On the topic, I accept that liberals are involved in trade unionism. I would argue that the Orange Book which Nick Clegg co-authored and some of which I have read cautions quite openly against state intervention and says state intervention should only happen in a crisis. That is my reading anyway. In this dispute clearly you have taken sides against the RMT because they have balloted for strike action and you are still opposing them. Arguing for more negotiations before balloting would have been an ok position to take. Yet you continue to do so after the democratic decision to take industrial action has been made by the workers. So quite clearly, by not supporting the strike now you are undermining them.

Neither Nick Clegg nor the Liberal Democrats embrace free market economics in the way that you mean it. We recognise the importance of markets but we also acknowledge the need for state intervention. You will recall that it was Vince Cable who first called for the ‘nationalisiation’ of the banks in this current crisis.

We are not taking sides in this dispute but we do acknowledge that there are more than two. The interests of the travelling public and of the economy are important as well and need to be acknowledged. That does not make us Blairites, it makes us concerned citizens.

And as for all of this labelling, I am astonished that Plaid Cymru have been so quick to assume the anarcho-syndicalist mantle. It hardly fits with the image of a ‘party of government’ that you are trying to create.

Because you want to stop the workers using their bargaining tactic which is the right to take industrial action when negotiations are seen to have failed. You want endless talk at the table so that the threat of industrial action becomes worthless, so that employers are strengthened and the working class is weakened. That might not be your direct intention but that’s what it’ll lead to. You are a liberal, you presumably support free market economics like Nick Clegg, though I appreciate the Lib Dems are an amalgamation of two different political traditions and don’t know which side Peter Black comes from. In any case, this dispute has been ongoing for some time and going on strike is a final resort. They aren’t exactly rushing out just for the sake of it.

Surely you can see that it’s wrong and cynical to look out for “the travelling public” and not mention what the striking workers’ families must be going through at this difficult time? They’re fighting against the kind of corner-cutting that has contributed to rail deaths and injuries, not just of workers but of the same travelling public you believe you’re defending! I suppose there are more votes amongst the travelling public at large, all with their busy lives and needing to get from A to B as quickly as possible for the sake of efficiency. It’s essentially a centre-right liberal Blairite mantra that you’re following and all it’ll lead to is a deterioration of safety on the rail network and an undermining of pay and conditions.

Maybe I don’t understand liberalism but you clearly don’t understand trade unionism.

The unions involved, and these are mostly supervisory staff, claim that proposed staffing changes by Network Rail will add further unecessary risk for the “travelling public” by reducing safety coverage at key locations and at peak travelling times. It would not have hurt to have added these points.

The Liberal Democrats are an anti-working class party. RMT are fighting to defend their terms and conditions. You don’t give a stuff about them and you try to divide them from “the travelling public”. It puts your stance over the PCS strike into practice. You didn’t really want Labour and Plaid to forego their wages, you just wanted to criticise the unions. After all, collective bargaining completely undermines the indivualist, every-man-for-himself, what’s in it for me approach which is behind liberal ideology.