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 2nd 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?
