Though Cowards Flinch

David Allen Green, on his Staggers blog, recently penned two very provocative posts on the decision by the Fire Brigade Union to hold a strike on bonfire night.

The first one was so “controversial” in fact, that a second one was necessary in order to level with dissenters.

The problem with the first one – as Green tried to counter in his second – was that it dealt with abuse of power, while apparently only implying this could apply to the bonfire night strike. As Kate, commenting on the second article, pointed out “This article still doesn’t *quite* tell us what David Allen Green’s opinion is of the dispute in question. The implication of the first piece was squarely condemnatory of the FBU”.

It appears like Green has covered his back merely by asking whether this could be an abuse of power, but has qualified no concrete answer. However, given his dissatisfaction at the charge of commenters saying the FBUs action did not constitute an abuse, it is close to obvious which side he is on – that is, of course, until the next post.

For me, the first post pontificated on power that would otherwise be absent if striking was not an option. By that I mean the power to subvert the abuse of power levelled by management. Indeed striking is historically the only power – per se – workers have to bargain their bosses with; so if this strike is an abuse of power, this would render the fire brigade powerless – exactly how management would prefer it.

But I think Green would accept this too; striking is a demonstration of power, the abuse is the day on which the strike is taking place.

Green received this answer when contacting the FBU:

A range of dates have been chosen – not just Bonfire Night. We do not have the luxury of time. The clock is ticking on our members’ contracts. Firefighters in London will be sacked from 26 November. We are fighting to defend our jobs and our service, and we have just four weeks to succeed.

Immediately the argument is not that striking is an abuse of power, but that the day is a bad idea.

Green is right to be slightly confused about the FBUs agreement in South Yorkshire of 11/13 (11-hour day shifts; 13 hour night shifts) but opposition to the same in London. But the point is no longer on par with calling the strike action an abuse.

Indeed the second article – far more detailed, and better sourced than the first – is really a step away from the contention that the strike action is abuse. It even concludes with this admission: “it is rather hard to see which side is abusing their power more.”

I am a fan of Green’s work in general, but such ambiguity is symptomatic both of a fence-sitting liberal and someone keen not to make too explicit an assertion – neither of which I’m accusing Green of being, simply implying as much.

Interestingly, Iain Dale – hardly a paid up member of the awkward squad – on speaking to some striking firemen yesterday, noted that “they were all on strike because of the Section 188 notice letters rather than the proposed change in shift patterns”.

With regards to Green’s conversation with the FBU, what we must ask is that the FBUs position be concrete – is the dispute based upon the shift pattern changes and Section 188 in equal measure? And why is 11/13 appropriate for South Yorkshire and not London? But on Section 188 – this is an abuse of power that needs challenging in the only effective way workers can.

I’m no fence-sitter; which side is absuing their power more? The management side.

I really like the new edition of the Staggers, which contains a bunch of interesting articles – particularly this one from Žižek and this one from Terry Eagleton. There’s also a blessedly short leader traipsing out the old remark about ‘Methodism, not Marxism‘ which can justify virtually any degree of backsliding.

It’s Žižek I want to speak of, however, because for all the merits and insights that I enjoy in his work, his position on theology just baffles me. Which is to say it’s probably tied up with the Lacanian master-signifier in some way, as a particularly persuasive example of “It is so because I say it is so.” Mostly, as a materialist, I just ignore it.

Yet Žižek offers in his article an opportunity to see the disadvantages of his flirtations:

Why is theology emerging again as a point of reference for radical politics? It is emerging not in order to supply a divine “big other”, guaranteeing the final success of our endeavours, but, on the contrary, as a token of our radical freedom, with no big other to rely on.

Is theology emerging again as a point of reference for radical politics? I haven’t noticed it; most of the Left continues on much as it has before. What constitutes the political act for the ‘radical’ (however Slavoj defines that) hasn’t changed much in twenty years: local meetings, protests, petitions, book stalls, strikes etc. ‘Theology’ doesn’t play a role here.

On the contrary, where theology seems to be continuing its position as a replacement for the very radical politics that once held a much larger swathe of the population. Accounts from the rustbelt of the US, where fundamentalist churches grow and religious organs proliferate, are so numerous as to barely require citation.

In the UK, liberal theology (so defined because it takes a fair bit for Anglican bishops to quote scripture at people like it’s a cudgel) is still the preserve of the well-off political Right. Fundamentalist theologies have always been present – such as in the eisegesis that is current in many magazines, popular with Presbyterians and others, like ‘the Word for Today’.

They are, however, a minority. Irreligion in the UK is growing phenomenon. This suggests that ‘theology’ is continuing its slide. British political discourse provides many issues around which the political and cultural Right coalesce, and though ‘Christian values’ are occasionally treated as synonymous with ‘British culture’, this seems vestigial.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no new emergence of a credible theology on the Left, certainly not the radical Left. Perhaps it’s different when seen from the Academy windows looking out.

Appeals to the Big Other have abounded, on the other hand, as with George Osborne’s use of ‘the economy’, or the Daily Mail’s use of ‘wealth creating business leaders’ as the reification of concepts which will sting us for our folly should we not decide the next election in the manner they demand.

I would not say these are especially theological, though Osborne certainly appeals to ideas like ‘investment in the economy’ like they are immutable.

This is where we end up all too frequently with Žižek; wondering on what empirical evidence his assertions are based. If we demolish his initial assertions, about the growth of ‘theology’ as a means of radical praxis, then the article itself becomes an exercise at whistling Dixie, rather than an attempt to explain an actual fact.

This week’s New Statesman interview with Martin McGuinness lets the Northern Irish Deputy First Minister off extremely lightly, allowing him to appear as the romantic Republican, standing astride a bitter past with the promise of a future.

A lot of the interview concentrates on personal questions, such as whether McGuinness killed anyone as an IRA man or whether he lets death threats bother him, but the political part is remarkably weak.

McGuinness gets away with vague answers talking about how he wants to “move forward”, to “work with [Peter Robinson] in a positive, constructive way”, to “end the vicious cycle” and so on, not actually saying much.

Politics in Northern Ireland is much more mundane than a relentless focus on “the Troubles” makes it. Politicians are charged with delivering the same services as elsewhere, within the same constraints. Unbelievably, Martin McGuinness isn’t asked anything about the substantive part of what he does either as Deputy First Minister or as part of the Stormont Executive.

A passing reference to how his faith doesn’t challenge the view that everyone should be treated equally is about it.

The closest the interview comes to a challenging question was to ask whether or not a Tory government might damage McGuinness’ ’cause’. This is an important issue, because the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, and the functions of the devolved government, operate at the sufferance of Westminster.

To this question the DFM responded:

Well, I’ve met with Owen Paterson [the Conservative shadow Northern Ireland secretary] and David Cameron, and they made it clear that they are prepared to stand faithfully by the agreements that have been made. Being involved constructively in the north of Ireland is a steep learning curve. I hope whatever government is elected will come at this as positively as Labour did in recent times.

Which is nice but rather sidesteps a key issue, which goes beyond the institutions themselves. There is nationalist speculation that the Conservatives are attempting to negotiate some deal between UCUNF (formerly the Ulster Unionists, now allied directly to the Tory Party) and the DUP, as a way to outmanoeuvre the nationalists.

This raises questions over how easily nationalists can deal with a Tory government if they have to watch their back, fearing that each initiative might be aimed at weakening the nationalists rather than furthering peace.

Interestingly, McGuinness’ view on what the Tories are prepared to do flatly contradicts the pronouncements of Owen Paterson, Tory NI spokesman. Called on by Peter Robinson to ratify any potential agreement on devolution of policing and justice, Paterson said;

“We are facing a major economic crisis should we win the next election. We cannot give any guarantees on any spending programmes.”

That’s not even the issue I myself consider important. With George Osborne giving the lie to David Cameron’s softly-softly approach on cuts in spending, in the aftermath of an election, Northern Irish politicians have got to be wondering how this is going to end up affecting them.

Even without immediate spending cuts in the block grant, the Executive needs to find ‘savings’ of some £400 million, in view of pressures like the anti-water charges campaign, which has turned the imposition of the double taxation on water usage into something akin to political suicide.

Predictions by Margaret Ritchie of crisis in the housing department, of shortfalls rising to £100m per year, directly impact upon the stability of Northern Ireland. Whether it’s re-housing people forced out by sectarian, anti-immigrant or even anti-police attacks, or providing for an area with perpetually high unemployment, housing is going to be squeezed and the results may be violent.

There’s talk of increasing the regional rates, which disproportionately affect lower and middle value properties: everything above £400,000 is capped. One hopes this will have eased, following the end of Belfast’s London-like house prices boom, but that in turn reduces the amount that can be harvested.

Capital projects will be put on hold, shelving plans for hospitals, schools and roads (and probably increasing the excess capacity in related industries), to the tune of £170 million. And then there’s the issue of a Tory government whose first priority is to stabilise a credit rating which isn’t under threat.

Perhaps McGuinness should have been asked, with his party touted (however unlikely) to occupy the First Minister spot after the next Assembly elections, how Sinn Fein intends to reconcile this with its rhetoric about how working people are being asked to pay for ‘the greed of the government, bankers and the developers’.