David Cameron announced yesterday that he is considering changing the law to make it more difficult to strike; not exactly a surprise from a disciple of Margaret Thatcher. And, you know what? I hope he does, simply because, at the moment, the government’s attacks on the welfare state and the working man are conducted in a cloak-and-dagger manner, leaving most people believing the cuts are necessary and believing they themselves are free. This idea, however, would definitely engender a reaction from the supposed ‘hard left’ of which Cameron is so afraid, which would hopefully lead to us abandoning our pointless sects and working together for the common good of the movement. We are much more dangerous to the Con-dem coalition when we have the majority of the people on our side and this would surely be the case should Cameron propose to ban industrial action, as it would leave us with no recourse against the government; an even more blatant dictatorship than we have already. Withdrawing our labour is currently the only defence we have from being treated like slaves by our corporate overlords and our bosses, and I can only hope that people begin to cherish and protect it before it is too late.
In other (but related) news, Ed Miliband has proven not once but twice in one single interview that, despite his claims of being ‘socialist’ he couldn’t be further away from representing the interests of the majority. Not only did he describe himself as “appalled” at certain unions’ plans to strike on the day of the royal wedding- an idea that seems intelligent to me, as not only would it would cause the most possible disruption but it would also cause trouble almost specifically to upper class twats and the sort of wittering idiots who hero-worship the unelected royal family simply because they have been born rich. But, no, ‘Red Ed’ (yeah right!) has condemned the proposed strikes- which, in reality, are rather unlikely to actually take place- saying they would be “absolutely the wrong thing for trade unions to do”. Why, Ed? Because they would disrupt the latest in a long line of undemocratic celebrations from a country that has the gall to say it ‘spreads democracy’ around the world? For whom is this democracy meant to benefit? Oh yes, the political class, the rich! Well it’s high time we took back what’s ours and stopped getting our lives ruined by a small minority who tell us to ‘know our place’. Whose streets? Our streets! Or even better, as I heard from watching the video of Charles and Camilla’s car being attacked by utter heroes, “Whose Regent Street? Our Regent Street!” Classic.
On a related note, why are the people expected to revel in the ‘joy’ of two very rich, pampered people getting married? Doesn’t anyone else find that patronising? As if being in their shadow should be an honour and we should wait for some of the wealth to ‘trickle down’ (it somehow never does). It’s disgusting! How did this become the norm? As far as I’m concerned, I want as much disruption as possible to take place when people are ‘celebrating’ the royal wedding- tube strike, attacking Camilla again, bomb scare, I truly couldn't care less. Miliband has also revealed that he doesn’t know the slightest thing about strike action; he described it as a “last resort”, for “when the ballot box has failed”. What do you call this situation then, Ed? The Ballot box has failed us; false democracy has failed us, leaving us with no option but to engage in direct action and, ultimately, revolution. When millions rise up, what can 10,000 coppers do? Nothing! We are the people- this world is OURS!