Last May the British electorate sent a clear message to politicians; "We don't much care for or trust any of you. We are fed up with traditional party politics. It's time for something new so we aren't giving any of you a clear majority. Get on and sort it and yourselves out". And so after a brief period of the old leader saying, Africa style, " I haven't really lost" a coalition was born and the country faced an exciting possibility of doing things differently.
Eight months later it looks as if old habits, while altered with some courage by the Conservative and Lib Dem leaders, remain the anchor for some, especially in the defeated Labour party. Despite Gordon's initial state of denial as he sat it out in Downing Street, the one other thing the country had said is "..and we certainly don't want another dose of you and your lot".
Ed Miliband, fresh from not having Christmas with his brother, has heralded 2011 as "The Year of Consequences". Spot on Ed but not for the continued denialist reasons you give. It is the year in which the cuts which he opportunistically opposes while not offering any alternatives start to hurt. The reason there are cuts is not the evil bankers, who actually contribute rather a lot to Britain's economy but the much longer ten years of excessive "Borrow and Spend" under Brown, aided and abetted by his two closest young allies, Eds Balls and Miliband. Miliband's fingerprints are all over the massive increase in government spending and employment and yet, here he is , unrepentant claiming that it is Labour who will best represent the people and be "the people's voice".This from one of the most culpable architects of Labour's third financially disasterous period of power in a row is staggering arrogance and nonsense.
Over in the Union camp,TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has said 2011 is going to be " a horrible year". If it wasn't going to be tough enough anyway as the effects of reduced government profligacy -another term for "cuts"- running ahead of the private sector's ability to take up the strain and start adding jobs to its payrolls, Mr Barber's team seem to be saying they are determined to make it as unpleasant as they can. Mark Serwotka of the -Public and Commercial Services Union says that it is mere coincidence that a number of proposed strikes would happen around Easter and the Royal Wedding. Bob Crowe of the RMT, a clear enthusiast of strikes, says "we can expect to see workers ..out on the picket lines fighting for jobs against savage attacks on pensions and standards of living". The customers are of no consequence. They never are to those who believe only in the supply side of the economy whose unstated doctrine is "You get what we say you can have, at the price and quality we dictate and only if we feel like it . Be grateful". Also not of consequence are the businesses, traders, service providers whose livelihoods and jobs the actions and disruption of these largely public sector based unions threaten.
Just before Christmas David Cameron invited the union leaders to Number 10 for the first time in 25 years. They slunk in and slunk out seemingly determined to maintain grim expressions and say the exercise was a waste of time. Some did not have the interest or courtesy to even turn up. As they walked away in twos and threes they looked more like a bunch of hyenas sloping off disgruntledly as someone had stolen their kill, but determined to get their revenge. Encouraged by memories of the so called Poll Tax( we got that in the end didn't we even though it was called "Council Tax"?)riots their adrenaline comes from dreams of confrontation and brave talks of civil disturbance rather than embracing a concept of new collaborative politics and working on the design for a robust and viable future for UK Plc.
That takes us back to Ed. Which way does he turn if things get ugly? The way it works within the Labour constitution , lacking majority parliamentary and individual membership support ,he is electorally beholden to the unions. The party would be bancrupt without them. If Ed threw them aside in a bid for personal and party independence, Labour could have a whole new appeal and a new future.Is he likely to go for it? Does he, at heart an intellectual London socialist, even see it? Almost certainly "No" in both cases. When it comes to the crunch and if there is civil disobedience where will Ed sit/stand/,march? He has been equivocal about this in the past and seemed not to be able to distinguish between the expected behaviours of a student union leader and someone claiming to be a potential future Prime Minister. In the end he bottled the choice but his union brothers will be pressing him to make one,- the wrong one,- this time. And he thought they wished him well by supporting him in the leadership election.No Ed,- they just thought they had a better chance of controlling you than they did the others. There could be a lot of discomfort coming your way.
The result of the end of year/(un)Happy New Year statements of both Ed and the Unions is therefore that indeed 2011 will be "the year of consequence" although not the ones Ed envisages and "a horrible year" too, though if the Great Disrupted British Public gets fed up with union aggravation, no trains, disrupted planes, public services etc and turns on the unions ,the horribleness could be of a different sort to the one they envisage right now.
