk that companies must "give UK workers equal opportunities to build Britain's infrastructure", but no campaign against the overall employment framework. Note that the strike is still unsupported by the union; not just because of the lack of a ballot, one suspects, but because the Union does not want to support it. It might be seen as xenophobic, or anti-EU; it might suggest that the Labour Government's polices diverge from the views of its core supporters. This consensus might be cracking now as (reported by Sky News: see link) one Unite official described it as "a total mockery"... "There are men here whose fathers and uncles have worked at this refinery, built this refinery from scratch. It's outrageous,". The BBC's report, linked to above, states that "Unite's governing national executive has called for a national protest in Westminster, and joint general secretary Derek Simpson said it was consulting its lawyers over the legality of engineering and construction employment practices." They seem to be led by their own workers on this issue.

Maybe the unions, like the rest of us, have been intimidated by the combination of pro-immigration and blackmail and the intellectual stranglehold of free-market economics over the West's intelligensia. Or their leadership is as seduced by left-wing internationalism as the Labour and Liberal Democrats. Given a decade's deafening silence from the Trade Unions about the effects of immigration on the wages of low- and middle-skilled workers, one could be forgiven for thinking that they also care more about solidarity with the Left than solidarity with the workers. Why do their members pay union dues? I suppose it is so they can get good redundancy settlements when their jobs are taken by foreign workers, either by outsourcing to abroad or by cheap immigrant labour at home. The evidence that newly-arrived immigrants will live and work in poor conditions is well-attested; how could a father from this country compete, who needs to support his family and pay a mortgage?

This issue is front page in the Daily Mail, and also in the Daily Express, but was curiously muted in the editions of the left-wing Guardian, whose website have picked up on it today. The Independent's leader describes the strikers as protectionists, declares its support for globalisation and blames Brown for his "British Jobs for British workers" speech, which is a typical example of how pious internationalism is now firmly part of the liberal-left's default view. I would expect the BBC to relegate the issue to second level if they can, and to concentrate on how Brown's rhetoric has inflamed the situation by giving the strikers a false perspective or inflaming their easily-led passions, or some such patronising flannel. The fact that Cameron's response was to blame Brown's British workers speech as encouragement for the BNP will aid the left-wing agenda because equivocation from the Conservative party will allow the pro-globalisation, pro-immigration BBC to claim that they are being balanced.

Obama wants Embryonic stem cell research - and more PR provided by the Times

Obama signs a bill allowing US funding for organisations that promote Abortion and is about to release state funding for embryonic stem cell research. As if by coincidence, we have a press release by Geron masquerading as objective news in the London Times: Stem cells give hope to accident victims says the paper on 23rd January, front page. This is being followed up on the 24th by another big story. The operative word is "hope", as the potential of embryonic research has not yielded thereapeutic results. The Times article on the 24th January by the same author, Mark Henderson, their Science editor, Blindness is the next target for stem-cell therapy after US trials at least has some dissenting comment from experts in the field, asking people to lower their expectations.

The potential for implanted embryonic cells to heal is also a potential for them to create tumours in the host body. This is because their dynamic role in developing the embryo into a foetus makes them unstable, thereby undermining their use in therapeutic applications. The hype over embryonic stem cells is a triumph of faith and hope over science - as well as a triumph for scientists lobbying for Government cash. Every mainstream news article I have ever read on this subject obscures the disctinction between adult stem cell research (successful and ethical) and embryonic research (failed, unethical).

I also believe that a lot of ideological investment goes into embryonic research: it is a buttress for the pro-abortion culture, another weapon in the battle to instrumentalise the embryo and to desensitise the public to the moral issues by justifying the destruction of embryos in the name of medicine. Embryos are the start of human life; where else can it be said that an individual life begins other than conception? Secondly, it allows the progressive lobby to cast the debate in terms of objective science and anti-scientic religious opinion, as if this were Galileo Vs the Catholic Church all over again: many casual observers of current affairs will support this research because they are inundated with the avalanche of propaganda in favour of it: after all, who wouldn't want to cure degenerative disorders and advance medicine?; but there are many "informed" people who support this dubious research because it allows them to align themselves with the forces of "progress": to make a gesture of approval for Science and against what they see as Superstition. They are responding to the pressure of an ideology, not the scientific facts. Leaving aside the simplification of history that has led to the prevailing view of the Galileo story, it is in fact the religious view on embyronic stem cell research that has proved to be better science, as shown by the evidence on the success of adult stem cell treatments and the failure of embryo-based therapies, while the supposedly scientific view - that this research is justified by its results - is ideologically committed, not neutral at all.

The Obama inauguration

On Obama inauguration day, there were notices in my workplace mentioning the schedule of the day - as it turned out the BBC were covering the whole thing; the facilitator at an event I was attending suggested we finish early to watch it; and though I din't want to be part of the admiring crowd, my colleagues in the office were tuning in to listen on the Radio. Admitting defeat, I went to the CNN videocast, and was glad I did so. The Americans do ceremonial well and the inauguration of a president is a moving event, not because of the personalities involved, but because it emphasises that the powerful leaders of the day are part of a noble tradition.

People say he is cleverer than Tony Blair. I'm sure this is true; he has picked a more experienced team than New Labour in 1997. As much as I dislike Obamamania, I am a glad to see the back of the Republicans as anyone; a John McCain victory would continue the failed policies on Immigration, Foreign policy, Free Trade and allow the Republicans to defer as ever to Big Business and the neo-conservatives no matter what the cost to their countrymen. With defeat, they might reconnect with American interests, if only they can ignore the modernisers. David Cameron won't get elected here because of his progressive views, but in spite of them. The BBC might approve but most British voters see Cameron and his posh yes-men (yes-people) as shallow. It would (almost) be worth seeing Brown win an election just to get rid of them; "almost" - on that "almost" rests Cameron's political future.

On some issues, Obama might be better than Bush; he couldn't be worse. Fair Trade, not Free Trade sounds good to me: there has been talk of him renegotiating NAFTA. If he is in tune with black Americans, he'll know they suffer disproportionately from ethnic tensions with Mexicans so he might be sceptical on the benefits of unrestricted immigration. His policy on Afghanistan might leave us bogged down there as now, but at least he indicated that he'll speak to all governments in the Middle East, which is desperately needed.

His oratory imitates Martin Luther King, which sometimes was stirring, but generally came across as affected; or bad poetry: talking about the energy of the Sun and the Wind; why not say solar energy, wind turbines, etc?: after all, this is politics, not an American literature circle. "Not Big Government or Small Government but what works": how Blairite is that? It is exactly what they said in 1997. The means affect the ends; the left has yet to learn this, which is a pity for Western civilisation, because the left dominates our culture. The "what works" mantra was in the case of New Labour a pragmatic cloak for a deeply ideological Big Government approach; which has failed miserably, much to our cost in social terms as well as financial. In the end pragmatic government needs to be backed up by principles. This afflicts so-called conservative administrations: we saw how even the Thatcher Government used the machinery of centralised control (targets in the NHS, dissolving the GLC, appointing Quangos) to dislodge failure and attack entrenched left-wing policies. These policies made the conservatives look dictatorial and have eroded our democracy, giving the New Labour government a stronger state with which to impose its policies by stealth and patronage.

I felt great sympathy for Obama when he read the lines wrong, and attributed this at the time to the fact that he was more concerned with his delivery than the content. It turned out that the chap speaking the words to Obama fluffed his lines. The idea that he didn't want to commit himself to America's good in an oath went through my mind, just as it will go through the mind of many evangelical Christians; but I consider this unlikely on rational grounds. He took the oath again, which I hope is a sign that he takes the oath seriously; but by all accounts, there was no bible present.

All in all, I wish Obama well - to an extent. As a person, he is likeable, but he is a left-leaning liberal, so I can't wish him success there. I hope he changes politics enough so that the policies of Bush Clinton Bush McCain will become redundant; in this he will be aided by the demise of liberal hubris, caused by the Iraq War and the economic crisis; also, the severe problems caused by mass immigration should make so called pragmatist mainstream thinkers think properly - in line with ordinary people, who have to live with its consequences.

Ultimately my hope is that Obama's left-inspired policies will be discredited over 4 years, the Republicans will reject the modernising approach and Pat Buchanan will become President! Not very likely, but Buchanan has been consistently right about where America and the Right have gone wrong - and he is in line with what most people outside of the media and political circus believe, though they are afraid to say it due to the pressure of political correctness; the real flaw in the plan is that the Republicans are so in hock to Big Business and neo-liberal social, economic and foreign policy that they will continue to fail to represent the interest of the striving classes (i.e., ordinary working and middle class people who reject welfare). If Obama follows New Labour, then expect him to fail. He has been elected without having to argue his policies. Whether Obama proves a better leader than Blair has yet to be seen, but like Blair, he is a placeholder figure for the religion of Change; its believers invest all their hopes on any convincing wordsmith who mouths its pieties. Liberal left wing assumptions are the dominant assumptions of our culture and people who base their view on these assumptions can get by for many years on platitudes; authentic Conservative policies have to fiercely argued for, usually in the face of villification, and often prevail only after the progressives have disastrously failed. The facts turn out to be tory, as Margaret Thatcher said; yet it is left-wing pieties are accepted by default, which is why, along Obama is there on the podium, making his acceptance speech. The tragedy for the Western World is that the Right have allowed him this place by their moral and philosophical failures, which were there under Thatcher and even Reagan, but became magnified under their successors and without being balanced by the virtues of those two leaders.

The Obama train is like Blair in 1997

Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. Obama goes to Washington by train. The crowds were disappointed in Jesus because he did not bring heaven on earth, but they have hopes for their new messiah, the new changemaker on the block, Barack Obama. To non-believers, this media stageshow might smack of hubris and presumption: a wise and respectful man should enter Washington like a servant of the people not like some conquering emporer. His supporters disagree. They revel in his triumph, all played out on TV. They believe in the religion of progressive liberalism, closely related to other faiths such as Communism, which promises an earthly utopia of equality, justice and a new rational ordering of society. They think they have captured America from the past they despise.

The last such triumphal procession was that of Tony Blair's to Downing Street in 1997, another triumph of faith over content, when popular acclaim seemed to waft the left's great hope into power. The adoring spectators in Downing street, whose hands Blair graciously shook and tremulously clasped, were in fact labour party activists. That was never mentioned on the BBC, but the media obligingly showed the pictures. What mattered was the spectacle, the play at being hero of the people, agent of their will. Having ascended to power with such popular acclaim in 1997, Blair's final act as leader of his country was to agree to the European Constitution, thereby giving up more of our democratic rights to the European Union. What will Obama do in power?

His supporters don't seem to care. Nor do they care that this media circus shows scant respect for America's traditions or institutions by exalting Barack Obama, the man, at the expense of the presidential office and the institutions which he is meant to preserve. Obama's staged inauguration betrays the fascination with the ascent to power, and avoids the responsibility of asking how he will use that power: no one knows what Obama's Change agenda will be, but his supporters have faith that Change will be good. Unfortunately the evidence of history suggests that progressive solutions don't actually work: their election programme was deliberately shorn of any content because they didn't dare suggest specific policies; so, to make up for the vacuity of the programme, there is the spectacle of change. This is why we have the fetishing of Obama's accession, the ecstatic moment when the corrupt old order gives way.

In the revolutionary past of the progressive movement, there was the storming of the Bastille and the October Revolution, which tore down the old order, as if by spontaneous will of the masses. We know what happened to the masses afterwards. Obamas' train to Washington and Blair's procession to Downing Street are sanitised reenactments of these terrible moments, divested of physical violence to be sure, but symbolic none the less of a disdain for the past and an unsubstantiated belief in an idealised future where everything will work out - as long as we trust in words like Equality, Progress, Change, Modernity, Freedom and Humanity. Implicit in these processions is a disdain towards the traditions, culture and morality that we have inherited. The liberal media revel in this.

It is ironic that in the cold war, we tended to contrast the dominant liberalism of the Western world with Communism; but modern-day progressive Liberals , unlike classical Liberals whose name they have stolen, have more in common with the Jacobins or the Communists than people realise. Having failed to appreciate the hard-fought gains of our forefathers, and seeing only their faults, these modern day revolutionaries are ideologically committing to dismantling our traditions and remaking society according to the ideals of the French and Russian Revolutions, updated for the new political context of course, but basically the same ends. Rather than appreciating the benefits of civilisation they have inherited, and carefully building on what others have by effort achieved, they are intoxicated with their moment on the stage of history. They want to be the makers of history and grand gestures are their stock in trade. They delight in the frisson of rebellion, of being seen to reject the corrupt and oppressive past; they want to be on the side of the victors and to build new Jerusalem in their own image even if they destroy the most beautiful and useful structures in the process.

They say they care about the poor and the disenfranchised, but only when these people serve their ideological agenda. See how the left have deserted the working classes on issues such as immigration, crime and Free Trade - because the globalist ideology of a common humanity trumps concern for their own people. Social Justice, Equality, Freedom - these are just pretexts, words they use to justify the underlying aims of their malignant charity. These worshippers of Change use the language of rational political discourse, but underlying their rationalisations is a deep-rooted, modern-day Dionisian cult where, like the Bacchic revellers of myth and history, they can delight in tearing down the old order simply because, like Pentheus, it stands before them.