A NATION DIVIDED OVER GAY MARRIAGE

I sat in bed on Tuesday morning sipping my green tea with lemon and thinking of Gay marriage. I should explain this took place in Paris. “Ah, all is now explained,” you may say.

Well it is by the fact that on the same day France’s Parliament, the Assemblee Nationale, started the long debate to introduce Gay or same sex marriages which should become law by the middle of the year. Such laws are already the norm in Catholic Spain and Portugal. Indeed in the UK David Cameron is determined to extend the current civil partnerships to include religious services.  Hence it may surprise you that in France, which Anglo Saxons have always thought to be liberal in sexual matters, the introduction of this law has caused such acrimony and division.

The left in France has always had the bragging rights when it comes to bringing people out on to the streets over a political or social issue. Hence it is no surprise that according to the police 125,000 activists demonstrated in Paris in support of the new Hollande law on Sunday. The shock comes when you learn 340,000 opposed to the legislation were on the streets of the capital on Tuesday of last week.

Pierre Kanuty, who speaks on international affairs at the Parti Socialiste HQ in Paris told me, “There is a majority in Parliament to pass the law, so there is no serious risk.” Indeed that is so and whilst some PS MPs may abstain the measure is also supported by the Communists, the Greens and some centrists. Not only that but allowing Gay marriage was part of Hollande’s left wing manifesto during last year’s elections so in introducing this controversial measure he is merely honouring one of his election pledges.

The bill is a complicated one covering Gay marriage, Gay adoption and assisted pregnancy for Gay couples. A majority of French people support Gay marriage (55 to 60 per cent), it’s around 50 – 50 on adoption and a majority oppose assisted pregnancy.

The Catholic Church is obviously at the head of the movement to oppose the law. Pierre Kanuty observed: “In a crusade mood, the right wing reopened somehow, the traditional split between the church and the non believers. The law will pass, but probably for a while, this split will last until mentalities change.”

This is undoubtedly true but those who oppose the law surprised themselves by the widespread support they attracted. The coalition against the Gay marriage package, although supported by the main religions and parties of the right, promoted itself as a citizens’ movement. Bizarrely at the helm is a spokeswoman, a performer who goes under the name Frigide Barjot, who in recent weeks has never been off national radio or TV. Only in France!

To get a full flavour of the sentiments of those who oppose one has to look no further than Serge Dassault, the CEO of Dassault and a senator for the centre right UMP. He is quoted as saying “We’ll have a country of gays and in 10 years there’ll be nobody left – that’s stupid.” Cardinal Philippe Barbain, who is the Archbishop of Lyon, said the Hollande law would open the door to incest and polygamy.

Off course the wide ranging nature of the bill is another reason for the opposition given that the majority support one section, a majority then oppose another and the French are divided on a third. Also the legal requirements regarding marriage in France are said to have played a role.

Under French law all marriages have to be civil marriages. In other European countries churches have the right to conduct wedding ceremonies that are also legal acts. Not so in France: the marriage has to be civil and then you have the option of having it blessed in the religion of your choice if you so choose.

This means because all marriages are civil everybody is caught up in the legal change. In Spain, for instance, if Gay couples wish to get married they have a civil service conducted by the town hall. It is very different for the nation’s Catholics who are married in church and hence have no contact with a civil service or the indeed the Gay marriage process.

Much of the opposition in France has been generated according to Barjot by Hollande’s law that will “de-structure” society by “destroying the concept in law of mother and father” and changing the time-honoured essence of the family.

However supporters of the legislation, especially amongst the young, counter that French society has changed. The family today, they argue, is not the same as the family of yesterday. They say the nation has to rethink its total concept of what makes up a family.

What is certain is that France will change when the French Parliament passes the new Gay laws. It remains to be seen how long it takes society to catch up.

Final word on this issue goes to the mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, who is one of France’s few openly Gay politicians. Perhaps another reason for Anglo Saxon’s to review their long held views on the French and matters sexual. Delanoe observed: “The majority of French people wants all couples to have equality in love and parenthood.”

This new law will ensure they do.

(The above article appeared in the London Progressive Journal on February 7 2013)

“IT WAS SO BAD YOU JUST WANTED TO LAUGH”

At the weekend the Sunday Times gave a whole broadsheet page to French politics. Six columns were dedicated to a sneering report on Francois Hollande, to the effect that the socialist president’s popularity was in freefall and the nation could be soon seeking bailouts. The other column went to French tycoon Arnaud Lagardère who apparently has a fiancée much taller than him. It comes as no surprise then that the once most respected of British newspapers is today part of the Murdoch stable.

However the real story of political interest on Sunday wasn’t at the Elysée Palace or indeed at Chez Lagardère but at the election count for the next leader of France’s Conservative opposition party the UMP – Union pour un Mouvement Populaire. The BBC correspondent in Paris, Hugh Schofield, in his report described events thus: “Watching the results come in was like seeing a really crummy disaster movie. The events were terrible, but it was so bad you just wanted to laugh.” It is his turn of phrase that makes up this article’s headline.

First a bit of history. In Britain all our main three political parties are to say the least well established. The Conservative Party was formed in 1834 but traces its roots to the Tory Party which started in 1678. The Liberals grew out of the Whigs in 1859. Even the new kids on the block, the Labour Party, was formed in 1900.

In contrast in France whilst it has long established socialist and communist parties the groupings on the right change with the wind. I am old enough to remember De Gaulle’s splendidly named Rassemblement du peuple francais. He formed that party in 1947 but by the time he left politics in 1970 he had lead three different parties of the right: all anti socialist and communist. So when we talk of the fight to lead the UMP, the party of Chirac and then Sarkozy, we are speaking of one that is just a decade old.

The reason this election to choose the new leader of the UMP created such headlines is both candidates claimed victory a day before the final result was declared and then accused their rival of fraud and ballot-stuffing. The right-wing candidate Jean-Francois Cope finally came in ahead of former Prime Minister Francois Fillon by just 98 votes and the UMP has been badly damaged by the fiasco.

I asked Pierre Kanuty who is in charge of European and international relations at the Parti Socialiste in Paris for the left’s take on these events. Pierre also started with the historical context. He told me: “One needs to understand that as a matter of fact, there has never been a true conservative party in France though we have a strong right wing party. All of them have been presidential organisations dedicated to ensure networks aimed at one man’s victory.

“In the 1960’s and 1970’s, Gaullist MP’s needed a political frame for campaigning so they created the UNR (Union for a New Republic), followed by the Union of democrats for the Republic.

“In 1976, Jacques Chirac organised his party, the RPR (Gathering for the Republic). His first success was to be elected as mayor of Paris. The rest of the history is well know, the RPR used municipal jobs to have manpower for the party and got money from many companies to fund the party and its campaign. They also cheated many times on local votes in Paris.

“The following year Valery Giscard d’Estaing, President of the Republic at the time formed his own party, UDF (Union of the French democracy).

“Chirac’s RPR was depicted by its founder as the “French social democracy” supposed to be more leftist than the UDF. The truth there was always a conservative – neo liberal wing and a centrist, pro-welfare state fighting each other within the RPR and the UDF.

“The rise of a successful conservative revolution in the UK with Thatcher and in the US with Reagan gave them hope, but the electoral cost was very high as the French conservative voters still wanted a strong state even if they were in favour of strong tax cuts.

“The crisis of the conservative leadership is a very long story, but as long as the parties were dominated by high figures like Chirac, or Sarkozy, it was easy to reduce it to childish games.

“In 2001, the RPR decided to merge with centre right UDF to form the UMP. Some of people from UDF refused to join, claiming there was room for a true centre party that eventually became the MoDem led by François Bayrou.

“Nicolas Sarkozy took over the party and he organised it as a war machine entirely aimed at the 2007 victory. Renewal of ideas, networks, activists, communication and media strategy, nothing was left behind. But the main thing was to assume a true neo liberal and neo conservative ideology.”

With the defeat of Sarkozy in May by Hollande and the defeated president’s subsequent resignation from the party leadership obviously the UMP had to seek a new leader. All parties after defeat lick their wounds, rally round a new leader and move on. What went so disastrously wrong for the UMP?

Pierre explained: “As long as Sarkozy was President, he was also the true leader of the Conservative Party, and obviously when he left, his succession had to be secured. But it is a tradition in the right, no heir, no successor. Conservative leaders like Jean-François Copé were too busy thinking about their own career, focusing on 2017 the year of the next presidential elections.

“François Fillon, former prime minister comes from a social conservative background, but as Sarkozy’s Prime minister, for five years, he implemented a neo liberal policy and, even if he ended his term with a better popularity rate that Sarkozy, he was symbolically defeated since his old constituency was won by a socialist candidate, Stéphane Le Foll who became minister of agriculture. Fillon decided to target an easier place to be elected in the “bourgeois” Paris’s 7th district and Quartier Latin as a first step for a further fight : being mayor of Paris in 2014.

“Jean-François Copé never left his home town, in a Paris suburb. With his “uninhibited right” he’s ready to do whatever it takes to grab the extreme right National Front’s voters.

“The vote of 18th November was a opportunity for UMP members to choose for the first time their leader without any electoral pressure as we are only six months after the presidential and legislative elections. The rules of procedures were very hard. Each candidate had to be endorsed by almost 8,000 party members representing 10 local branches at department level. The 265,000 party members could vote in 650 polling stations. Only 176,000 persons voted.

“The socialists with less party members (around 150,000) had more than 3,000 polling stations in their vote on the leadership one month earlier. This is one of the reasons of the mess.

“The means never matched the needs. Copé finally won with only 50,03 %, just 98 votes ahead.

“Such a small margin requires a huge effort to bring legitimacy to the new leader. If there is no surprise in Copé’s victory, it shows that the leadership crisis is not over yet since somebody can argue that the “minority” represents 49.97 % of the party.”

I leave the final word on this debacle to Pierre:

“In the 1980’s, there was a slogan saying “the French right is the dumbest in the world”. Seems it is still accurate.”

(The above article was published in the London Progressive Journal on November 20 2012).

“GROWTH COMES WITH JOBS, INNOVATION AND ACCESS TO CREDIT”

France elected a socialist president in May and on September 28 his government delivered its budget for 2013 proclaimed as the “most important effort made for 30 years”. It has been praised because French President Francois Hollande with his Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, have kept their deficit reduction pledges. Others have questioned the balance of taxes and spending and the over optimistic growth predictions.

France hasn’t balanced a budget since 1974 but Hollande and his team says it’s determined to see a reduction of the government’s budget deficit by three per cent in 2013. I asked Parti Socialiste MP Axelle Lemaire, who was elected for France’s new Northern European constituency in June – a constituency that includes the UK – for her take on the Hollande budget.

Eade: Francois Hollande was elected on a promise of promoting recovery by growth rather than cuts: if France misses its moderate growth target how will this be achieved?

Lemaire: The proposed 2013 budget, unveiled last week, lays on two principles: responsibility and jobs. When François Hollande took office in May, he asked for a general audit to the politically independent accounting body Cour des Comptes. Its conclusion was much worse than anticipated, unveiling a tremendous 30 billion Euro gap in the previous government's budget estimate. Fulfilling France's European commitments of deficit reduction was an imperative for François Hollande, as much as supporting the economy, jobs, and the French welfare state. To a large extent, this Budget is a difficult but realistic balance between deficit reduction and measures supporting employment and demand. The aim is to promote competitiveness and social fairness while asserting France’s fiscal responsibility and credibility. Growth comes with jobs, innovation and access to credit, three pillars of this Budget. 

Eade: The other promise was to create jobs: Laurence Parisot, of the Medef employers group says he fears this budget as it will damage competitiveness – so how will Hollande’s government create jobs?

Lemaire: It would be surprising to hear something different as this Budget asks for a contribution from everyone, particularly large companies and well-off households. However, the budget Minister insists that these contributions will be limited in time, to cope with this difficult economic situation. An improvement of the economic climate and access to credit is good for French companies. The government will support SMEs, one the largest job creators in the country, through various incentives. The creation of a Public Investment Bank devoted to investments in R&D, infrastructure projects and SMEs aims to boost France's competitiveness, a key condition to growth. Hollande's pledge to protect jobs despite limited margins finds concrete applications with the creation of 340,000 subsidised jobs, the construction of 100,000 social housings, a renewed effort in education with 60,000 new staff. Supporting demand, jobs and competitiveness in these very difficult times against austerity, cuts or a dismantlement of the welfare state - that’s the responsible pro-growth agenda that the government has chosen. 

Eade: The 75 per cent tax levy on those earning over one million euros appears to be more symbolic than raising any major amounts – millions rather than billions. Is it a “we are all in this together tax” and do you expect to have new high wealth French citizens as constituents as they flee France?

Lemaire: Yes, as a nation, we should face these tough times all together. Job losses destroy families. Paying higher taxes exclusively on salary income, for a predefined, exceptional amount of time, does not. Some understand this very well, and set the example. I pay tribute to them. For the rest, the problem is not tax exiles, but tax competition in Europe and particularly tax-havens. A stronger harmonization is needed. Job creation, innovation, competitiveness and fairness remain the main focus of our action.    

(The above article was published in the London Progressive Journal on October 20 2012)

“I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE YOUTH OF FRANCE”

Francois Hollande is the president-elect of France. On Sunday evening after the polls closed he addressed a crowd in his home constituency of Tulle before heading off for the Parti Socialiste victory bash in the Place de la Bastille in Paris – the traditional rallying point of the left. In Tulle he declared to his jubilant audience:  “I am the president of the youth of France. You are a movement that is rising up throughout Europe.”

It will come as a reassurance to those of us who are ‘long in the tooth’, or a “vieille personne” in French argot, that Hollande is fast approaching 60 and is balding. He is also intent on restoring the retirement age to 60 years for some – outgoing centre right presidents perhaps. So for all of us who are young at heart in the progressive left in Europe we can clamber aboard the renewed sense of hope that Hollande has brought to the young, the middle-aged and the old alike in his native France.

On Sunday in the second round of the French Presidential election Francois Hollande became the socialist party’s first president since 1995, when another Francois, Mitterrand, stood down after serving two terms. Hollande secured victory with just under 51.63 per cent of the vote (roughly the same as Mitterrand) leaving his centre right rival Nicolas Sarkozy as the first president not to secure a second term since 1981.

In Paris on Sunday night was Pierre Kanuty of the Parti Socialiste’s Europe and International Department. His verdict: “It was the day we made history!”

After a long night of celebrations Pierre told me: “Sunday was an important election day in many ways all over Europe. The Labour did very well in UK’s local elections, the SPD as well in Schleswig-Holstein. In Greece, the defeat of PASOK was predictable but the serious threat of extreme right shows the reality of a danger we have experienced here in France. The campaign in France was not just a domestic political event. It was observed and monitored abroad and we were aware of that.”

The progressive socialist movement throughout Europe had been pinning its hopes on a Hollande victory. Pierre confided: “The support, the messages and the help we’ve got from our comrades was not just symbolic. It gave us faith, strength and it helped us having constantly in mind how important it was for social-democracy and Europe.”

So why did Sarkozy fail to win a second term? Pierre is in no doubt: “Because the hyper-president never understood he’s been too far in his hustle. The TV debate between him and François Hollande showed clearly two styles, two ways to do politics. The conservative candidate was acting as if reality was on his side but he never faced the contradiction between being a super president, like the heroes you see in blockbusters and a real impotent man blaming the crisis for his failure. The most symbolic argument was that in 2007, shortly before he took office, he had promised to reduce the unemployment rate to five per cent. Five years later it is around 10 per cent: it was not halved, it was doubled.”

Pierre continued: “Sarkozy never acted as somebody who embodied France as a whole. His nickname was the ‘President of the Riches’ and during the campaign he moved to the right. Some of his supporters even talked about alliances with the Front National of Marine Le Pen. He kept talking about immigration as invasion, Muslims as the symbol of all immigrants coming to our country and changing our ‘way of life’.”

The voting on Sunday saw the Parti Socialiste triumph in historically conservative places. For the first time the PS was ahead in both Paris and its region. The overwhelming rejection was perhaps the reason that Sarkozy conceded defeat just half an hour after the polling stations closed.

François Hollande will officially take over as president on May 15. The immediate battle for the Parti Socialiste is not over: in June it faces all important parliamentary elections. The challenge says Pierre “is to win a socialist majority in order to be safe from a green-red pressure” from Sarkozy’s defeated Union for a Popular Movement and the far right threat of the Front National.

For Hollande the challenges are just starting: meanwhile his party is launched once more into a vital election battle.

(The above article was published in the London Progressive Journal on May 9 2012).

THE FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: AS VIEWED FROM THE RUE DE SOLFÉRINO

The Rue de Solférino is on the left bank of the Seine in Paris. It takes its name from the Battle of Solférino fought by Napoleon III and Victor Emmanuel II on one side against Francis Joseph of Austria on the other back in 1859. Needless to say Napoleon’s team won.

The street has many political associations and today is the headquarters of France’s Parti Socialiste. The Rue de Solférino is now witnessing another historic battle as the PS’ Francois Hollande seeks to oust the Bling Bling president of France, Sarkozy, from power. That battle will be decided by French voters on Sunday May 6.

At the Parti Socialiste HQ is the office of Pierre Kanuty, the party’s political advisor for International and Europe affairs. He is also a prolific blogger and shared with me his views on the state of the election so far after Sunday’s first round.

Pierre considers the first round of the presidential election - The beginning of the end for Sarkozy. He continued: “One can learn a lot from Sunday’s vote. The turnout was finally better than expected. French citizens are crazy about politics and despite a very long sequence - the socialist open primaries and the campaign, many of them vote.

“François Hollande gathered 10 millions of voters, reaching one of the highest results for a socialist candidate. Sarkozy didn't succeed at all. The hyper president never had a real momentum.”

That was the good news: what of the bad?

Pierre shares the views expressed here by the PS’s UK candidate Axelle Lemaire said: “The bad news came from the Front National (extreme right) with its best result since one voter out of five gave his or her vote to Marine Le Pen.

“New look but old ideas; the FN will put a heavy pressure on the Conservatives. Some pundits predict that they want to destroy the Conservative UMP in order to reshape the right.”

On the far left candidate Pierre observe: “Melenchon didn’t reach his goal - to be the third man, but with 10 per cent, he give the Communist Party and the radical left a steady weight.

“The Green Party failed in an election that is not right for them. With the crisis, people care less about ecology than about keeping their jobs.”

So what of the coming days before the final presidential run-off and the period that follows in France and wider Europe?

Pierre is a realist and issues a stark warning: “The victory is close but we’re not there yet. The right wing parties may lose in the vote, but they have already won in the heads - such a reality exists all over Europe.

“The progressives will have to address theses issues: how can we tackle the crisis, reduce deficit, find growth and make solidarity between people a priority?”

That is the challenge not just facing Hollande and the Parti Socialiste but those on the left of politics throughout Europe: it is a battle that has to be won.

(The above article appeared in the London Progressive Journal on April 26 and a version in the Morning Star on April 27 2012 as well as other online publications).

ADVANTAGE HOLLANDE

The French Open, one of tennis’ major grand slams, is coming up fast and hence to use the terminology of that sport the first round of that country’s presidential election sees the umpire call “Advantage Hollande”. However as in politics and in sport having the advantage does not guarantee victory.

In the first round of polling held on Sunday April 22 socialist Hollande took 28.6 per cent of the votes to put him ahead of the current president Sarkozy on 27.2 per cent. The big surprise of the day was the high vote for far right candidate Marine Le Pen with 17.9 per cent. In fourth place was the voice for the far left Jean-Luc Melenchon on 11.1 per cent whilst the centrist Francois Bayrou registered 9.1 per cent.

The second round on Sunday May 6 will be between Hollande and Sarkozy to determine who is the next president of France. Already Ifop has conducted and published a poll which on the basis of the soundings carried out after the polls closed on Sunday sees Hollande capturing 54.5 per cent of the vote with Sarkozy trailing on 45.5 per cent.

Just how the three main eliminated candidates’ votes are distributed in the second round is key to the outcome of the presidential election. The same Ifop polls said 83 per cent of the far left Jean-Luc Melenchon vote would go to Hollande whilst Sarkozy would collect 38 per cent of Bayrou’s voters and 48 per cent of Le Pen’s. Hollande would pick up 32 and 31 per cent respectively.

In the end event it may be down to the fact that the French voters have simply had enough of President Bling Bling and believe that socialist Hollande is more suited to these austere times.

Axelle Lemaire is the Parti Socialiste candidate for the UK and Northern Europe constituency for the French parliamentary elections that will be held in June. However she has also been working to get her supporters out to vote in the same constituency on April 22 and will again on May 6 for her party leader Francois Hollande.

On the first round vote Lemaire said: “We have good reasons to feel satisfied with the results. It is the first time in French modern political history that an outgoing president does not pass the first round in a leading position, and polls indicate that Mr Hollande enjoys a significant advance in the second round. But it leaves a sweet and sour taste, given the high score of the extreme right candidate Marine Le Pen, who actually attracted more voters than her father when he made it to the second round in 2002. In itself this is another sign that social democracy throughout Europe is facing a serious challenge from extremist and populist parties. Mr Hollande is the best candidate to address the real concerns of the people regarding their social and legal safety”.

So how did the French voters in the British Isles and other areas of Europe in this constituency vote? Lemaire says: “The results of the first round of the French presidential election in the North Europe constituency show that victory is possible for François Hollande here. Overall, the number of left-wing voters in the first round has increased compared with 2007, and seems to be higher than that of the right. There is clearly an opportunity to show that abroad too, French people want change for their country, and see addressed issues of justice, fairness and equality, as well as a clear strategy for Europe and for growth. This first result also indicates that the race will be tight, with every vote counting. Which path do we want France to take in the next five years and for the future generations? It is up to us to decide, in France, and abroad.”

On May 6 the people of France will speak: the chance of a historic socialist victory is within Hollande’s grasp if the voters have the courage of their convictions they have shown so far.

(The above article appeared in the London Progressive Journal on April 26 and a version in the Morning Star on April 27 2012 as well as other online publications).

Emma Reynolds: Labour’s Shadow Europe Minister also writes on this subject at:

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/04/24/hollande-in-pole-position/

WE WENT ON STRIKE! WHAT DID WE ACHIEVE? NOTHING!

On September 29 I joined many other people in Spain and supported the general strike. Although I have reservations about strikes, a subject to which I will return, I did so because whilst I accept that strong measures are required to solve the financial crisis making the weak and vulnerable pay for the sins of the bankers is not the solution nor is it just.

José Javier Cubillo, national organisation secretary of the UGT, said the strike had drawn the support of 70 per cent of workers of whom 10 million had been called out. The union, along with its CC.OO partners, insisted this meant the government had to reconsider its tough economic and labour reform policies.

So what did the strike achieve? If we are talking of the objectives of the unions - nothing! The government is sticking to its cuts. Moodys down graded Spain’s credit rating from Aaa to Aa1 shortly after whilst the centre right Partido Popular gained a few points in the opinion polls making it even more likely they will form the new government in 2012. Their policies will be tougher than socialist PSOE.

I want to go back to the East End of London in 1926 the year of the General Strike. By then my uncle Len was a communist. My maternal grandmother – his sister and a socialist all her life - was bringing my mother up on her own after being widowed when her young husband was struck down by TB.

Life for that working class generation was tough. There was neither the social welfare safety net nor the national health service that we take for granted today.

It was my grandmother who was the rock on which I forged my early values. Yet the most telling moment came in the late 1960s when I went in to her room where she was watching TV. The news was about another strike and tears were running down her cheeks. She was so furious with the actions of the unions that she could not contain herself as she felt they were destroying everything the union and Labour movements had fought so hard to build up.

Certainly the world she now viewed about her was vastly different from the one she had been a teenager and a young adult in. She held firmly to her core socialist beliefs but believed the unions were knocking down what had been built up with so much pain. Her feelings struck a chord in my soul.

Although the General Strike of 1926 is now a part of the socialist and union movement heritage it lasted ten days and totally failed in its objectives of preventing wage reduction and worsening conditions for the miners. The unions’ winter of discontent of 1979 did more to usher in the Thatcher era than anything the Labour Government of Jim Callaghan did. Then as now in Spain we are railing against a socialist government in the full knowledge that the outcome will almost certainly be a centre-right government which will hammer the people even harder.

There is something noble about a person having the inalienable right to withdraw his or her labour and to strike to defend their rights or the rights of others. Yet when in the days of the cotton mills that could bring production to a crashing halt or a dock strike could prevent the mill receiving its raw materials or exporting its finished product the reality today is very different.

In an age when money or information can be passed around the world in a split second, or a factory can be relocated to Eastern Europe or Asia, we are still manning pickets, waving banners, marching and shouting slogans. The world has passed our mode of protest by. Whilst I joined the strike on September 29 because I believed a stand had to be made against the wrongs that were being committed against pensioners, public service employees, those in work and the unemployed in the name of clearing up the mess left by the financial sector – I did so in the full knowledge that it would amount to nothing. Indeed the end result could be a switch from a socialist to a centre right government.

Governments today, regardless of political persuasion, dance to a different beat and centre right Sarkozy is no more going to back down on pension reform in France than centre left Zapatero is in Spain. In the future if we are to take on governments or employers and win the battle for social justice we will need a new armoury.

Unions have a problem. Ninety-five per cent of their work is defending the rights of workers, negotiating with management, education – and if the truth were told a good union is an important part of our economic engine as any entrepreneur. Yet it goes totally unreported. What the public is aware of is the set piece strikes and more often than not these efforts are unsuccessful. Unions worldwide in this modern age are fighting 21 st century battles with 19 th century weapons - that has to change and fast.

(The above article appeared in the Morning Star on September 17 2010)