The word 'tragedy' is over-used in politics. But if has application anywhere it is surely to the journey from the high-point of Syriza's election - here was the socialist left getting an electoral mandate in a European country - to this week's climb down. An austerity package, the price of liquidity exacted by the EU institutions, will mean misery for millions, rising unemployment, stagnant wages, and may well not succeed even in the ECB's own terms. It should be seen, at least in part, as the punishment of an electorate for daring to elect a left-wing government and for voting 'no' in the referendum. It is a warning shot across the bow of voters in other countries, Spain and Ireland for instance - don't even try it...
There is resistance in Greece. Workers struck and marched yesterday. Thirty two Syriza MPs, including four ministers, voted against the bailout terms. These deserve our solidarity. More than that, such is the ferocity of the austerity that will now be unleashed that material support is essential. Please support Medical Aid for Greece.
There are lessons to be learned from Greece. Power in capitalist societies does not rest solely, or even primarily, with parliaments. Any serious challenge to capital will be met by extra-parliamentary action on the part of the capitalist class. They will use their newspapers, their money, and the international institutions that defend their interest, such as the institutions of the EU. Any left-wing government serious about implementing even moderate reforms is likely to be forced to break with those institutions. But more importantly, it needs to able to rely on extra-parliamentary action of its own. It is only the power of workers to withdraw our labour, to take control, and to unify internationally that is ultimately able to stand up to capital.
And that means that even at a time when we in the UK are rightly upbeat about happenings in parliament - Jeremy Corbyn's success and Mhairi Black's rallying call - we cannot focus all our energies there. Without a mass workers movement, militant trade unions and protest groups, and without a widespread commitment to socialist ideas and values, we might have the best MPs imaginable, but we will fail. The Greek electorate put a Marxist in the finance ministry. In the months that follow they will watch their hospitals close and their pensioners go hungry. There's been a lot of talk of a British Syriza. That is the last thing we need.
Continuing my thoughts from earlier. First up, here's Costas Lapavitsas on the Varoufakis resignation and much else besides:
He clearly sees no prospect of a satisfactory outcome within the Euro. This seems right. It's worth reflecting on the extent to which what Greece is facing is the product of a crisis of the Eurozone as a monetary framework.
The Euro was always a tall order. Orthodox economic theory speaks of optimal currency areas (OCAs): these being regions within which a single currency would be a good idea. OCAs possess a number of features, none of which are obviously features of the Eurozone. A striking example is labour mobility. Here's how it's supposed to do. Suppose there is, as is the way with capitalist economies, a crisis. Suppose, moreover that this impacts disproportionately or exclusively on one member state economy (we have, as the terminology has it, an asymmetric shock). Unemployment increases within this economy. Unemployed workers from this country then, on the assumption of labour mobility, move to higher performing countries within the OCA, reducing the unemployment and preventing wages from soaring in their new homes. This, along with price and wage adjustments, smoothes out the shock and we all live happily ever after.
The assumption that prices and wages will 'adjust' is, as New Keynesians will not be slow to point out, far from unproblematic. But compared to the assumption that labour is mobile within an currency area like the Eurozone, that is nothing. Think about it: the Eurozone covers a large area and is divided by language and culture. I cannot easily look for work as a teacher in Germany if I only speak Portugese. Nor can I, if I am a lawyer trained in France, go and work in the distinct legal system of Italy. This is before we consider such barriers to labour mobility as attachment to loved ones, friends, communities, and the like, not to mention the human desire for stability of life.
So what happens when these adjusting mechanisms - labour mobility and price/ wage flexibility don't kick in after an asymmetric shock? The government of the state subject to the shock increases spending, as it has to fund unemployment benefits and the like to a greater extent, plus maintain its normal spending on the basis of diminished tax receipts. It borrows. The scene is set for a debt crisis - higher interest rates are needed to attract funding for increasingly risky debt (owed by a government in a currency over which it has no ultimate control), this reduces demand further in the beleagured economy. Meanwhile there's a liquidity flow from the down-at-heel economy to more prosperous countries within the zone, further magnifying the disparities within it.
Now, some of this is true of single currency zones with which we're more familiar, such as the UK economy. An economic event - say, one affecting a particular industry - might have a disproportionate impact in a certain region - say, the north-east of England. Workers in the north-east might, quite reasonably, not feel minded to set up their stall in Surrey in response to increased unemployment in Newcastle. Nor might prices and wages adjust. In this case, however, central government spending can act to cushion the shock - transferring, to some extent redistributing, funds within the UK. In particular, the north-east of England does not accumulate a public spending deficit (although, we should note in passing, the story as regards private debt in the region might be quite different) - the cost is born by the UK state as a unit. And there's the difference with the Eurozone: there is no fiscal union, no pan-Eurozone tax and spend mechanism remotely equivalent to that possessed by states like the UK. In this sense the Eurozone is an incomplete monetary union.
In other words, the Eurozone is structurally set up for something like the Greek debt crisis to occur. The bail out of banks in response to the 2008 crisis was the tipping point and the rest, as they say, is history.
The temptation here is to conclude that the Eurozone is bad for some national economies (like Greece) and good for others (like Germany). It is here that the Marxist tradition in economic thinking sounds a note of caution. Behind the front of the national economy, lurk a horde of competing interests. In particular, European capitalism and nation-state capitalisms are divided on the basis of class. Talk about what is good or bad for 'the economy' ignores that what is good for some classes, or groups within classes, may be bad for others. Hence, incidentally, the banality of the slogan 'austerity isn't working' - it's working fine for some people. This matters, in the present context because it goes some way towards explaining what might otherwise seem inexplicable: how so many interests in Greece were keen to secure a 'Yes' vote given that austerity policies by any reasonable indicator - employment, output, wages, even profits - are not helping 'the economy'. If the alternative is a threat to the rights of property, of the capitalist class' medium-term ability to pursue profit without interference, then it is in the interests of that class to see austerity pursued. Class power trumps even the bottom line.
Class interest also explains some of the persistence in Greece of Europeanism, attachment to the EU and, in particular, the Euro. It is straightforwardly in the interests of a significant section of the capitalist class, represented in the media and other opinion-forming institutions, to support structures that support policies favourable to it and minimise the costs of transactions within key markets.
But it is not simply the Greek capitalist class or its representatives in the political centre-right who buy into Europeanism. The left, including the Syriza leadership, share that commitment. Here, however, the commitment is to Europeanism as a political project. Europe as imagined on the left is a respository of the humane desire for peace on a continent ravaged by two world wars. It is an internationalist project, Greece's membership in which signifies its having put behind it the years of the colonels and having irreversibly made the transition to democracy. Those British leftists who grapple with the difference in attitudes towards the EU in states with thriving new lefts (Syriza, Podemos) - generally pro-EU - and the UK itself, where the left has traditionally been hostile to EU membership, forget the very different histories of the countries. The dictatorships that blighted southern Europe produced by way of reaction a favourable view of the European project.
There is Europe, the economic project. And Europe, the political idea. In Greece the tension between the two is nearing breaking point.
However necessary it is to adopt a sober realism towards the immediate prospects in Greece, yesterday's resounding 'No' vote was an example to the rest of Europe. Uncowed by relentless pressure from creditors and the mainstream media, Greece's electorate sent a clear message that they reject austerity. Whatever happens next, they deserve our admiration and solidarity.
Since the result was declared last night, events have moved at sometimes breathtaking pace (see the Guardian liveblog here for updates.) Yanis Varoufakis resigned, giving as his reason that some Eurogroup participants would prefer his absence from talks. This was not before making his feelings known about the No vote - he wrote of the Troika having been confined to its lair. He has been replaced by Euclid Tsakalotos, not obviously more well disposed towards an austerity-based 'rescue' for the Greek economy than was Varoufakis. Meanwhile, Greek banks remain closed and capital controls in force. There appear to be splits amongst the Eurozone leadership, with Merkel opposed to compromise with the Syriza government, and others better disposed. The ECB, as all this goes on, has increased the haircut required of Greek banks (that is, the difference between the amount loaned to Greek banks and the price of the assets required as collateral for these loans, expressed as a percentage of the collateral price: for example, if I lend you £90 but require a £100 IOU as collateral, then I have imposed a 10% haircut) - a sign that Greece is considered an increasingly risky prospect. One thing is certain: things cannot continue without resolution of some sort for much longer. If nothing else, these are interesting times.
Good commentary, from various left-wing perspectives, includes Michael Roberts here, Alex Douglas here, and the inimitable Paul Mason here.
I'll stop there for the time being. Later on I'll say something about how what is playing out in Greece is a crisis of the Eurozone as an experiment in monetary union, complicated by the political ideology of Europeanism.
I received the text from David Lammy just as the protestors broke through the police line.
At that moment, I was standing opposite the gates of Downing Street on Whitehall. The group of protestors, who had marched from Trafalgar Square to join a demonstration against the Queen's Speech, were young and angry. David Lammy, meanwhile, was on the scrounge for nominations to be Labour's candidate for Mayor of London. "London needs leadership", his text acclaimed, leaving the reader in little doubt that it was Lammy's leadershipthe capital was lacking. The banner-waving crowd forcing their way down Whitehall didn't give the impression of needing leadership. And if they did, they weren't going to be looking to the MP for Tottenham to provide it.
The disconnect between a parliamentary Labour Party largely resigned to austerity and the ongoing movement against the attacks on public services deserves reflection. One thing is clear, however: the anger of those protestors was fully justified. Today's Queen's Speech was the most reactionary for a generation, and it laid bare the anti-democratic nature of austerity.
Austerity, as I like to think of it, is neo-liberalism in crisis mode, ever more frantically proposing the marketisation of society as the solution to the all too evident ills we face. As such, like neo-liberalism in general, it is a strategy to strengthen the power of capital against labour; in other words, to protect profit against the vast majority of people. When stated in those terms, neo-liberalism sounds like it is on a collision course with democracy - as indeed it is.
The self-denying approach to fiscal measures, asking parliament to tie its own hands by blocking tax rises for five years, already signals a commitment to a society where the market reigns supreme. More serious is the all-out attack on trade unions, the organisations through which working people begin to take control of their working lives. A double wammy of an assault on strike ballots and the legalisation of the use of agency scabs has the potential to paralyse unions' effectiveness so long as they remain within the bounds of the law. Proposals around subscriptions and political funds will also make life difficult for the union movement.
Beyond industrial democracy, political organisation is under attack. A draconian bill aimed at that slipperiest of characters, the extremist, promises to increase the state's power of surveillance and to allow it control over the activities of individuals considered extremist. Left-wing activists who do not fear for their freedoms are naive. Yet a democracy that does not allow fundamental questions to be asked about its nature, does not permit people to organise with the aim of transforming society, is a hollow sham.
Today the government declated an all-out war on democracy. And to add insult to injury, they propose to substitute a pastiche of the real thing, a vote with no good options. If we do want a future where our control of our own lives extends beyond the supermarket, now would be a good time to fight back.
The pervasive immaturity of the left is nowhere more evident than in the emotionally frigid aphorism "don't mourn, organise". In saying this I am criticising myself as much as anyone; I resorted to it during those endless hours last night. But mourn we must, mourn for those who have died alone and starving, for those who will yet die, for those who will be denied an education. We should mourn for the lost hope and the lost futures. Mourning is good, because it speaks of persisting humanity, as well as of the extent of our loss. Mourning is also productive, for it is very close to that precious emotion, anger. Nothing is more revealing of the class nature of our political system than the convention that those who have lost should be gracious in defeat, as though a contest for state power were a public school cricket match. Anger is the refusal to be polite, to let bygones to be bygones, and to wait five years. Anger is the recognition that the bastards who now have a parliamentary majority in this country are indeed bastards. If anyone doubts this last point, evidence will, alas, be forthcoming quickly enough.
We have to direct our anger. In order to do that we need to understand what just happened. I was disastrously wrong about the direction of the election campaign. In fairness to myself almost everybody was wrong, a notable exception being Richard Seymour here. I'll come back to his thoughts below. Meanwhile, less adept minds on the left are currently demanding PR. In itself this is a striking instance of the failure to grasp the immensity of what we're up against; as though a bit of tinkering with the electoral system will undo the pervasive social sadism about to be unleashed with renewed vigour. In any case, in an ironic disconfirmation of the traditional leftist objection that PR builds in a centrist majority, were seats distributed on the basis of share of the vote we'd be looking at a Tory-UKIP alliance. No doubt there is a certain type of liberal who, when confronted with the reality of this fact, is cretinous enough to insist that the outcome would be 'fairer'. There is no helping such people.
Something more fundamental expressed itself yesterday, not merely the idiosyncrasies of First Past the Post. This was about popularised reaction, hegemony, and the evolving politics of the Union. Understanding this, and grasping as a consequence the awfulness of the situation, is a first step to doing anything useful about our plight.
Scotland
Labour got slaughtered in Scotland, and deserved it. This is the simplest aspect of what happened last night. This was not the artefact of nationalist reaction. A good amount of the SNP's support came from a class based vote for a party standing on an anti-austerity ticket. Seats in the West of Scotland held on derisory turnouts by parachuted-in Blairites dripping with entitlement fell to the SNP, as people enthused by the referendum campaign went to the polls, sometimes for the first time in their lives.
We can admit this much without having any illusions about the nature of the SNP. It is a bourgeois nationalist party, with left elements, pushed to a social democratic programme by circumstance. Alliances with, and appeals to, the better elements of the SNP have to be part of what the left does next, on both sides of the border. The longer run has to involve an alternative politics for Scotland, a project whose last flourishing was sacrificed to Tommy Sheridan's libido.
Anyway, I've written at some length about the emerging politics of Scotland on this blog before. So I leave this topic with possibly the best speech of last night from probably one of the best MPs now in Westminster:
Popular Austerity
If the overwhelmingly best thing that happened last night was the election of a nationalist party on the basis of a manifesto broadly akin to the kind of thing Roy Hattersley would have signed up to c. 1989, it must have been - to use a technical phrase - a fucking terrible night. And so it was.
Labour lost seats to the Tories outside London. Before the sneery London is more sophisticated/ intelligent/ generally all round intelligent and liberated brigade get over-excited about the relatively good results in the capital (which didn't extend to unseating the Tories' pantomime villain in a target marginal), let me put it on record that I put Labour's London gains down to the issue of house prices. Its a swing that speaks more of desperation than enthusiasm. Across the country, 33.9% of those registered didn't vote. That inevitably hit Labour more than the Tories. Cameron's party increased majorities in a swathe of seats. Already the various 'Why I voted Tory' surveys are showing clearly that those who decided to vote Tory at the last minute did so, in the main, because they trusted the governing party on the economy.
There is no reality-based way of making sense of this results that doesn't recognise that a significant section of the working class is committed to austerity. I say this because a damaging myth persists on the left, in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary, which says that faced with cuts the working class will shift left. The opposite has been the case in the past five years. People want 'the economy' to be 'safe'. As, in a certain sense, it is:
Thatcher, of course, won popular working class support, and in so doing set in motion a hegemonic austerity project whose fruits we are now reaping. Council house sales were the most obvious sweetener under her governments; it may yet turn out that the promise of right-to-buy for housing association tenants was a cause of yesterday's Tory victory. More pertinently yet, she established with brilliant success an analogy between the national economy and a domestic budget in popular consciousness; 'Why don't you look at it as any housewife has to look at it?'
This, patently false, parallel already explains some of the appeal of the Tories' call for a balanced budget, and of the trust placed in the party. In isolation, however, it doesn't suffice. It's not as though the problem is simply that people have a number of wrong ideas about the macroeconomic facts, as if simply making A-level Economics compulsory would usher in a Labour victory. Popular austerity is as much a matter of the heart of the head. The left loves to talk of 'false consciousness'. In order to understand why voters opted for the Etonians against their own material interests, we need other categories, 'false emotions', 'false values', 'false aspirations'. From childhood onwards we now learn business studies, we are taught to view ourselves as entrepreneurs. Even the act of compiling a CV to apply for an oversubscribed minimum wage job is an act of personal entrepreneurship. If we fail, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We should be more competitive. Once considered a vice, competitiveness has become a virtue, again inculcated in the school system.
We are, then, to identify with those who cherish competition. Out go solidarity and collective solutions, in comes individual self-advancement. If the affective pull of the entrepreneurial dream weren't enough, there are financial disincentives to stepping out of line: student debt is now 40k-50k per. student, whilst mortgages burden those lucky enough to have them in the first place. Who'd go on strike, or get a reputation as a trouble-maker? Yet, there's apparently hope -- if we are all players in the game of life, we are tempted to believe that we might win. Thus the cultural politics of aspirational identification: perhaps if I vote like Richard Branson, perhaps one day I might be like him. Meanwhile property porn gives us a voyeuristic glance at lives beyond our purses and encourages us into the masochistic idiocy of treating our homes as assets. Who knows, one day we might be hit by the Mansion Tax?
It's entirely beside the point to object that none of this is rational. Of course it isn't, but then neither are we. We are complex, contradictory, beings, often strangers to ourselves, half in control of emotions and desires which, far from being private, are precisely the point at which ideology grabs us by the throat. Austerity is written into our very being. Knowing a few more facts will not expel it. The only writer on the British activist left who in any way understands this is Richard Seymour. I urge you all to read his Against Austerity as a matter of urgency. In an odd way, the other group of people who understand the extent to which austerity as a project dominates working class life and thought are the Blairites. Their solution, of course, is to give the people what so many of them seem to want. Even in the narrow terms dictated by electoral politics, this approach is likely to fail. If Labour don't challenge the economic narrative offered by the Tories - as, indeed, the unlamented Ed Balls basically didn't - there is a real possibility people will opt for the real thing - as, indeed, they did.
Nor will the 'build an alternative' cheerleaders set things right by a few public meetings and a new electoral front. Our enemy is inside peoples heads and written in their hearts. The ghost of Margaret Thatcher has possessed the souls of millions. Exorcism, the construction of a counter-hegemony will take a generation and in order to succeed must be as all-pervading as the austerity project it seeks to displace.
We haven't even begun to realise the immensity of the task we face.
Just a quick bit of linkage on the snap elections in Greece, and the prospect of a Syriza victory.
There is never anyone better to read on the Eurozone crisis than Costas Lapavitsas, and his take on the present situation in Greece is typically perceptive (the background context is his scepticism about a happy outcome for the Greek economy for as long as it remains in the Eurozone). His final paragraph is this:
A Syriza government will probably face an ultimatum to capitulate,
perhaps by being offered some watered-down version of austerity. This
would be a disaster for Greece and a major defeat for opponents of
austerity in Europe. It is vital that Syriza wins and applies its
programme without flinching, helped by international support. The battle
lines are forming in Greece.
Owen Jones also deserves a look. He also emphasises that Syriza would need support in the aftermath of an election victory:
That’s why Greece desperately needs solidarity. Firstly, there’s a point
of principle: to defend sovereignty and democracy from attack, whether
from within or without. But a Syriza government could spur on other
anti-austerity forces across the continent. It is conceivable that
Podemos could assume power in Spain later in 2015. The likes of Die
Linke in Germany – the country at the very heart of the EU’s austerity
drive – could be given a boost, too.
Those who advocate ongoing austerity in Greece can summon powerful extra-parliamentary forces to their aid: the IMF, the EU, and key personnel in Greek state institutions, including a fascist-infilitrated police force. Unless the left can summon an even greater extra-parliamentary contingent, a Syriza government alone will be powerless to halt the attack on Greece's working class. First and foremost, this needs to include broad organised working class support for a Syriza programme from within Greece itself (and the quid pro quo therefore of that programme being held accountable to the labour movement). But the struggle against austerity is as international as the institutions imposing it. Solidarity with Greece is the number one immediate priority for the left in Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, in the coming year.
Now, as you will know, I am on the pessimism-without-hopelessness wing of the British Left. I think a lot of stuff, not least the Left itself, is rubbish, and things are not going to get a whole lot better until we realise this. This said, yesterday's TUC 'Britain Needs a Payrise' march was really quite good.
I measure the size of political demonstrations, thus: I start at the front of the march, peel off to a cafe en route, and count the number of courses I can eat whilst the march files past. I then rejoin the back. This was at least a two course and coffee affair, but I got distracted when a friend turned up, so it could well have been considerably bigger. Those preferring the more orthodox method of counting demonstrators to assess size place the numbers around the 90,000 mark.
This was pretty impressive, especially on a day when the weather was far from wonderful, and had been forecast to be worse. There was a really good feel about the demo - and an incredibly diverse bunch of marchers. The big unions were out in force, but so were smaller, and significant groups - fast food workers, the brilliant Focus E15 Mothers, peace and environmental groups, and many, many, others. Against those who question the point of A-to-B marches: one of the great things about big demonstrations around trade union issues is that they bring different groups of workers into contact, giving everyone present a sense that they are not alone, offering inspiration and providing an opportunity for conversations. They also say something pretty powerful to those who watch them pass.
Given that pessimism I was talking about, there has to be a 'but' doesn't there? Here it comes. But whilst A-to-B marches are worthwhile, they are not enough. It was brilliant that we were demonstrating the weekend after 400,000 healthcare workers had taken strike action. Wouldn't it have been better if we were doing so additionally the weekend after local government workers had also been on strike? The timidity of the Unison bureaucracy in calling off that strike in favour of 'consultation' on a sub-inflation pay proposal, is shameful. If we want the pay increases advocated by union leaderships yesterday, industrial action will be needed. There is simply no point in standing on a podium uttering fine words about pay, unless those words are followed up by sustained action.
Whilst we're on the subject of action, union bosses are supposed to be in the business of political, as well as industrial action. Here again, the leaders of the UK's big unions struck exactly the right chord yesterday. As reported by the Mirror, Unite's Len McCluskey said,
The Tory mission is to destroy the welfare state, characterising anyone on benefit as a scrounger. This country needs more than a pay rise. We need a government that fights against cuts. We say to the corporate giants who say we can’t afford it: Pay your taxes.
Bang on the the money, Len. Meanwhile Unison's Dave Prentis told the crowd,
We are here to say enough is enough. We shall no longer sit back and allow pay to decline
Exactly right.
Unison and Unite, along with other unions represented at the demo in large numbers (such as the CWU) are affiliated to the Labour Party. Given the, admirable, opposition the leaderships of these unions have expressed to austerity and low pay, you'd assume that they'd use this affiliation to push Labour towards anti-austerity, pro-worker policies, wouldn't you? Yet here's a curious fact for you to mull over. With the sole exception of BECTU, the representatives of all affiliated unions at July's national policy forum voted against a future Labour government rejecting Tory spending plans. That is to say, they voted in favour of continued austerity.
Britain certainly does need a payrise. Or rather, the British working class, or even better, the working class, need a payrise. (Some bits of Britain seem quiteadequately paid already). We won't get it unless we fight for it, and increase pressure on those who are supposed to represent us.
Harry Leslie Smith is the author of Harry's Last Stand, an engaging book calling - on the basis of his experience of the Great Depression and the Second World War - for the preservation of the Welfare State. He is the face of a politics of social democratic nostalgia, tinged with a certain 'progressive' British (or perhaps, these days, English) nationalism. This is not without severe problems - see Owen Hatherley here, or comments in Richard Seymour's latest book. That said, there is a dignity and conviction about the man, and he serves as a living reminder of the horrors that devastated lives before the 1945 settlement.
Earlier this week, Harry Leslie Smith gave a speech at the Labour Party Conference:
His role in the conference, carefully carved out for him by Party managers was to speak about the NHS. Notice, however, that at key points he goes beyond this brief. He talks about "welfare cuts" and "austerity". And what he says about these things is spot on.
But here's the problem. The Labour leadership is committed to both austerity and welfare cuts. Ed Balls has pledged repeatedly to constrain a future Labour government with current Tory spending limits. Not only is there precious little sign of Tory benefit cuts being reversed, but this week Balls promised more - announcing a policy of real terms cuts in child benefit.
Austerity destroys lives. That is indeed the message of history. Is it one that the Labour front bench is prepared to hear?
And so, Labour's National Policy Forum votes in favour of a future Labour government sticking to Tory austerity spending limits, promising instead of increased spending a lukewarm brew of structural reform and 'redistribution of power and opportunity'. The thought that power and opportunity tend to follow money seems not to have occurred. The constraints this self-limitation will put on policy wiggle room might, of course, mean that 'future Labour government' has for the time being the ring of 'future World Cup winning England team'. There has to be a risk that, posed with a choice between two versions of the Tory party, the electorate (a good proportion of whom, it has to be said, actually accept the 'need for austerity' line) will plump for the original and the best.
Now of course this is terrible. Of course it is indicative of the triumph of austerity ideology. Of course it is similarly indicative of the weakness of the Left, a sign of how much work we have to do. And yet there is worse; it looks like a good number of trade union reps, sitting on the NPF for unions with clear anti-austerity policy, voted in favour of accepting Tory spending limits. If you need evidence of the depressing hold that the Labour leadership continues to have on the politics of trade unions, look no further.
.jpg)
