Stike hard while the iron is hot.

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of the discussion which stems both from the strike action tomorrow, and from the occupy protests, and from our own student protests in Cambridge, the flaw being that these actions are demonstrative of a lack of respect, both for free speech and for the public.

David Willets – the odious helmsman steering the dismantling of the best university system in the world – came to give a talk here entitled ‘The Idea of A University’ and was shouted down by an organised group of protesters in the crowd, to such a degree that he was forced to abandon the stage and retreat without saying a single word. An achievement to be marked as a success for the protesters. The New Statesman, the BBC and Mary Beard (the Cambridge Classicist who edits the Times Literary Supplement) have all more-or-less denounced the action as an own goal, and as impeding free speech. I disagree. It would have been disrespectful if David Willets hadn’t already made his mind up, made his policy up and fashioned it through the halls of Westminster into law and practice. Indeed it would also have been disrespectful to the idea of free speech if, as a cabinet minister, he wasn’t already afforded ample time to pontificate and ruminate his arch conservative views and objectives wherever he goes. As it is, it is merely disrespectful to the man himself, and I can happily forgive this.

If you truly believe ministerial visits are engines for free speech and the frank exchange of ideas, then you are severely misguided. They are in most cases carefully choreographed media events, with ministerial interactions scrupulous vetted before hand to the point of people probably being given the questions they are supposed to come up with by the ministers minders. This is the case with Andrew Lansley certainly; but he is so unpopular in the profession that when he goes to hospitals even with this vetting he still gets shouted at by irate doctors away from whom he is normally kept well away. Why would the health secretary need to interact with doctors after all, he is a conservative and so things like reality and facts hardly need to enter into this one-track little mind.

The strikes, due to dismantle temporarily the working of society, keep being described as irresponsible, disrespectful, because they will inconvenience ordinary people when their beef is with the government, discussions with whom are not yet concluded. This to my mind is equally fatuous. There is a fair argument which points out that the unions and public sector workers are not really striking about pensions, but against the whole mantra of austerity. And this, whilst being true, is not a good enough to undermine the strike action. At some point those under threat – and these workers are in no doubt under threat – have to stand up and demonstrate against the government for whom they provide a set of vital services. I find it the same as I was arguing about the student strikes, yes of course everybody abhors violence, and of course everybody abhors strikes, but eventually it must become justified. This government is projected to have caused 800,000 job losses in the public sector by the end of the parliament, almost a million people out of work, and the private sector certainly has not been picking up the slack. Teachers are taking a 20% cut in take home pay, being expected to work more and longer, and at the end of it all have an even worse pension package. It is morally disgusting (if I can use such a word). The idea that a government – or any company for that matter –can simply raid a pension pot when it’s hard up for cash is monstrous; the pension arrangement is not a gift from the employer, it is not a grace and a favour, it is an integral part of the remuneration package, it is deferred pay. To say that a person’s wage is to be recalculated, and that the new lower wage will be back-dated so that the individual shall have to pay a portion of the wages they have already received back would be idiotic, not to mention illegal, but this is in effect what raiding a pension scheme is. You may well expect this sort of thing from a profit driven capitalistic leviathian, but the public sector is categorically not about profits, it should be about making people’s lives better. Providing vital services like education and healthcare should not be subjected to market forces and consumer capitalism, otherwise they’ll end up in the same mess as our rail system, the postal services, electricity companies, and the like.

But of course this administration makes no secret of the fact that things like reality and evidence have no bearing on their policies. The debacle of economic policy where now the country is borrowing more now than when Nu Labour left office in order to pay for the masses of unemployed people their policies are creating, means the Tories are massively increasing debt in order to wipe out a deficit. Madness, although to be honest I’m not entirely certain I understand the economics of what is going on at the moment; every other economist who voices an opinion seem disagree, so it’s hard to form an informed opinion. But in order to push ahead with this plan of austerity, George Osborne, a man who had no economic credibility before becoming Chancellor (appointed ultimately because he went to the right school, don’t forget), is cutting benefits to families and those on the bread line, forcing public sector workers to take ever worse pay conditions of a 1% pay rise over two years (contrasted to 5% inflation every year), but don’t worry because ‘we’re all in it together’, and the bankers tax has gone up by 0.08% – and no, I didn’t make that up, I don’t think I could make that up. If ever there was a time for mass strikes, it is now, and it is certainly not irresponsible.