-
But neither lab / LD condemn the strikes, both say it is the govt who should be negotiating so as to avoid them. Maybe there is a bit of a difference but as you've described it at least, it sounds like semantics?
I think you're probably right about it being semantics but if you go back and read that Ed Davey piece I linked to again, he does actually focus on the negative impacts of the strikes and how they are unfair on people who depend on public transport to do business....I know its not an outright condemnation but it certainly paints the picture that the Lib Dems think they are dispruptive and if the government were not a pile of shite, avoidable too.
Stonehedge-
I don’t know, I don’t really see the difference. If you agree that workers have the right to strike and don’t want to curtail that, then the fact it might cause disruption etc. is kind of the point - of course it does, that’s why it can be an effective strategy. Isn’t Labour saying that the strikes are avoidable if govt wasn’t rubbish too? I don’t think the lab position is ‘strikes are great’ - they’re a tool to improve working conditions where something has gone wrong, not an ideal thing to happen for its own sake.
andyfallsoff
But neither lab / LD condemn the strikes, both say it is the govt who should be negotiating so as to avoid them. Maybe there is a bit of a difference but as you've described it at least, it sounds like semantics?