No matter how much Cameron may posture as a political giant, his 6-seat majority is that of a dwarf. And this actually means that he has to sheepishly concede to the right-wing of his party on those issues on which he can afford to concede.
This fact was written all over this Wednesday's "queens speech". It was a catalogue of measures mostly designed to placate the anti-EU, anti-working class obsessions of Cameron's right-wingers.
And the so-called "emergency budget" that Osborne has already announced for July 8th can be expected to be quite similar, since it will outline his plans to implement a £12bn annual cut in public (and mostly social) expenditure.
Human rights? as if they cared!
Apart from the expected bill for Cameron's in/out EU referendum, there was his plan to abolish the Human Rights Act. Why? Because, being a "British" implementation of principles agreed across the EU, this Act is supposed to be an infringement on Britain's internal affairs. As if human rights could - and should be - a question of nationality!
In any case, instead of EU courts (which include British judges as well) being the ultimate port of redress in human rights cases, the British Supreme Court, will play this role. But in what way is this Supreme Court superior? After all, like all the top institutions of the justice system, its members come out of the same small upper crust of the legal profession from which most top politicians also hail. And the record of this"great justice system" is really nothing to boast about. How can anyone forget the Birmingham Six, Guilford Four and Maguire Seven - 17 innocent men who, in the 1970s, were framed up and made to serve over 15 years in jail, for the sole crime of being Irish! Were their human rights better protected by a British justice system which was hell bent on turning the screw on all those who might be opposed to the occupation of Northern Ireland by the British state?
But what does this government - and its predecessors - care about human rights, anyway? Has the British legal system been of any use to those Iraqis who were caught, humiliated, tortured and jailed during the occupation of Iraq, for being in the wrong place and at the wrong time? And what is the use of this legal system when it comes to protecting the human rights of those civilians who are, once again, at the receiving end of Cameron's bombs in Iraq, today?
A leaf from Turkey's book
The part of the "queen's speech" devoted to employment includes a plan to "create jobs by offering 3m apprenticeships". What hypocrisy! Apprenticeships are used by bosses not for training, but to pay rock-bottom wages. 42% of all "apprentices" over the past 5 years were over 25! Many were already working for the same employer. How can this possibly resolve the present high level of unemployment among the youth?
But what is even more revolting is that Cameron intends to pay the bosses for creating these bogus jobs by cutting the benefit cap imposed on the poorest households by 12%, at a time when rents are going through the roof!
Of course, there is also a plan to curb the right to strike by making strikes illegal, unless 40% of those eligible, vote in favour. Coming from a government which was elected by less than 25% of registered voters, this could be just laughed away.
Anyway, taking strike action is not a question of legality, it is a question of balance of forces. We, workers, have our large numbers on our side and, without our labour, nothing can work and no value can be produced in this society. So why should we care about laws made by parasites who do nothing except exploit our labour?
Our only problem is that more often than not, our own union leaders use these laws to argue that taking action is not an option. Meanwhile, they make deals with the bosses against our interests. And this has been going on ever since the beginning of the crisis, in particular.
Well, this doesn't need to be an obstacle either. Just as this issue of our bulletin is coming out, 18,000 workers in Turkey's car and components industry, are occupying their factories in a strike over wages, which started two weeks ago.
They, too, were told by their union - which had signed an unacceptable deal with the bosses - that taking action would be illegal. But our Turkish brothers refused to be cowed. Yes, their strike was illegal, but they organised themselves to go ahead regardless. And there's not much the Turkish state can do against their determination.
Surely what our brothers can do in Turkey, we could do here as well!