Strike One.

Yesterday’s mass strike, the largest in Britain since the nicknamed ‘Winter of Discontent’ in the 70s, was branded “a damp squib” by the Prime Minister David Cameron.

However, walking around my locale in York, I couldn’t help feeling a certain incredulity at the statement. Living in a town known for its middle class, Conservative electorate, even here the picket lines were drawn in force. Reduced bus services, fewer libraries, doubtless there were significant reductions in emergency services. And of course, the swathes of 9 year olds wondering the streets at one in the afternoon were sign of the backing of the educational sector.

The strike over pensions is both justified and seemingly fool-hardy. For those who have been contributing to their retirement schemes for some decades, the idea of moving the goalposts is simply undermining to a true sense of fair game: life decisions may have been different, money spent either more shrewdly or liberally. In harsh economic times, the dependence on a pension, its access and ability to enjoy one’s later life is rather an oasis amidst political turmoil.

Of course, the only way by which to ensure there is sufficient circulation of various economic funds is to push back the pension age, due to the growing number of older people. I do not mean to make this sound a point of begrudgment: rather, those who have created growth for UK markets and contributed to society should indeed be at liberty to enjoy their lives as they wish: not constrained to a job all the longer.

In fact, the government’s propositions would ensure that the average UK man had barely a decade to live once he had retired. But, statistics tell us those in cities could expect even less time: a Glaswegian male averaging a mere 69 years.

Yet, with an expanding retirement bracket, the current system is undoubtedly under strain, as slowing birth rates and economic decline generate less available money.

As such, over two million people from various public sectors took to the streets, with various marches and demonstrations affecting the capital. Whilst the government says there is no room for negotiation, and their offer is fair, should the stand offs continue to cause such disruption, outlines other than the changes proposed for 2015 will undoubtedly be announced.

The strike is estimated to have cost a minimum of £500 million. Such money is a vital asset not only to the economy, but to the ailing pension schemes that need be funded. As such, the government only hurts themselves in continuing with this action.

However, parliament officials are divided themselves. Labour, usually the political party most associated with the social class movements, have not supported the movement publically and quite a large number of their members crossed the picket lines yesterday and entered Westminster regardless. Although Ed Miliband continues to have furious debates with the PM (see yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions) he only suggests the calls of strikers need be understood. Not supported. And the ambivalent feel is obvious across a number of high profile people due to the inevitability for change

Never one to miss an opportunity to make some left field remark, none other than Jeremy Clarkson took to the spotlight to argue that all strikers ought to be executed in front of their families. Yeah, nice one Jeremy. Work when the boot fits, but not if you have to relocate Top Gear despite an unnecessarily huge wage.

Today marked the first talks between top level union officials and government members since the 2^nd November: yet this does not necessarily represent any progress. Rather, hearing how far the strikes were successful will determine further strategies for the likes of Unison, Unite and TUC. The general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said if agreement could not be reached, further action could follow.

Yet the risks are huge. Economic impacts, social welfare problems, the ability to keep a public on the side of Union agenda. Even when the dispute ends physically, there will remain huge dissatisfaction. Since Britain finds itself in a position of job cuts, spending cuts and social divisions that will last well into the 2020s, even a recompense of a ‘fairer’ pension cannot abate the need for action. August’s riots are proof enough of the need to be weary of all social fragments.

David Cameron told ITV1's This Morning: "Striking isn't going to achieve anything, particularly while there are negotiations ongoing." However, there weren’t negotiations ongoing. Cameron’s own ignorance may in fact paint his own government the damp squib in this battle of wills. He continued "The job of the government is to try to explain to people calmly and reasonably how we are going to come through this", and whilst his philosophical airs are all true, his lack of guidance to a resolution equally demonstrate the flaws of his parliament.

The only fair way to push back pensions is to do so for those not yet 16. But why should those without a parliamentary vote be punished? Are pensions a case of human rights then and if so who has the power to determine a justified balance between returned wage and the biological clock?

Miliband's War.

Labour once again proclaims itself new as the annual party conference gets underway in Liverpool.

In the largest speech of his leadership so far, Ed Miliband announced that there should be action taken against those companies who could be described as “predatory” and “asset stripping”. Mr Miliband outlined his latest vision for a greater Britain, by rewarding smaller companies and “grafters”, whilst also tackling a great number of issues either side-stepped or taken in the wrong direction by the current coalition.

Being elected leader of the party just over a year ago, Miliband is having to make a name for himself and trying to re-establish trust for his party. Although there are no explicitly new policies or announcements, his interview prior to the conference with Andrew Marr suggested that there need be a new stance.

Of course, this is to appear as contrary to the Tory opposition as possible: support for the coalition recently having plummeted according to some polls, particularly for Nick Clegg’s party.

Naturally, as Nick Robinson pointed out, opposition leaders - whether Labour or Tory - declare that they are on the side of hard working people who do the right thing.

In this way, Ed Miliband is pushing ahead with a revival of responsibility.

Almost as if the heralding of a new period of enfranchisement, the Labour leader introduced the initiative fully at today’s conference.

From companies to average citizens, the need to act for one’s community has never been clearer or on such an impressive scale of undertaking. Miliband has argued that companies who offer long term reinvestment and training should have tax rewards: and pointed to Rolls Royce as an example of such an enterprise that should be encouraged.

In addition, the speaker added that “Our first duty should be to help the person who shows responsibility.” He followed up on this by suggesting that those who helped out in their community should reap the rewards through such things as jumping up priority in the housing chain. There need be an introduction of the something for something ideal.

However, many are dissatisfied with this brash approach, insinuating that it was the Labour party themselves that adopted a doctrine of a “something for nothing” ideology and that mantel has continued to spread and debilitate Britons past their spell in Westminster power.

Whilst the speech appears well placed following the backdrop of riots and banking crises, there is belief that the Tory party only served as powderkeg to problems that had been bubbling under Labour administration.

A ComRes poll in the Independent on Tuesday showed 37% of the 1,000 voters questioned said they backed the Conservatives, against 36% for Labour and 12% for the Liberal Democrats. Just 24% agreed that Mr Miliband was a credible prime minister-in-waiting, against 57% who said he was not.

Although Miliband’s speech pledges Labour party to remain the politics of the people and to never again to advantage of the system, Baroness Warsi claims Mr Miliband is not able to promise such.

The Conservative co-chair brought forward the idea that Labour had latterly strangled the small business owners in 2008 through 2010 in particular. Furthermore, the Baroness proved poignant in the statement that "Ed Miliband can't deliver on these promises because his party left the country on the brink of bankruptcy. This is opportunistic rhetoric from a weak leader."

Meanwhile, Ed Balls has unveiled a five point plan for dealing with debt.

The scheme, which he would see introduced following the next elections, would include a VAT cut to encourage growth (similar to schemes trailed by Darling), tax breaks for small firms (not exactly reflected on having economic responsibility) and reinvesting bank bonus taxes in the community.

Whilst Mr Balls acceded to Labour’s previous mistakes, he described the current state of the economy, “the worst in his lifetime” and pointed to current Chancellor, George Osborne, as having the wrong “prescription”. He argued that having a growth plan, rather than a plan of spending cuts, could quickly put a stopper in the vicious circle of deficit and “secure an economic future”.

However, the Labour party has once again affirmed that great swathes of the Tory changes would continue even if they are revoted to power. In this sense, Labour is hiding behind the curtains on a great many of its policies: letting other people carry out the changes and then afterwards showing sympathy without action.

Should the party truly wish to get into power once more, they need stick firm to their principles and act on changes that would not have been introduced. Otherwise, confidence, as well as the economy, will not grow in any forecast. A war of principles vs popularity is underway.