2015 and the bumpy road ahead for the UK

As we draw closer and closer towards the general election in 2015 there is much to be concerned and worried about going forward. Not least that whoever gains power next year be it a coalition or a majority government of any sort we will be in for a lot worse cuts and tax rises to come of that we can be in no doubt. “The Conservative-led coalition faces an election next May and its main pledge when it came into office in May 2010 was to ‘balance the budget’ and reduce government debt. After the huge bank bailout and the impact of the Great Recession of 2008-9 on tax revenues and welfare spending, the government deficit stood at over 10% of GDP and gross government debt had rocketed to over 75% of GDP. The government blamed this on the profligacy of the previous Labour government. This was nonsense, of course. Labour had run relatively small deficits, has reduced government spending as a share of GDP and debt was low until the global banking crash.” “And the Conservatives would have done exactly the same as Labour in bailing out the City of London with more borrowing. The Conservatives are obsessed with the government deficit and debt – getting them down has been their measure of ‘prosperity’. But even on this measure, they have failed. Osborne made much of the reduction in the deficit ‘by half’ by April 2015. But back in 2010, he forecast that he would balance the budget by April 2016. He has now announced that this target will not be achieved until April 2019.” With an estimated figure of about 40% of cuts seen so far we are still yet to feel the worst of austerity to be honest. Huge chunks of the public sector could be privatised parts of local government could cease to function as they should and a hell of a lot more out sourcing is on its way to a country which already leads the way in out sourcing. The coalitions plan of eliminating the deficit by 2015 looks incredibly woeful now going into the next 5 years we can expect a very bumpy ride if any plan to eliminate any deficit is to be achieved “And to meet this target, even assuming that Britain continues to grow at 2-3% over the next four years, the government will have to impose a massive round of public spending cuts on welfare benefits and services. It will also have to raise taxes, although it claims that it can cut income tax again during the life of the next government (although that promise is pushed back to 2019). And the deficit is one thing. Government debt is still rising in real terms. Debt is over £160 billion more than forecast back in 2010 and is now well over 90% of GDP on a gross basis and is not expected to peak on the best forecasts until 2019. The government has failed because the UK economy has not grown in income anywhere near as much as the government forecast back 2010. Osborne forecast real GDP growth would average about 2.7% a year; instead it has averaged up to this year only 1.3%, half the rate. At the same time, although unemployment has come down, most of the new jobs have been part-time, low-paid and self employment ( This has meant that real incomes (i.e. after inflation) have fallen by the largest amount since the Great Depression of the 1930s.” We have to be clear young people who have been hit the hardest in real terms by austerity and have seen their pay fall the furthest have very little cause for optimism I’d suggest their future looks very bleak indeed. With little in the way of meaningful jobs and even more so of those which pay a decent wage to the fact many will never see a pension or even afford to buy their own home let alone affording a rent the future for young people growing up today is a very dark one indeed. “The government stood back from imposing too severe a reduction in the budget deficit after 2012, for fear that the economy would drop back into a new slump – and it nearly did. But that just means, in its obsession with the deficit, that if the Conservatives win the election in May, they will launch a new round of austerity measures. Maybe a new round of austerity won’t happen because the Conservatives won’t win next May. But all three major parties are committed to more spending cuts in bowing to the God of ‘fiscal probity’. “All parties support balancing the current budget in the next Parliament. Deficit spending is clearly still deemed to be politically untenable in the UK.” Gavin Davies, FT. Compared to the Chancellor’s plan, Labour would permit extra borrowing to finance investment (1.5% of GDP) and would allow them longer to attain balance for the current budget. But they would still impose austerity to the tune of half the amount of the conservatives. Behind the obsession with deficits and debt lies the real agenda. It is two-fold: to reduce the size of the public sector and destroy any vestiges of the ‘welfare state’, opening up public goods and services to deliver profits to the capitalist sector. The other aim is lower the burden of tax on and increase the subsidies to the capitalist sector over the long term to boost profitability. This hidden agenda is sometimes exposed. Only this week, a Conservative MP called for huge cuts. “The Chancellor could make a £20 billion start by culling Whitehall’s sprawling bureaucracy, enforcing public sector pay settlements, freezing benefits, reducing the welfare cap, scaling back middle-class welfare and looking again at the state pension.” Dominic Raab, Conservative MP for Esher and Walton. Note the attack on the state pension. This has been sacrosanct up to now. But the Conservatives are now preparing to dismantle it, using the argument that the young should not have to pay for the old and that’s unfair. The right-wing Economist magazine took up this call: “Britain’s fiscal problems are partly the result of over-generous spending on the old. They should pay off some of the debts instead of passing them all on to the young.” But apparently it is not unfair for the poor to pay for the rich. In the UK the bottom 10% of income earners pay more in all taxes as a percentage of their income than the top 10%. The government could switch its priorities on spending from defence, subsidies to industry, lowering corporation tax, more tax cuts for the rich to boosting public investment, services and welfare. Despite its headline noise on a few infrastructure projects (rail, flood protection etc), it is doing no such thing. Faster growth would soon deal with any deficit anyway. In terms of real annual GDP growth, the OBR estimates that a 0.1% point increase would do as much over the four years from 2015-16 for the deficit as roughly £3 billion of spending cuts. The trouble is that the UK economy may be growing at 3% a year currently, but nobody expects that to last. The Office for Budget Responsibility has actually revised down its forecasts for growth after this year for every year up to 2019. Even Osborne admitted that the "warning lights" are flashing over the health of the global economy, and Britain "cannot be immune". Yes, any new downturn in the world economy would soon push the UK economy back into recession too. Osborne raises only that risk to a booming UK economy (the fastest in the G7 this year). But there are serious domestic risks too. Most of the contribution to the ‘boom’ of 2014 is coming from the unproductive sectors of the economy (housing – prices rising at 12% a year; and financial services as the City of London ploughs on). Manufacturing output is still struggling and despite a huge devaluation of the pound back in 2010, UK exports have failed to get anywhere near the government’s expectations.” “That’s mainly because the business sector is unwilling to invest in new technology or skilled labour at good rates of pay. Investment to GDP in most major capitalist economies has been falling. But it is particularly low in the UK. And that is because profitability in the corporate sector, although improving a little after all the austerity measures so far, is still below levels seen in the late 1990s or even 2005. After six years, the UK economy has only just got back to where it was before the Great Recession.” It’s certainly going to get a lot lot worse before we even see a glimmer of improvement for most people. With thanks to the excellent Michael Roberts for quotes and extract, you can read his full post and blog over at http://www.applevis.com/forum

support the NHS workers out on strike today

Today see's many NHS workers including midwives and vital workers who keep us healthy everyday helping our sick and injured back to healthiness again. The old phrase if you pay peanuts you get monkeys could not be more relevant today. If you pay your staff very little does not expect them to feel valued and appreciated for their work they do. Many NHS workers work very long shifts and have to endure some very challenging working conditions. Take an ambulance driver and crew they do not know what they are turning up to when called out. They could make the difference between saving someone’s life or not. I was born in a NHS hospital and have been helped out allot when I’ve had trouble or been ill in the past. The level of support I received when I was losing my sight was very touching you got the feeling these people really do care about others and want to help others even if their pay is not great. In a fantastic article posted on LibCom about why NHS workers should strike this week puts it brilliantly "The privatisation of the NHS, dismantling of the welfare state, and attacks on terms and conditions mean that nurses are facing the biggest battle in their history. The time for negotiation has finished. So what are you going to do? I recall vividly a conversation with a colleague several years ago. The discussion was about job cuts, unsafe staffing levels, and pay. She said to me, “You are a nurse, you should never strike”. Industrial action of any description was not on the cards, it was just a general chat. That statement has stuck with me ever since, and with the upcoming public sector strikes, the issues of nurses and industrial action is now back on the agenda. I will be on strike on the 30th, but not as a nurse as. I left clinical practice to work in nurse education earlier this year. However, I will always be a nurse first and foremost. After recently speaking to friends and former colleagues, it is clear that the same old debates about striking and industrial action are being discussed. The RCN which represents the bulk of registered nurses in the UK (400,000) has stated that it will ballot for industrial action in January if the government does not back down on its pension reforms. The RCN has many qualities; it has other roles than just being a trade union, and does a very good job. However, as a trade union it is generally weak, and about as un-militant as you can get. To be fair though, it never claims to be anything else. It has enjoyed comfortable relationships with governments, and its membership is seen as less militant that the nurses who are with UNISON. This will be the first time in its history that they will have balloted for industrial action, and judging by debate within the media between the government and the RCN, there is definitely a souring of the relationship, which can only be a good thing. The government will not back down, so when the ballot goes ahead, I am absolutely positive that they will vote for strike action. The result may be closer than other unions, but I am confident it will be passed. What does this then mean for nurses, patients, and the government? The first issue takes me back to my colleagues comment about not striking. Why shouldn’t nurses strike? Well, “our first priority should be our patients”. I agree, however, what are nurses supposed to do when employers and governments do not provide adequate staffing or funding, or close services that are desperately needed, or make attempts to privatise the NHS? Negotiation can only go so far. To be completely passive is not in the interest of any patient who requires service that is closing. No one is suggesting that NHS be completely shut down. Nurses would provide a skeleton service during a strike. They would not leave people at risk of harm. I say this not just as a nurse, but as a human being. Clearly striking is not the only type of action available, and there other just as effective actions that could be taken. The NHS is a huge paper based bureaucracy, with paperwork for everything. It also relies on the constant goodwill of nurses, working through breaks, staying behind to support busy colleagues (unpaid). Nurses could withdraw their unpaid labour, and refused to complete anything but paperwork specifically relating to patient care, they could generally work to rule. I have never met a nurse’s who does not carry out work that is not within their job description. So striking is not the only option, but whatever action is taken, patients would not be left at risk. The moral argument of nurses not striking does not hold any water for me. In fact, I would argue that it is immoral not to take action, when an employer or government are implementing changes that will have a negative impact on patient care. The next argument that is thrown up is, “what about the public perception of nurses”. And what about, “upholding the reputation of the profession”? I would refer anyone using this argument to the last paragraph. It is not as if nurses go on strike in this country very often is it? There has to be a line that when it is crossed, nurses should say, ‘enough is enough’. I always remember many nurses saying, I wouldn’t strike for pay, but if they ever went after my pension I definitely would. Well guess what? With regards to the public perception of nurse’s striking, I would argue that the vast majority of the public would support them. I feel that the public are aware that nurses are not repeat strikers, and would possibly take the attitude that things must be bad if nurses strike. Furthermore, the public pressure that a government would face would increase if nurses’ took action, possibly shortening the duration of any dispute. What made me so angry was the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) the governing professional body for nurses, making a statement last month, stating that “any nurse who went on strike would be in violation of the professional code of conduct” and would possibly struck of the register and lose their career. This was a disgraceful stance to take, no doubt pressured by the government to make those comments. They quickly changed that statement following uproar amongst nurses. They anticipated many people caving in due to the threat of a fitness to practice panel, but it had the opposite effect, nurses became angrier. For me, the old arguments of nurses and industrial action are just that, old. My patients are my first priority, and the action that is sometimes needed to effectively care and treat someone, stretches beyond providing nursing care. I cannot provide sufficient care if a I have fewer colleagues than needed, or if the service I work for closes, or if we cannot recruit nurses because no one wants to train anymore, or if the government refuse to fund certain treatments, or if the government sells of the NHS, or allows the market to break it up. If nurses genuinely want to make the patient their first priority they should bloody well stand up for what is right, and not swallow the nonsense that has kept nurses subservient for the past century. Everything I have said is not based on the fact that I am an anarcho-syndicalist or indeed political in any way. It is based on having a desire to provide the care and treatment that I believe should be provided. It is about time nurses fought back. They are far and away the biggest staff group within the NHS and healthcare, and their potential influence and impact cannot be underestimated. They are a sleeping giant that needs to wake, and quickly. If they do not, they will one day wake to find the NHS renamed ABC healthcare, and they will no longer be able to provide effective care, or make patients their first priority. Their first priority will then be £ sign! Another thing the nurse who I mentioned earlier said to me was, “what would Florence Nightingale say about it all”. Well, I never met her, as she was a bit before my time. However, with what I know about her I suspect she would have said something along the lines of, “If you want to make patients your first priority you cannot allow the government to sell off the NHS, and you cannot allow them to dismantle the public sector or welfare state. Negotiation has been tried and failed. It is time to get around your workplaces, and organise!!!!!” Posted By Working class s... Nov 23 2011 11:34 With thanks and link to original post at http://libcom.org/blog/why-nurses-should-take-industrial-action-23112011

Rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic

So today we have been treated to a government reshuffle 10 months away from the general election as it stands. Many seem to be crowing about how good it is that the likes of Michael Gove have been demoted and that various others have gone even trade unions like teh NUT celebrating seeing this as a victory. This is certainly not a victory of any sorts. THe policies remain and teh damage is there fora ll to see. one of the most hated figures in the tory ranks, - IDS Iain Duncan-Smith remains at the WP too which sickens me but i never thought he would be one to go he is doing exactly waht the government ask of him and to little resistance it has to be said. So here is a run down of who's gone where and where we should look at for the next year before the coming election and hopefully this will be the last we see of many if not all of these. Prime Minister David Cameron is reshuffling his top team, with details of new appointments and exits being unveiled. William Hague (moved) Mr Hammond has left the Ministry of Defence to become foreign secretary. He has been defence secretary since 2011, having previously held the transport brief. Michael Gove (moved) Mrs Morgan has been made education secretary, taking over from Mr Gove. The former lawyer has been a Treasury minister since 2013, having joined the government a year earlier. She will continue in her role as minister for women. Liz Truss (promoted to Cabinet) Mr Fallon, a Conservative MP since 1983, has been made defence secretary. He is regarded as a trouble-shooter who deals effectively with crises. Previously he held three jobs - as a business minister, minister of state for energy and minister for Portsmouth. Stephen Crabb (promoted to Cabinet) The MP quit his role as immigration minister earlier this year after admitting to having employed an illegal immigrant as a cleaner. He is now back as minister of state in the Department for Work and Pensions. Ken Clarke (out) Mr Paterson will no longer be environment secretary, a post he has held since 2012 when he replaced Caroline Spelman. Prior to that, he had served in the cabinet as Northern Ireland secretary. David Jones (out) Mr Jones has been sacked as Welsh secretary, having been in the cabinet post for two years. He had previously been a more junior minister in the Wales Office. Sir George Young (out) Sir George has resigned as chief whip. He was the leader of the Commons from 2010 to 2012. The 72-year-old North West Hampshire MP is one of the most experienced members of the coalition government, having held office under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. David Willetts (out) Mr Duncan has resigned as international development minister, a post he has held since 2010. Andrew Robathan (out) Mr Robathan has resigned as Northern Ireland minister. He was previously a defence minister until the October 2013 reshuffle. Damian Green (out) Mr Green has resigned as policing minister. He had been immigration minister from 2010 to 2012. Cabinet ministers and others staying in their jobs Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne Home Secretary Theresa May Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith Employment minister Esther McVey (but wi

The future for the BBC

I am no hater of the BBC for sure it puts out some questionable political lines and is in all in tenses and purposes a state broadcaster for the government of the day due to its connection with its government funding which is huge. But this week and a few weeks before have seen a debate erupt on the current role of the BBC and its possible future roll in society and beyond. At present the BBC is run as a public body funded partly by government but mostly through license fee payers who most if not everyone has to pay to watch TV in the United Kingdom. This for many years has been seen as a poll tax comparison where no matter how much you earnt you will always have to pay for the TV license and if not you would face a big fine and even jail if it came to it. For years many have seen this as an out of date system where the BBC tries to compete with the likes of SKY TV run by Rupert Murdoch who can go out and get the best programmes first before anyone else due to their independence from anyone and their shear buying power. But what about the future of the BBC. This week there has been talk of decriminalising the non payment of the TV license. I see this as a big step forward in all honesty. Whilst I am a fan of the BBC having been one of its big users in recent times with its excellent I player and its fantastic local radio services including local radio commentary of all football league games including my local side Stevenage FC which for a blind person is very useful indeed. But do the BBC loose out in this sense in not being able to legally chase non payers of the TV license. I am not so sure I do think there are many untapped funding resources the BBC could explore before having to change its own running model as it is at current. Many have said this may see the BBC loose much needed funding but I do not agree I think this is a well over due change to things and hopefully this can give the BBc the kick up the backside many and even me feel it needs. On a media and journalistic basis the BBC is falling behind the others out there offering a similar service it is slow to react to news and often is left trailing its competitors. For example Sky news hosted the first live TV debate on the EU between UKIP leader Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg leader of the Lib Dems in the past the BBc would have been the only game in town for this sort of political discussion but no longer the likes of SKY have beaten them to it and this wont be the last time unless the BBC buck up their ideas I suggest. The BBC is seen as a bloated bureaucratic monster paying way over the odds to directors and managers this must change for it to survive. In this age of austerity the BBC must be seen to be keeping in line as best it can. I do hope the BBC stays around for many more years to come and is not privatised as some in the last week are suggesting is its only way of surviving. I do not agree there is a place for public broadcasting but it does certainly need to freshen up its act without a doubt to keep not only relevant but up to speed in this ever changing society of ours.

Solidarity with striking firefighters this festive season

Last night as the storms hit much of the country our brave firefighters were out in force and today they take to the picket lines once again in their long running battle. They deserve our full support and solidarity. Firefighters in England and Wales will this evening strike for the Seventh time in their long-running dispute with the government over Pensions. They will take action between 6 pm and midnight today, as well as between 6.30pm on December 31st and 12.30am on January 1st. Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union General Secretary, said: it’s now been Almost two months since the government has been willing to meet for negotiations Despite several invitations from us. Until they do and until they start to actually resolve the dispute, we€™all Keep up the pressure for the sake of public safety and our members Pensions. In a week when the full details of a £7,600 pay rise for MPs” which will Also increase their pensions emerged, firefighters anger at the governments Unworkable, unaffordable and unfair proposals will be even greater. No firefighter wants to strike, but we cannot allow the governments Ludicrous proposals” and outright hypocrisy” to stand. We'll keep on fighting Until the government sees sense and comes back to negotiations. Most firefighters take home approximately £1,650 a month and already pay £320 or more a month into their pensions. From April 2014 this will rise for the third year in a row to over £340 a Month (£4,000 a year). Many firefighters also face a fourth consecutive rise of 2.2% expected in 2015. On top of this, a large section of firefighters face an additional threat to Their pensions as a result of the government refusing to honor long-standing Agreements. As a result, they will not receive the pension they were promised Despite paying into their scheme for many years. The FBU argues that the scheme is one of the most expensive for workers Anywhere in the public or private sector. Contrary to government claims, it is also one of the least generous because Employers pay one of the lowest proportions of pension costs compared to other Public service employers. The union has also said that the expensive pension proposals are designed to Fail because they ignore the physical demands and fitness standards required by The firefighters€™ occupation. Evidence suggests that at least two thirds of the current workforce would be Unable to maintain the fitness standards required by the fire service beyond the Age of 55. Such firefighters would face the prospect of being dismissed or seeing their Pension reduced by almost half. union-news.co.uk/2013/12/prepared-long-struggle-firefighters-dig-pensions-fight/">“We’re Prepared for a long struggle “FBU general secretary Matt Wrack tells Union news Uk

Good news for stop Stansted expansion

campaign STOP Stansted Expansion has welcomed the Davies Commission announcement this morning (Tuesday, December 17) that a second runway should not be built at the Essex airport before 2050. Instead the independent review of aviation capacity has concluded there is a need for one additional runway to be in operation in the south east of the UK by 2030 – and it should be at Heathrow or Gatwick. Brian Ross, SSE's economics adviser, said after Stansted failed to make the shortlist: "We are obviously greatly relieved. "The environmental consequences of even one extra runway would have been catastrophic and the fact is that there has never been a viable business case for any extra runways at Stansted. The airport currently operates at less than half of its potential capacity. "We must now show solidarity with the communities around Heathrow and Gatwick and support their efforts in resisting the threat that they now face." Later this morning commission leader Sir Howard Davies will explain his panel's interim report in full at a meeting in London. However he and his team have concluded that the best way forward in the medium term is growth at one of the country's two biggest airports. Gatwick has proposed a new landing strip south of its existing runway while Heathrow has put forward two options. It could build a completely new runway to the north west or expand the existing northern runway to enable it to operate as two independent runways. The next phase of the commission's work will entail a detailed appraisal of the three options identified before a public consultation in autumn next year. The panel said it had not shortlisted any of the Thames Estuary options like 'Boris Island' because there were too many uncertainties and challenges surrounding them at this stage. However it will undertake further study of the Isle of Grain option in the first half of 2014 and will reach a view later next year on whether that option offers a credible proposal for consideration alongside the other short-listed options. Sir Howard's team said it had not shortlisted proposals for expansion at Stansted – touted as an alternative four runway super-hub for the country – or Birmingham. However it confirmed there is likely to be a case for considering them as potential options for any second new runway by 2050. Launching the report Sir Howard said: "Decisions on airport capacity are important national strategic choices and must be based upon the best evidence available. The commission has undertaken a fresh, comprehensive and transparent study of the issues. This report is the product of extensive consultation, independent analysis and careful consideration by the commissioners. "The UK enjoys excellent connectivity today. The capacity challenge is not yet critical but it will become so if no action is taken soon and our analysis clearly supports the provision of one net additional runway by 2030. In the meantime we encourage the government to act on our recommendations to make the best of our existing capacity." With thanks to teh Harlow Star article at http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/News/Harlow-news/Airports-Commission-rules-out-second-Stansted-runway-before-2050-20131217082330.htm

Payday loan companies capped now lets scrap them entirely !

The government is to introduce a new law to cap the cost of payday loans. The level of the cap, which has not yet been announced, will be decided by the new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Treasury says there is "growing evidence" in support of the move, including the effects of a cap already in place in Australia. The cap will be included in the Banking Reform Bill, which is already going through Parliament. Speaking to the BBC, the chancellor, George Osborne, said there would be controls on charges, including arrangement and penalty fees, as well as on interest rates. "It will not just be an interest rate cap," he told the Today programme. "You've got to cap the overall cost of credit." He denied the government had a made a u-turn on the issue, and said he was not pre-judging the outcome of a Competition Commission inquiry into payday lending. "These things can go along in parallel," he said. Some payday lenders have been criticised for charging more than 5,000% annual interest - though the lenders say these loans are meant to be short-term so the annual rate can make charges appear worse than they are. 'Duty on regulator' Australia has an interest rate limit of 4% per month, after a maximum up-front fee of 20%. The FCA has already been given the power to cap the costs of payday loans. It has also proposed a series of measures to clamp down on the industry, including limiting loan roll-overs to just two. Labour leader Ed Miliband has already said his party would cap the cost of payday loans. This is something to be welcomed of course but in my opinion does not go nearly far enough. Payday loan companies are the scurge of the high street in times of austerity pray on the most vunrable. Its time to outlaw them entirely and to scrap them for good.

The state within a state

The surveillance state is well under way. It is said that if we were to turn into a police state that not much would have to change. Us all New laws that will mean ID checks for all, state supervision of the media, gagging of campaigns in the run-up to an election and a threat against publishers of devastating accounts of secret surveillance. Russia? China? Nope, dear old Britain. The ConDems’ new anti-immigrants Bill will mean checks on status before people can access housing or health. This will hit everyone, as the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (Ilpa) has pointed out. "What this means in practice is a system of identity checks for all, since it is necessary for British citizens or people with permanent residence to prove that they are lawfully present in the UK if and when checked," says their response to the Home Office consultation. Moving swiftly past the decision by the mainstream parties to introduce a legal oversight of the media through the unelected, secretive, feudal institution known as the Privy Council, let’s deal with state surveillance which we’re not supposed to know about. US whistleblower Edward Snowden has just been given the Sam Adams Award by former CIA officers, who gave it to him in Russia, for “exhibiting integrity in intelligence”. The Guardian’s decision to publish Snowden’s revelations has run into a wall of hostility and intimidation. Britain’s secret services – backed by Labour, Tory and LibDem politicians – have all but accused the Guardian of treason for printing chapter and verse of how the state can access every digital transmission you make – at will and without you knowing. MI5 chief Andrew Parker’s accusation that Snowden was “handing the advantage to terrorists” ratcheted up the offensive on behalf of the secret state. He was predictably backed by No 10 and the ultra-reactionary Daily Mail, which accused the Guardian of “lethal irresponsibility”. As we stand the state has so much information on us and increasingly so. They are making their way into our lives all the more every day. With advancements in technology come with dangers of keeping tabs on us and our thinking. The government claims not much of the information collected on us is useful to them but they collect it all the same. This is a very disturbing fact in my opinion. The ruling class and various government bodies go to such lengths to track our moves and information on us they run some very highly sophisticated programmes to do this and keep track of us all. Tempora is the clandestine security electronic surveillance program established by GCHQ in 2011. It was exposed by Snowden, along with Prism, which is the US’s own mass data mining programme. The two programmes have a cable and network tapping capability called Upstream which allows spooks to extract information in “real time”. We are entering an entirely new kind of human society, one involving an unprecedented penetration by the state into areas which have always been regarded as private. Do we agree to that? If we don't, this is the last chance to stop it happening. Our rulers will say what all rulers everywhere have always said: that their intentions are good, and we can trust them. They want that to be a sufficient guarantee. The chilling fact is that the law governing surveillance is “so broadly drafted and interpreted, it’s almost impossible to break”, We don’t live in a democracy, or at least one that is anything more than a sham. The totalitarian nature of state surveillance makes a mockery of the rule of law, which is often the only thing that stands between us and outright dictatorship. The major parties are cosying up to the secret state, not to mention on education and other policies. Although the law cannot protect us from everything and we must not rely on it we must look to organise ourselves independently of the state a and any organisation linked to the state.

The sad demise of the Royal Mail

So next week those who have brought shares and you have to have brought 750 pounds worth of them at least ill float on the stock exchange. This sees the end of an era for publically owned mail services. No longer will the Royal Mail be publically owned but owned and accountable only to its shareholders. The Royal Mail has delivered post and parcels for a long time now and as with a lot of things people wont realize what they had until it is gone much like the NHS which is to be privatized soon too with devastating effects. This is a disgrace and should never have been allowed to happen but it has. The last labour government tried before with peter Mandelson facing opposition yet this time it seems like it’s gone though straight away with nothing but a peep out of the unions. As for the Trade Unions whatever happened to those ballots over privatization all gone a bit quiet hasn’t it? The CWU the communication workers union who is headed up by labour fanatic Billy Hayes have lead numerous sell outs over the years including the one most recently in 2009 where a defeat for the workers was sold as a victory shamefully despite workers being willing to take further action. The CWU has form when it comes to diffusing members’ anger and selling disputes short. As with all unions, there will inevitably come a point when what counts as a victory for the officials will clash with the interests of the workers, and as long as the bureaucrats maintain control of the dispute they will get their way. So how can we fight privatisation if the likes of the CWU are n not willing to fightback as I hope won’t be the case of course. "Privatisation should be fought as it is always pushed as a way to benefit shareholders and private profit over workers and service users. But, as civil servants and public sector workers will be all too aware right now, a boss is a boss is a boss. Our struggles may force nationalisation, and this may be a short or long term benefit depending on the terms, but we don’t need this as a demand for it to be the outcome. “Public” ownership is no automatic panacea and it is no substitute for genuine workers’ self-management. That being said, how do we fight against privatisation? Strikes and other industrial action by the workers affected are obviously one of the best forms of action, but this doesn’t mean that lacking a unionised workforce – or with a union unwilling to fight – then the sell off is inevitable. Likewise, alongside solidarity on the picket lines, the wider class can utilise direct action as part of the fight. There are a number of forms this could take. The "I won't pay" movement in Greece is one example that can be deployed when what’s at stake is a service where fees are being introduced, or significantly hiked, as a result of private sector involvement. This can also galvanise an awful lot of people given how extra costs can impact particularly on those already struggling to make their income meet their outgoings. Another potential form of direct action is the kind of pickets that the anti-workfare campaign has used to force providers out of the government’s work for benefits schemes. After all, a sell off requires a buyer, and if we can find out who is bidding for the contract then a hit on their profits and customers turning away can potentially persuade them to pull out of the deal. There are also occupations and economic blockades. As with the threat of a service being shut down altogether, users taking it over in opposition can be a powerful show of defiance and cause the kind of disruption that can make the whole process too much of a headache. Likewise, since the person doing the selling is the government, hitting the economy as a whole by blocking roads (or bridges) can have a similar disruptive impact. None of these actions are on their own going to stop privatisation. Nor are they all going to be equally useful in every circumstance. But they should be seen as a starting point that we can build on and utilise where possible. When privatisation is threatened, whether the detrimental effect is purely for the workers facing it or for broader sections of the working class, we should fight it. But all the petitions in the world won’t force the state and the bosses to change their mind. They can safely ignore us too if all we do is March from point A to point B and listen to speeches. Don’t petition – organise! " With quotes and extracts from http://libcom.org/blog/how-do-we-fight-privatisation-20092013

The role of trade unions under capitalism

Trade unions are very important to capitalism and the upkeep of responsible workers. Their role as unions is to act as a mediator in disputes and to keep things within the boundaries of capitalism at all times. If your only exposure to labour issues is through the torn and tattered pages of a greasy tabloid, you might be forgiven if you believe the TUC actually encourages workplace militancy. Full of contributions from beleaguered CEOs, scare-mongering columnists, condescending politicians and even tough-talking officials, you might even believe trade unions are an irrepressible engine of class struggle. For those us in trade unions, we know reality paints a far different picture. Far from encouraging and even organising industrial action, more often than not, trade unions leave militants feeling sold out, disempowered and sidelined. Unions officials are expected to be 'responsible leaders'. This includes ensuring workers ‘stick to their half of the bargain’, follow the union-negotiated collective agreement, and stay within the bounds of labour legislation. If they fail do these things, the leaders’ privileged role (which, on the national level, includes six-figure salaries) as ‘representatives of organized labour’ is compromised. Union assets will be frozen, leaders could be jailed, and the bosses—with whom the ‘social partnership’ has been struck—will have no incentive to continue to recognize or negotiate with the union. When workers ask, “why don't the unions fight this?” The answer is that it isn't worth their jobs and their positions. The government knows that - “capital and government are very aware the division between the union officialdom and the rank-and-file.” Thus, all the union tops can do is meekly protest the attacks, hoping that things don't get worse again. Union officials are therefore a policeman of the labour movement keeping worker unrest to a minimum and selling a defeat as a victory as a step forward and so on. From time to time or more frequently these days whilst capitalism is in crisis the aim of the periodic threats of union busting is to get the trade unions to tighten up their role as keepers of industrial peace. In recent years the TUC and various trade unions leaders even those claiming to be on the left have done this very well keeping days lost to strike action down to a new low. "Take striking for example. First, it's a struggle to get a ballot. When the ballot is secured, it passes, but the union does nothing to effectively prepare for what amounts to nothing more than a symbolic one-day strike. In fact, other unions in the same workplace send out notices instructing their members to work on the day of the strike. At the last minute the bosses challenge the ballot on technical grounds. The union caves and calls off the strike. Management then presents a marginally improved offer which the union accepts with little or no consultation from the membership. Any chance of actual struggle is squashed by the same leaders who are supposed to be looking after our interests. In the worst case scenario, the bosses and the union come after shop floor militants who agitate against the settlement or who push for independent action. The question is simple: why is the scenario outlined above (and countless ones like it) repeated again and again in every country around the world throughout the history of the labour movement? Is it a case of conservative, or even corrupt, leaders who sell the movement? Or is it something deeper? ------------------------ Trade unions have long been subjected to critiques that seek to explain how and why “our” leaders act against the interests of their members. However, instead of simply analysing the structural reasons that unions are integrated into the management of industrial capitalism, we shall examine the words and arguments of the ruling class itself. In doing so we can come to understand to just what extent the bosses are conscious of—and consciously encourage—this process of integration and co-optation. " It’s quite clear why governments of all capitalist colours prefer to talk to union officials than a rank-and-file movement as Of a quote from a South African industrialist describing why he chose to recognise the union in his factory: “Have you ever tried negotiating with a football field full of militant angry workers?” Union’s officials and leaders have far more in common with the boss's as their salary reflects this with their privileges of officialdom suggests. Expenses covered and facility time out of the workplace to help the boss’s avoids disputes. "Trade unions are mediators of struggle. Workers go to the union representative when they have a problem at work—be it legal or contractual—and the role of the rep is to see it rectified. The union is the bargaining agent with whom the boss sits down with to resolve grievances or sign a new collective agreement. Likewise, when industrial action occurs, it is done through the union and the union takes responsibility for balloting and ensuring all legal procedures are followed. In theory, this doesn’t sound too bad. However, to be able to effectively do the tasks outlined above, the union must be able to 'speak' on behalf of the workforce and ensure that what it says of its membership will happen. For example, if workers vote to take industrial action, but the court grants an injunction against striking, the union must ensure workers don't take action. If the workers do strike, it is legally held responsible for the workers’ actions. Beyond the legal imperative to control their members, the ability to turn off struggle is necessary if the union negotiators are to maintain credibility with the employer. So if the workers have voted to strike, but the officials feel management's new position constitutes an improved offer, the union officials must be able to guarantee the strike won't happen. If it does, management has no incentive to continue to negotiate with the union. All of this is a way of saying that in order to mediate struggle, unions must be able to control struggle. And that’s the problem." All this shows the clear need for accountable, democratic fighting rank-and-file organisations to fight from the bottom up not sewing illusions in so called leaders from above. With quotes and extracts from http://libcom.org/library/better-we-know-ourselves-ruling-class-view-trade-unions

Zero hours contract scandal

This week the scandal of 0 hours contracts has come to light. Of course this has been known about for a long time but this is something we must fight against. The exploitation of workers and more often than not the young. Below I republish a excellent article in this weeks socialist from Youth Fight for Jobs. We demand real jobs and a living wage The scandal of Sports Direct employing their entire part-time workforce (90% of employees) on zero hours contracts has been exposed this week. At the same time they are paying huge bonuses in the forms of shares to 2,000 staff. But the bonus scheme only applies to full-time workers - mostly supervisors or managers. And managers are apparently allowed to exclude workers from the bonus scheme for 'under-performing'. The workers on zero hours don't know how many hours they will get to work from one week to the next, making it impossible to plan ahead or pay normal household expenses. They are also not entitled to sick pay or holiday pay. This precarious existence is experienced by hundreds of thousands of workers - even the government statistics office ONS admit that over 200,000 are on such contracts and nearly half of those are 16-24. These figures are rising as the bosses pass the effects of their crisis onto the workers at the bottom of the employment pile. A combination of zero hours contracts, plus working hours and bonuses which can be arbitrarily withdrawn as a disciplinary measure, creates a bullying climate of fear in many workplaces. Laurence, a young worker from south London is on a zero hours contract. He told the Socialist: "The biggest things for me are that it makes it impossible to plan what you're doing on a week to week basis. "That means it's socially inconvenient but obviously you don't know what money you'll have anyway. "It's impossible to navigate the benefits system, which is designed for people who are on a fixed income. You can't tell them how much you earn." But there is a fight back. Youth Fight for Jobs has launched the "Are You Sick of Your Boss" campaign. They were protesting in London outside Sports Direct in Oxford Street on 3 August and spreading the protests around the country from then on. Youth Fight for Jobs spokesperson Ian Pattison said: "We won't win proper contracts with guaranteed hours by asking nicely. "Around the country, we will be marching straight into Sports Direct stores speaking directly to staff about how they can fight and strike for better rights and conditions." ________________________________________ Youth Fight for Jobs demands: • Proper contracts, guaranteed hours and full employment rights • Pay us enough to live on • Decent tea and lunch breaks • End 'fire at will' • We won't be used as cheap or free labour • We have the right to get organised at work • Scrap the anti-trade union laws • Build democratic campaigning trade unions • No to benefit cuts • Fight sexism and discrimination in the workplace For more on this see www.youthfightforjobs.com

Defend workers rights join a trade union

A big day in legal rights for workers today as their rights at work are significantly dented. I’d urge you all now if you are not already to join a trade union as unions are there to protect your rights oh well they are supposed to anyway. Some unions have already pledged to cover the extra cots that workers will face but you need to be in a union for this help and support.
Elizabeth George from the law firm Leigh Day has called plans to charge people to take action against their employer a retrogressive step, and claims that the system will be thrown into chaos through a lack of preparation for the changes and inadequate information for claimants and their representatives. Full information was only released one working day before the fees are introduced, late on 24 July. From today (29 July 2013), workers making an unfair dismissal or discrimination claim against their employer will have to pay fees of up to £1200, regardless of the manner in which they have been treated at work. The first fee is an ‘Issue Fee’ and must be paid at the same time as the claim is issued It will be £160 or £250, depending on the type of case being brought. The second fee is a ‘Hearing Fee’ and must be paid before the full hearing takes place. It will be either £230 or £950, again depending on the type of case. The lower fees will be for cases such as wages claims whilst those bringing claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination will have to pay the higher fee. Whilst some provision is being made for those on low incomes, who may be exempt from paying fees under the ‘Fee Remission Scheme’, the details on how to apply for this remission were only announced on 24 July.
Details on who qualifies for the fee remission scheme have been made available; an unmarried claimant with no children will not qualify if they are earning over £13,000. A married person with 4 children will be ineligible if the combined household income exceeds £29,000. Elizabeth George, a Barrister in the employment team at law firm Leigh Day said: “This sends a very dangerous message to employers who will be less inclined to abide by their legal obligations as the risk of being challenged will be much reduced. “These fees will disproportionately hit those suffering discrimination because of their age, race, disability and gender with women returning from maternity leave particularly hard hit as they’ll be judged on their salary when they left rather than their statutory maternity pay."
In 2012/ 13 there were 191,540 claims brought in front of the employment tribunal which has seen a 74% rise in the number of sex discrimination claims. Ms George explained: “Whilst we cannot know the number of legitimate claims these fees will dissuade, the introduction of substantial and often disproportionate fees will undoubtedly see many people having to put up with discrimination and unable to challenge unfair dismissals however badly they have been treated. “We have already seen guidance from lawyers advising employers to wait to fire people as it will be cheaper and the chances of being taken to Tribunal will be less following the introduction of fees. “Instead of standing up for people suffering unlawful discrimination in the workplace, the Government is doing the exact opposite by potentially penalising those who get pregnant, those who are disabled, those who fall ill and those who grow old.”

Minimum wage up but still far short of a livable wage

Today comes the news of an increase in the national minimum wage. Adult minimum wage increases by 12p to £6.31; fewer than 21s by 5p to £5.03 and under 18s by 4p to £3.72 Whilst I welcome the increase its tiny compared to the cost of living costs for many in the UK. There was much talk of the government cutting or freezing the minimum wage so it is a surprise this increase but let’s not get too excited 12 p for working adults will hardly help cover that expensive rent or help you heat your house and feed your children Its an increase but not something we should cheer too loudly about. A national living wage or a liveable wage I like to call it as labour trumpet a living wage but it would be nowhere near enough. A liveable wage would keep in line with inflation and be linked to average earnings in the country meaning that work always paid. A tiny increase for workers in times of huge hardship for many is an absolute insult. What is labours response I wonder? Will they say this does not go far enough that they’d pledge to bring in a grunted proper living wage or will it be more hot air from the countries second pro capitalist party. No doubt the Tories will play this up and make out we should be grateful and a increase is always something to be pleased of but at this level life will be barely any different than it is now with rising costs of living not looking to come down anytime soon this is just another slap in the face of ordinary working class families. It’s clear we need a party who represents the struggles of working class people standing up for the voiceless. Giving workers hope and standing for a decent level of living for the 99%. Labour has shown itself to be unable to do this so we need a new party of the working class in my view. TUSC could be the start of such a party but at the present time it’s only an electoral vehicle we do need the trade unions to put their money where their mouth is and back the calls for a new party of workers.

Why minimum alcohol pricing is not the answer

I am firmly against the idea of a minimum pricing strategy for alcohol. This is for various reasons which I shall explain I do not think raising the price of drinks in pubs and in the super markets will bring down binge drinking one bit people who enjoy drinking and drink to get drunk will not be deterred by this in fact it will give them added incentive I feel as they will turn to shoplifting or worse to get alcohol. We may see the return of home brewing and some even stronger alcohol being imported from abroad which is even more dangerous than what we have currently. I think there is also the adanger of this turning into a nanny state question again. Where we are told what we can and cant do once more. I am a drinker of alcohol I’ll admit that but not excessively that often I am more a social drinker with friends and comrades at weekends and after meetings. This minimum price will hit me who am not a troublemaker in the pocket and guess where the extra tax will go? The government who already make huge amounts of cash in tax through alcohol and breweries will be hit as a result. The pub trade is an industry close to my heart and with the introduction of this plan this will put even more pubs out of business than there already is. Already there is roughly 1 pub closing every week in this country and this will only increase this further. It’s a barmy idea which will only benefit big business and capitalism this won’t solve peoples drinking habits or improve the pub trade. This is a cynical ploy by health charities who claim to want the best for us while not even stopping to think of the social reasons why people often young people end up drinking vast quantities of drink a lot. Do they stop to think could it be the lack of an education, lack of a good well paid job? Poor housing conditions or lack of housing at all that turn ordinary working class people to drink every day. I lay the blame squarely at the feet of capitalism who while drives people to drink literally through driving them into the ground through the wage slave system also makes millions of pounds out of peoples misery in the process. Nice this capitalism ay? The solution, a democratic planned socialist economy based on peoples needs, breweries which are run for peoples needs not for the profits of th boss’s a fair cheap affordable drink structure with good affordable housing with good well paid jobs. All possible when big business sits on 800 billion and refuses to invest, time to tax the rich!

My difficulties with access to work

I recently found out I had to reapply for Access to work a scheme designed to aid disabled people in work and to enable them to complete tasks to achieve work tasks as any other able bodied person would do. All was going reasonably fine until today when I received a rather stern phone call from one of their advisors. Clearly they re checking up on every single case now and going through your case with a fine toothed comb to see you’re not cheating the system or getting any money you shouldn’t. I must stress now my situation has not changed at all in the 3 years I have been working and my support has remained the same. On the governments own website they state Access to Work - practical help at work Access to Work can help you if your health or disability affects the way you do your job. It gives you and your employer advice and support with extra costs which may arise because of your needs. Check if you qualify for Access to Work. Today I was interviewed over the phone about my claimant I was asked all sorts of probing questions in attempts for the government to save money it didn’t have to pay out to support me in work. I was asked could I get a bus instead of a taxi each week now the taxi I get is only 4 journey’s a week as I only work two days at present and gets me door to door taking a bus which are very infrequent and highly unreliable I’d have to get to work 2 hours early and not get home till 2 hours after I finished work. All for a 3 mile trip. More questions were fired at me could I change my working hours to fit? umm no I’m employed for a certain amount of hours I cant change it I told them they wanted to know every last detail it felt and I came off the phone feeling very shaky and highly intimidated by the whole interview. It felt like I was being accused of claiming for things I shouldn’t or I shouldn’t be claiming for support I should support myself. Now I don’t earn much at work and I only get DLA and working tax credits to make my income up to something near liveable on I certainly can’t contribute anymore than I already am. I pay 50p in every mile for my journey to work and am allowed to claim back the rest and I don’t think this is too unreasonable. I am working at the end of the day part time maybe and it’s not the greatest job in the world but I’m working. If this government want disabled people to work they need to get their finger out and support the properly making the necessary adjustments however much they cost as how else can they expect us to work ? All this rhetoric about scroungers and benefit cheats about the disabled makes us out to be on the fiddle all the time when we’re not the vast majority of people disabled or not just wish to earn a living and live comfortably if that means we need extra support the government or the employer should make the funding available to meet our needs in my view. I thought about it after but didn’t say so on the phone to this advisor that we are not a poor country there is 750 billion pounds of money stashed in the banks of big business not being invested don’t tell me we are a poor country as we are not these companies just refuse to invest this as they see no profit to be made in investing at this time. As socialists we would say there needs to be an immediate 50% levee on that figure to invest in public works, s new schools, the NHS and a programme of council housing building on a mass scale could start to get people back to work and start to meet people’s needs. This incident today reminded me of the ATOS exposure on panorama where they would try any tactic to get your off benefits back into work, I’ve not been through that ordeal and never wish too but this felt similar but ridiculously I’m in work and trying to gain support. The Tories, labour and their dems all talk of getting disabled people back to work and yes to a extent I agree with them where there is a job and a job is needing doing pay people a decent wage for it and employ people on proper terms but and this is the crucial point if you are disabled like myself we do need that little bit more support than others. No sham in that but the money is there and can be used to support us they often just choose not to. Both the government and big business would rather take money back off you or not spend it in the first place. Its hugely hypocritical that they claim to want to get disabled people into work yet when they make it as difficult as possible for them to gain thnecessary support they need to complete work related tasks. I just think the system is wrong and instead of intimidation and threats to cut your support they should be looking to go the extra mile to support disabled people who wish to work. Of course there are those who can’t work and accept that and they shouldn’t be bullied or discriminated because of that fact instead should be allowed to live their lives comfortably and contribute in other ways to society. At the end of the day we work to live not live to work. Perhaps the government who are hell bent on austerity ought to take note of this. A society which put peoples needs before anything else is what we strive for as socialists if people wished to work they should be a ble to and no barriers in front of them. A socialist society would support everybody’s needs not just a few rich individuals who call the shots at present.

The devastation of Remploy and the hypocritical nature of the gov’s policy towards the disabled.

With the governments attacks on the disabled stepping up by the week it seems disabled Remply workers have chosen to take a different strategy and are fighting back. Remploy workers face the possibility of seeing their factories close and being tossed out onto the scrap heap and joining the doll with thousands of other workers at the moment. It’s a disgrace and flies in the face of what the government are saying about disabled people. On the one hand they are encouraging disabled workers with the carrot and the stick approach telling them they must find work or their benefits will be stopped yet on the other hand they are closing down factories and putting good honest hard working disabled people out of work at Remploy. I am as some of you may or may not know am disabled too and feel an extra sense of solidarity with these workers being tossed out of jobs through no fault of their own. All they wish to do is an honest day’s work and is paid fairly for it and the government for some reason only known to themselves feel they are better out of work onbenifits... You start to see the contradiction don’t you its circle and a vicious one at that. Either they want the disabled in work in which case why shut Remploy or they don’t therefore contradicting themselves on benefits and the role of people on benefits. The whole thing is wrong they claim Remploy is ghettoising the disabled many who work there do not feel this and take great pride in their hard work producing things that people need. Disabled people in my experience work hard in whatever job they are in its not the case that they feel isolated from society by working at Remploy if anything they feel more part of society for being able to contribute and add something to the economy and put something back into society. So I for one see the governments approach to Remploy and disabled workers in general is hugely flawed and to me I’ve drawn the conclusion the ruling class see the disabled as a easy target to get their deficit down which they caused by the greedy bankers loosing big time in 2008. Disabled people much like other workers in society should not pay the price for something they did not create. I urge you all to support Remploy workers as they move to other forms of protest sit in protests further strikes and occupations. They need our support they wont get it from the government or the labour party who started the ball rolling on attacks on the disabled its time to fight back and stick together. Join a union and fight back wherever you can. Disabled or not we are all under attack as the 99%.

Fair pensions for all, no to any sell outs, reject and carry on the fight

This week is going to be crucial for defending pensions. Tommorrow the unison service group for local government meet to decide if to accept the governments shoddy deal or to reject and fight . Also on thursday the TUC meet again to decide what to do next. The NSSN and others will be lobbying both to urge no sell outs and to name the date for further industrial action.

I attended the PCS union left unity conference this saturday called in emergency to the threat of possible right wing trade union leaders selling their members out in turn for a easy life with the government. I have blogged about this countless times but this week is massive really. If unison and the TUC both decide to reject and carry on the fight we will have overcome a big blip which the government are looking to pounce upon. I think there will be fractions and splits which is just what the government want. At the conference last weekend the general secretary of the PCS Mark Serwotka brilliantly spoke and put the case for carrying on the fight and told us we have reached a pivotal point in the struggle.

This is a fight on pensions we simply must win and there were many speech's to that affect last weekend. Many activists were urging to PCS to go it alone already and name the next date for action regardless of what the TUC does this week. This would be a big mistake as running too far ahead of the movement and stepping out of line is just what this government is looking for. The tories are looking for the PCS to be isolated so they can pick them off just like what happened in 1921 with the police union who ran out in front and got smashed as a result. The key here is unity and that has got to be unity of the biggest broadest coalition of unions in this. Our collective power is greater when we stand together. for ultra left types to suggest PCS name the date now would be a mistake as we still dont know how the TUC and Unison leadership will vote this week. once we know that we can then assess where we are and where to go next.

We may find there are less unions willin to take further action but even getting a million out on strike again will be big. This time last year no one imagined a million out on strike and although coming down from 2 million on N30 is still a sizeable turnout. This will as shown on June 30th had a affect on those unions not taking action who were asking why are we not out on strike too ? this will serve as a further lever on the movement and hopefully force the issue further.

The leaders of the TUC and Unison do not want this battle and have little confidence in their members taking strike action and have looked to defuse the movement and action at any chance they have got. Playing down the significance of N30 is to their eternal shame. It was a fantastic day which we should never forget. But the fundemental idea that anything the government is offering has changed since november 29th is obsurd . Nothing the government has offered has changed. A few minor concessions of delaying the bringing in of the pensions reforms and a slight help to elder workers within 10 years of retiring but nothing that wasnt on the table already. We dont just want the crumbs we want the whole lot. When the deal on pensions was sorted in 2007 this shouldnt even be being looked at if it wasnt for the government wanting to use this as a way of paying down the deficit. The mask is off and they are not even pretending otherwise now. All extra payments into pension contributions will go straight to the treasury to pay off the deficit.

This is not on and public sector workers did not cause this crisis it was the wreckless gambling bankers who got us into this mess. Their over sight that their capitalist casino could run and run was wrong when they failed and lost big time our stepped in and bailed them out at our expense.governments Now they are making us pay for this crisis and shortfall in government money in the harshest possible way. Attacking those at the bottom who will be hurt the most. Lowest paid workers and the young, disabled, women and those who have least chance of resisting. Its a crual tactic but one which if the TUC and Unison leadership get their way will be a realisation for millions.

The same fact that workers will be made to pay more, work longer and get less those 3 main sticking points have not changed if this deal goes through. Public sector workers should reject and fight this rotten government and its shoddy deal.

PCS left unity have proposed to set up a temporay which may become more permenant as the struggle goes on to combine the best forces of left groups within the various different unions to meet regularly and lend support to different unions and their rank-and-file members as and when they need it. Be that printing leaflets, assisting in a ballot or generally lobbying for more action. As with the private sector pension disputes which are increasing too now with Shell UK and Unilever announcing big cuts and ending their pension schemes their fight is our fight, Our fight is their fight and so on. Let this week be a turning point where as a movement we get back on the front foot and if we have to go over the top of Prentice and Barbour at the TUC then so be it. But tactics and what we do next will be affected hugely by this week's decisions.

Lets not give up without a fight. If it was right to strike on N30 it is right to keep fighting now Lets not let the trade union bureaucracy off the hook lets fight within the unions for the leadership we deserve. If they wont fight for us then they should move out of the way for people who do want to fight and will see disputes through to the end.

This is as Rob Williams the chair of the NSSN said is the fight of our lives. If we loose on pensions this will give a huge boost to this government who is looking to see if they can get away with robbing our pensions and if it can just watch them attack other areas and increased privatisation with breathtaking speed. Lets keep fighting now as if we dont fight at all we have no chance of winning if we at least try we have a chance.

Solidarity

Standing up to a weak government

The magnificent strike by PCS and education unions the NUT, ATL and UCU was a game-changer in the battle to defend public sector pensions.

The question on other public sector workers' lips was not 'why are they on strike?' but rather, 'why are we not on strike?' At demonstrations in every major town and city in the country Unison, Unite, FBU, GMB, CWU and many other union banners were there alongside those of the striking unions.

Community organisations, anti-cuts alliances and disability groups marched too, knowing the battle to defend pensions is inextricably linked to the defence of services and communities.

The government's attempt to divide private and public sector workers and state pensioners fell flat as speaker after speaker at rallies demanded fair pensions for all.

The worst elements of the millionaire press went into hysterical, almost comical overdrive with headlines calling on people to stand up to "union bullies", a claim rendered absurd by the almost festival good nature of the day.


Newcastle: 30 June, photo Elaine Brinskill (Click to enlarge)
The government suffered a major media disaster when multi-millionaire minister Francis Maude, was exposed on Radio 4's Today programme by PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka.

Maude was lying, claiming the cost of public sector pensions was rising when the absolute opposite is the case. His public humiliation was so bad he was pulled from doing any further interviews.

The humiliation continued as the government moved from an admission that the strike was hitting hard to their infantile claim that it was a flop. In reality 85-95% of members were on strike.

In Scotland, where only PCS was on strike, support from other workers was tremendous. Over a thousand at the Glasgow rally heard a blistering speech from PCS president Janice Godrich exposing the grubby nature of those behind this attack - Francis Maude, who owns no less than four homes, was embroiled in the MPs' expenses scandal and, like the vast majority of MPs, seems in no hurry to "reform" his own pension.


Newcastle: 30 June, photo Elaine Brinskill (Click to enlarge)
Workers are instinctively making the link between the pensions attack and the rest of the cuts programme. The real reason for the attack on pensions has nothing to do with affordability but, in the words of CBI spiv John Cridland the "reform" must take place in order to make outsourcing "affordable" - this fact must be repeated to every worker our movement can reach.

Ed Miliband's shameful attack on the strike was certainly treacherous but also mind-bogglingly stupid. Rather than making himself "respectable" in the eyes of the press and big business he has alienated millions of workers by attacking an extremely popular strike.

In retrospect this major error may mark the beginning of a process which could result in Miliband actually losing the leadership of the party; not because Labour leaders will be worried about his treachery but rather because they will draw the conclusion they cannot be led into the next election by an incompetent who is clearly way out of his depth.

It appears that the government has recognised its error in attacking the entire public sector at once and will now try to divide the unions. Andrew Grice wrote in the Independent that: "Ministers have already shown flexibility amid fears that workers could pull out of the councils' pension scheme, causing its collapse. A settlement here might deter big unions such as Unite, Unison and the GMB from joining the coordinated strikes some unions seek in the autumn."

Mood for action
However, given the growing mood for action among public sector workers following 30 June, it will be very difficult for the leaders of Unison and the other local government unions to avoid taking action on the basis of the government throwing them a few crumbs. The message for trade unions and their leaders is clear: if we do not fight together we will be picked off separately.

Unless the government is prepared to move away from its hard-line stance on core issues like increased contributions, increased age and devaluation of pensions then we must build for widespread, coordinated action in the autumn.

Nothing will be the same after this strike; all elements of the political establishment, including even the so-called liberal "opinion-formers" are worried.

Having written off the unions as an irrelevancy the truth is staring them in the face; with effective determined leadership, linked to the preparedness to campaign, including taking industrial action, as a last resort, working people are more than capable of standing up to a weak government with no mandate.

ruling class to step up divide and rule tactic, workers must unite

As we have already seen over the last few weeks and months. The government will look to pitch workers against workers, Be that private vs public sector, low paid vs medium paid, part time vs full time, women vs men. The fact is we are all workers whether we recieve slightly more or slightly less at the moment we are all facing cuts or rising living costs in one way or another.

The ruling class use a clever tactic which is quite effective but we must be aware of it. Its know as divide and rule. It is aimed to drive wedges and divisions between the working class so workers turn against each other in disgust rather than focusing on the main issue, the system of capitalism which is at fault.


Such news stories as this one i have just seen on the internet :
ONS stats shows public sector pay 7.8% higher than private sector pay on average, up 2.5% since 2007

This is all very deliberate to set private sector workers further against public sector workers. When the government uses phrases like gold plated pensions and great pay in the public sector they are trying to divide us all. Trying to turn private sector workers who may feel agrieved at being paid less against the public sector worker not the government or their employer or even the system which allows this.

When contiousness in the class is low like it is now and workers are not aware of the forces at play this can lead to divisions and i am sure the government will look to increase these as we progress through the year.

This is also a very clever tactic as when it come to industrial action by public sector workers the government will know that headlines like this will decrease support for the strikes for public sector workers as the private sector workers may feel they do alright anyway and are just being greedy.

This is not the point it is the fact that we should be aiming for good pay, a living wage rising with inflation for all private or public sector workers.

At the end of the day public sector workers pensions are not gold plated as we discovered last week and we must rebuff these lies and attempts by the ruling class to divide the working class.

United we stand, divided we fall. i'm afraid and unless we stand up for our workers in other sectors not just our own we will be divided and play into the governments hands.

So i'd love to see more solidarity from the private sector who have undergone big cuts already to save our public services that we all do treasure.

It is key that private sector workers do support and show solidarity when bigger strikes are called in the autumn a sign of solidarity from the private sector will get this government on to the back foot knowing their attempts to divide us are not working and we're standing up to them.

Are we really living longer ?

One of the governments arguements for the upcoming pension reforms and their reasoning behind making us work longer, for less is apparently due to us all now living longer.

So at our branch meeting one of our comrades raised the point has anyone actually proved this. It is very subjective as i will outline below and you cant just throw around such a statement.

Whilst it may be true some of us may be living longer, It is hard to prove this.

The three big reasons that people in the UK are living increasingly longer lives are:

1.Food supply and nutrition
2.Health
3.Hygiene
These three things have all seen marked improvements in standards since the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, another important factor is our knowledge of their importance to our health and life expectancy, and of the steps we can take to ensure that we lead a healthy lifestyle. Our access to relevant information has also improved dramatically as a result of scientific research and methods of information dissemination (e.g. the Internet).

For example:
The packaging of food products at increasing numbers of shops and supermarkets displays the nutritional content of food and uses colour coding so that we know whether it is good for us. The importance of eating a balanced diet is widely known.

Government and charity websites provide information about the lifestyle choices we can make in order to reduce our risk of developing diseases. The effect that smoking cigarettes can have on our health is widely advertised, and warnings included on packaging. In the UK, a smoking ban in public places has been introduced and the age at which young people can buy cigarettes has been raised to 18 years.
Adverts on buses and tubes inform us of the importance of washing our hands and covering our mouths when we cough or sneeze in order to reduce the spread of illnesses and diseases. Health and safety legislation provides strict regulations for hygiene in restaurants, hospitals and factories.

But following a healthy lifestyle is still a choice that we make, and not everyone chooses or is able to do so.

Key concepts:
Place
Human Processes
Cultural Understanding and Diversity




This is key to my point really that as we live in a class based system under capitalism not everyone has the luxury of eating the healthy food all the time or can afford the best in housing and living conditions.

As i previously blogged about before about the documentary poor kids on the BBC a few weeks ago it can dramatically affect how long you are likely to live depending on where you live in the country and the make up of the area you live in.

So for example there will be a stark contrast between someone living in Knightsbridge in London from someone living in Glasgow in a working class area.

It is important to stress these points when the government is trying hard to push through these pension reforms which will leave many working longer, getting less and a worse off pension as a result.

So i'm opening this up now can the government or anyone else find quantitive evidence that proves we are all living longer than ever before so we need to work longer.

Another point is if we are having to work longer to claim our pension it is our pension they are not wanting us to have because realistically although there may be exceptions like the 73 year old man who still works as a builder or the old example of someone who smokes 30 fags a day and drinks lots and lives till they are 99. You will always find exceptions to any rule but generalising and saying we all live longer now where some do not and some families never live that old due to various reasons is it not safe to say this arguement the government are trotting out is a bit misleading.

So therefore i will be supporting thursdays June 30th strikes as i believe a public sector workers pension is just as important to us and the long term future of this country. It has been proven these pensions are very affordable and backed up by the daily telegraph not known for lending support to the public sector.

But if we can afford more money to be spent on illegal wars and occupations and new nuclear deterents we can surely afford for our hard working public sector workers including teachers and civil servents who keep this country going in many ways.