The
National Union is publishing detailed reports of Conference on the websites and
is distributing materials – NUT News is already available – which very
effectively provide all the information you need about our very successful
Conference. When I had a moment at Conference I scribbled down some notes, and
I’ve tried to write them up here… it’s not intended to be anything more than
that – certainly not “a report”!
showed all the ease and confidence that characterised
the way in which she ran Conference throughout.
Britishness – “Fair’s fair!”,
or is it always?
Despite being let down by a last minute technological hitch with the auto-cues, Baljeet came across as passionate and sincere about our values as teachers and trades unionists, simply because she IS passionate and sincere about them – unlike the cynical and self-serving hacks of the right-wing press who chose to attack her in their formulaic and prescriptive traditional anti-NUT manner.
Her speech was wide ranging and very effective in her defence of education, and her challenge to Government priorities that put weapons of mass destruction – Trident – and illegal war and occupation above the educational needs of our children and society. She was telling in her opposition to privatisation and the cowboy operators it encourages. She castigated the government for its dictatorial and blackmailing attitude towards Local Authorities – to force them down the Academy route. As her speech progressed, she covered a great deal of ground convincingly and thoroughly… so well in fact that those elements of the press traditionally and hopelessly opposed to the NUT chose to ignore or sideline them. After all Baljeet is our first black President – and therefore the lowest orders of the press (you know who I mean) did the obvious… attack her on her views on “Britishness”
Baljeet made the very good point that values identified by
some as “British values” are values
held by ordinary people throughout the world. “No nation has a monopoly on fairness and
decency, justice and humanity,” she said.
Culture and values, I believe, do not drop from the sky and are not
“god-given”. They come about through generations of experience of the world,
and the daily realities faced by those living in it. So culture and values are
rarely shared by all the people of a particular nation, and certainly not by
the different social classes within that nation – their life experiences are
fundamentally different.
Is it “fair and just” that the richest 1% of our population own 34% of
the total wealth generated by the work of the other 99%? The richest 10% owning
71% of the total wealth – while the poorest 50% share just 1% of the national
wealth between them? Is this “fair”? Is it “just”? Certainly, the “rule of law”
says that it is! And it is also “fair” that the “haves” should continue to buy
power and privilege – sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly – while the
“have-nots” are told to learn “tolerance”, and not suffer from “the politics of
envy”?
“Fairness” will mean something very different to the wealthy investor
and to the worker his money employs. The investor generally makes more return
on his money the lower wages are, and the longer and faster the workers are
required to work for them. He may regard “fairness” as his right to do what he
likes with his money, to invest it and spend it how he likes – possibly buying
educational privilege for his children, and waiting-list free private health
etc. – while seeing investment returns many times higher that the annual
collective wages of the workers. The worker may not see “fairness” in quite the
same light!
In our Conference we saw the Brent Anti-Academy protestors view of
“fairness and the rule of law” suggesting that a tax-exile – by choice refusing
to pay his way – was not a good role model for school children, and should not
be even considered as an Academy sponsor. By exposing the position, and
insisting that it be discussed, and allowing ordinary people’s view of
“fairness” to be heard for once, they forced this tax parasite to withdraw as
sponsor. Had they not taken this action, Brent council would have continued to
regard it as “fair and decent” for him to have bought a school! And the
“Britishness” of the “rule of law” would have backed him all the way.
It would be difficult to equate an ordinary working person’s view of
decency, justice and humanity, with the distorted view of these that was used
to justify the subjugation of people all over the world – and close to home - to the British Empire… that in just the last
few decades has led to a series of false imprisonments, “miscarriages of
justice”, woundings and “mistaken” killings and erosions of civil liberties in
Britain. Now again in the 21st century we see “British” readiness to promote
“freedom” with high altitude bombing, illegal invasion and occupation – while
elsewhere supporting some of the most barbaric, dictatorial and violently
oppressive regimes because they serve our “British national interests”.
The Stop The War Coalition slogan “Not In My Name” sums it up. Questions
of justice, freedom, tolerance, fairness are all far more class questions than
national questions. What’s done in the name of Britain is often not what the
ordinary British people would want to be done.
Because Baljeet used some of her time to tackle these issues, because
she is a worker, because she is a trades unionist, because she is a woman,
because she is black…. and because she had the gall to express her thoughts on
the major issues facing us without curtseying to her betters, the old bullies
of the press – appalled at her lack of toadying (their favourite occupation)
used their positions – usually secured by sacrificing any independent values
that they may have had in favour of those of their Proprietor – to attack her.
Fair? Tolerant? Decent? I don’t think
so.
Encouragingly though, I discussed the sensationalist, uncreative and predictably jingoist nature of these Lunchtime O’Booze scribblers with other media representatives (the large majority) at Conference – and I found that they, if anything, hold the gutter press in even deeper disregard than we do!
But I do believe that Britain’s long history of industry, science, urbanisation and increasing control of the natural world has generated values and ideas that are important. Such values and ideas have not, indeed could not yet emerge as strongly in some other parts of the world where everyday life is less technologically and scientifically based
Briatin has developed as a largely secular society, and we look for rational and scientific explanations of natural and social developments – rather than religious or superstitious “belief”. Even those people with a religious belief for the most part see it as a private matter, not the basis of political or social decision-making, or a basis of law.
We have come to embrace and respect community and collectivity, rather than (what Thatcher hoped and worked hard to see re-emerge) only individuals and individual families. This, for workers, is represented in widespread support for trade union organisation – even amongst those who are not members – rather than “looking after number one” competition between individuals. It’s a value that’s under threat – but it’s still there.
We are much closer (though there is a long way to go) to recognising the inherent equality between women and men than many societies where the oppression of the woman is the centre of the economic unit, the family. Our progressive scientific and social recognition that diversity of humanity is the source of its strength and development allows us to tackle prejudice and discrimination based on fear, ignorance and superstition. Thus homophobic and xenophobic attitudes – still strong – are increasingly challenged.
There can be no excuses of “culture” for any who wish to espouse sexist, xenophobic, homophobic attitudes, or who wish to see human behaviour judged according to a set of prescriptive religious fundamentals, or who wish to undermine the unity of working people – whatever religion these may be based on.
Just as Britons abroad need to learn and integrate with the fundamentals of the ways of life of the communities they choose to live in, rather than sinking into some ex-pat horror, or trying to impose a “British way” on the country they’ve chosen, so do people who come to live in Britain need to take on board the most progressive practices and ways of life they encounter here. Clearly there are many legacies of imperialism that they can help those already here to understand and reject. But the kind of approaches I’ve discussed here – secularism, organisation at work, anti-sexism, rationalism - those fundamentals have been learned from generation to generation – still being embedded - to allow the people to live their lives in the best possible way given the reality of the world they live in. Any attempt to prevent newcomers, and their children from sharing those lessons, and the resulting cultural values, beliefs and ways of life, will seriously disadvantage those people.
Cultures, values, ways of life change as a result of geography and time. All cultures change. We need to always advance the idea that the culture of the ordinary people of Britain is an organic thing, responding to reality, changing to meet new challenges, problems and opportunities. Everyone who lives and works in Britain needs to be part of that process of ongoing change in order to be best equipped to face up to life hers and now.
Any interpretation of multi-culturalism that suggests “divergent pathways” of different sections of the ordinary people are to be intentionally and carefully maintained is doomed to failure – people just aren’t like that! But while it is followed, we stand the risk of dangerous divisions and that of “sleep walking to segregation” – to the disadvantage of almost everyone – apart from those unfair and unjust sections of the population, who would love to see workers divided.