Read on Twitter
Fair point - I've had a few comments like this about that part of the thread. My tendency to draw comparisons/see patterns often irritates people too.
So - why did I mention Uruguayan teaching unions in a thread about Rebecca Long-Bailey and UK teaching unions? Here's why. https://twitter.com/peroline2/status/1277373831733301252
So - why did I mention Uruguayan teaching unions in a thread about Rebecca Long-Bailey and UK teaching unions? Here's why. https://twitter.com/peroline2/status/1277373831733301252
Observing the intransigence of various Uruguayan unions - hardly just on education - since I've been here had me thinking the following:
"Be careful, my union friends. Because you're going to end up pissing off too many people - and if the left loses one day..."
"Be careful, my union friends. Because you're going to end up pissing off too many people - and if the left loses one day..."
And verily, the left did end up losing last year - and the unions had more than a bit to do with it.
The problem is this. Unions have to bring the public with them. If they don't, they end up paying a very heavy price in the end. All British unions know that from the 1980s.
The problem is this. Unions have to bring the public with them. If they don't, they end up paying a very heavy price in the end. All British unions know that from the 1980s.
Who knows how different a country the UK would be now if only In Place Of Strife had been accepted? Instead, Barbara Castle - Barbara Castle, for goodness' sake - was denounced as a traitor. We all know what's happened to Britain since.
In Labour's case, to win an election, it must work with the unions - but it can't ever be seen as being controlled by them. Frankly, under Corbyn, Len McCluskey's level of influence meant it *was* seen as controlled by them, pretty darn often.
I don't think RLB has any conception of that. Basically, she's someone who'll always agree with the unions and always do what they want: because they're "our people". But winning elections involves an approach which is a lot broader based.
By the way, I think the evidence shows that she was right not to support schools returning. But it's not as simple as that: her first thought is always unions, unions, unions. As it was in the leadership contest too.
The leftist Uruguayan government achieved many great things: slashing poverty and inequality, increasing the minimum wage hugely, enabling very wide access to good quality internet, bringing in a social insurance-based health system, legalising abortion, cannabis, gay marriage.
But it only did that as a coalition: a VERY broad one. Encompassing socialists, social democrats, centrists, liberals, communists and independents - and it could not have done any of it without maintaining tight control of the economy.
Its most leftist flank was always its most unpopular: the awkward squad, basically. It was held in check by the centrists in the coalition: without whom, nothing would've been achieved at all, because the public wouldn't have voted it in.
In Starmer's case, his focus on the economy is essentially for the same reasons as Tabare Vazquez or Danilo Astori's focus on the economy. If the public don't trust the left on the economy, it will not win.
That balancing act - economic competence AND public spending - is hard.
That balancing act - economic competence AND public spending - is hard.
It's hard because under capitalism, leftist governments are only ever coalitions of different competing interests. Politicians like RLB only really represent one of those core interests - but leadership involves juggling them all, and achieving the best outcome.
For 15 years, the Uruguayan government proved that was possible and achieved remarkable things. That's my hope of a future Labour government - but it simply won't be elected if it alienates too many voters along the way.
Quick anecdote to finish. I used to teach someone here who's a pretty well-known businessman and member of the Frente Amplio (Broad Front: the left). His and my politics are eerily similar so we had a great connection.
The government employed him to negotiate with the unions.
The government employed him to negotiate with the unions.
One day, completely unexpectedly, he called me up and asked if I was free to have an English class He said he needed a break from these "crazy people - they are impossible!"
He didn't say that because he's not on the left himself. He is. But they treated him like an enemy.
He didn't say that because he's not on the left himself. He is. But they treated him like an enemy.
And in the end, with the right finally winning last year - and doing extremely well since - those "we are not for turning" unions shot themselves in the foot. Big style.
