Eric the Trekkie at the LGA Parliamentary Reception 2014

New(ish) Labour MP and former Lambeth Council leader, Steve Reed spoke first at last months Local Government Association event in the House of Commons Terrace Pavilion. 

Steve contrasted his experience as a Councillor with that as an MP. He felt the experience was very different especially since local people could attend Council meetings to let Councillors know their views but the House of Commons seems isolated in comparison.

Next was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles. He described himself as a Star Track fan and told us that "all resistance to freezing Council tax rises was futile".

Apart from this joke Eric's speech was actually non partisan and even very "un-Eric". He praised local authorities for their response to the recent floods and said he thought Councillors were excellent local advocates and champions. He claimed that if he ever seems grumpy as Secretary of State we should remember that he loves us all a lot.

The head of the LGA, Conservative Cllr Sir Merrick Cockell spoke next and actually said how sad he was that due to property price increases his children are not able to live in the borough (Kensington and Chelsea) he has led as Council leader for the past 13 years. Which I found to be a pretty amazing thing to hear. If his kids cannot live there then who can? 

He also called for more homes to be built, to support small builders and for a 5 year long local government grants settlement by National Government rather than yearly. Which makes perfect sense to me.

Final speaker was Baroness Bakewell who had served beforehand for 20 years in Somerset Country Council and she reflected on the 8 times so far the Lords had defeated the Government and the many other times that they had made them rethink their policies.

Tories Abuse Civil Service for Party Political Propaganda

Hat tip to Captain Swing for this tweet tonight by the Government Department Communities & Local Government in favour of Tory political propaganda about freezing Council tax.

It called on people to "lobby" their councils in support of Tory policies?

The DCLG twit(ter) claimed that this "infographic" was made at no cost?  So I said did it appear by "magic"? Did no-one do any work to make it appear?

This Government should not be using and paying civil servants to push controversial political agendas on official sites. Ignoring the fact that this particular argument is ignorant and stupid (in my opinion) if you really believe in a politically neutral civil service (never mind "localism") you should not allow them to run such blatant political propaganda.

That is the job of the Chief DCLG village idiot, Pickles and Tory central office, not paid civil servants.

Why Eric Pickles is an eejit

Guest post by our Edinburgh Correspondent  shows why Eric Pickles proposal to allow 15 minutes parking on double yellow lines is a really bad idea.

"At about 18:25 last Sunday 4th August I left Maxies Bistro and emerged onto Victoria Terrace. I soon became aware of an open-topped tour bus stopped below in West Bow. The driver was headed from Grassmarket for George IV Bridge, but could not get round the bend into Victoria Street.

Someone had parked a car on the double yellow lines on the off side of the bus. Much consternation and discussion of what to do about it. Eventually 10 concerned citizens grabbed hold of a perfectly reasonably parked car on the near side and moved it. Two Lothian buses inspectors appeared and carefully avoided getting involved in that.

The 10 concerned citizens then crossed the road and moved the obstruction. Tourist bus departed and one person wrote an abusive message on the back window of the former obstruction".

London Labour Housing Group Policy Conference April 2013

Last Saturday (April 13) I went to the London Labour Housing Group policy conference in Paddington. This event was sponsored by UNISON.

I was a little late since I had my Council surgery in Newham first. By coincidence I had 3 people come to me with separate housing related issues and was presented with a petition!

So I missed the key note speaker Jack Dromey MP and arrived during the first workshop.  I did manage to have a very quick word with him about the possibility of Council Pension funds investing in Social Housing. 

The workshop was on "London’s changing tenures: what are the implications for policy?" The report backs from the workshops on policy implications included the need for a mansion tax; a London "not for profit" letting agency; we need new build since 93% of money spent on housing is spent on housing benefit and not on new housing investment; need to build communities; leaseback of right to buy properties if owners unable to maintain; build more homes is the solution to bedroom tax.

Newham Council was praised for its Local Space Housing company which has bought private homes for temporary lets and for its Borough wide Private Sector licensing project.There was also mention of the need of a concordat with local authorities and the more democrat and responsible housing associations. After lunch there was the 2nd workshop on "Housing policies: what should Labour’s key promises be in 2014?"

Key promises from the report backs included the regulation of landlords across London and a "Fair Deal" for the private sector; stop fraud and tax evasion by landlords; no eviction for non payment of bedroom tax (but you cannot write off the debt); pledge to build more homes at affordable rents; CPO abandoned properties and bring back into use; increase Council tax on empty properties; green our existing stock; look at balance sheets of Housing associations that are not building; support TRA and instead of "right to buy" what about a "right to build" for homeless or overcrowded residents in every borough?

Finally (see picture) there was a plenary and panel discussion, Chaired by Karen Buck MP on "Campaigning on housing in 2014".  On the panel was Sir Steve Bullock, Jacky Peacock OBE, Councillor James Murray and myself (in my UNISON capacity).

Karen in her introduction praised Tory Secretary of State for Communities, Eric Pickles, as being "brilliant" for the way he tries to justify his despicable policies by antidote e.g. inferring that if only Councils did not pay their CEO's so much then no cuts would be necessary. She pointed out that Government by antidote is a disaster but perhaps we should learn from the Tories how to campaign with antidotes.

Steve gave a measured but powerful speech about how our policy and values towards housing defines us as a London Labour Party.  In Q&A Jacky reminded us all of the vital campaigning role that tenant and residents groups had played in the past and how they must be part of any housing solutions future.

James stressed how we must be pragmatic in our campaigning. When Labour took control of Islington Council in 2010, they announced that they will build new homes on spaces in Council estates but were taken back at the hostility to this idea by existing residents. The solution was to promise that any new tenancies would firstly be offered to any residents in need on the existing estates that they were planning to build upon.

I pointed out that we must have a living wage plus in London Housing. Not only a living wage but to defeat poverty, a living pension and sickness benefits for all workers - whether directly employed or sub-contractors.  Also we need to change the debate about taxes in this country. We will not be able to do what we want to do with regard to the provision of housing unless we spend more money. The rich must play their fair share but all of us will also have to pay more in taxes to get decent housing for all.

LLHG secretary (and Red Brick blogger) Steve Hilditch closed the conference and then Karen thanked him and all members of the Executive for their hard work in organising such a successful event.

Some of us then retired to the nearest pub to continue putting our London housing world to rights.

(picture Cllr Ross Houston)

Boris and his Pension Merger Plan to Rescue GB Plc

On Monday the FT rather oddly announced that the new Chair of the London Pension Fund Authority (LPFA), Edmund Truell, with the support of Mayor Boris Johnson, is to merge all 34 London Staff Council funds "into a single scheme and channel more investment into the capital’s infrastructure projects".  The Evening Standard also waded in on Tuesday in a similar vein here

The fact that neither Boris nor the LPFA has any legal powers to do this was not mentioned.

Now it makes perfect sense to look into merger in order to see if it will save money and stop Councils and pension scheme members being ripped off by vested interests. Equally, no one would be more happier than me if we could use pension funds to kick start the economy and say build more homes.

But there is a problem. Some 4.6 million Brits have a local government pension entitlement. Its primary purpose is to pay an income in retirement and not to be a substitute for inadequate investment in infrastructure by Government.

Some people also think that the LPFA is looking at merger due to its own internal financial predicament as a mature scheme with many pensioners claiming their money but relatively few active members still paying into the scheme.

There has also been claims of scaremongering. The Local Government Pension Scheme as a whole has assets of £160 billion. It is not broke. Some schemes do indeed have difficulties but in many cases this is due to outdated and irrelevant accounting measures which price scheme liabilities on the current abnormal 200 year low in gilt yields.

So far there has also been no mention either that in the new LGPS 2014 scheme members (and their "widows & orphans") will face the future costs of poor investment performance.  Under European and UK law pension funds must be run in the interests of beneficiaries, then the case for or against merger or for investment in any particular asset class, must first and foremost take into account their interests. Not short term political ambitions for a flat in Number 10.

There are a number of obvious risks. What if merged Council pension funds invest in building homes for rent and there is a property price crash? What if investment in alternative electricity supply is undermined by a change in future Government policy? In other countries pension funds that invest in infrastructure get significant Government financial support or guarantees.

There is also the issue of "why only the LGPS?". While it may seem rather strange that there are 101 separate LGPS schemes worth £160 billion, there are about 53,000 private Pensions schemes. The vast majority of whom are tiny. How well managed are they? This is also important to GB Plc since the Private sector defined benefit schemes alone have £1.1 trillion in investments. Surely it makes sense to look at merging private sector schemes as well?

The Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, who the FT claims is a supporter of Council Pensions merger, may have the legal power to force merger.But unless this is done sensitively and by putting the interests of beneficiaries first, then it is likely to end in tears. Which if the supporters of merger are right, would indeed be bad news not only for the LGPS but also for GB Plc.

The Root of all Evil in the Local Government Pension Scheme

The Pensions Institute last week issued a very provocative report which does raise some important points about process and scale but misunderstands the real nature of the governance deficit in the LGPS (in London and elsewhere).

Which is Councillors have a clear fiduciary duty to Council tax payers, but pension funds should (must by European law) be run in the interests of beneficiaries not employers. This dichotomy does mean that some LGPS schemes have indeed made poor decisions based on Council tax considerations. However, this is not just a “London thing” and some of the larger schemes have faced similar accusations.

Unlike the private sector Defined Benefit schemes where you have at least 1/3 beneficiary representation there is no similar legal right in the LGPS. Some schemes have consistently refused to have any beneficiary representation not even as observers.

Member nominated trustees and representatives (MNR) have a real interest and “ownership” of their schemes. The trustee model has its faults but on the whole has worked well over the years in trying make sure that pensions schemes are well governed and principles are not ripped off by agents. We need to do much, much better, but if you have no effective beneficiary representation on schemes and also a fundamental conflict in fiduciary duty then no wonder some of them go astray.

The answer is to mirror the best practise in private sector DB schemes and have statutory beneficiary representation in the LGPS as well as employers. The fiduciary duty of all representatives must be to the beneficiaries.

It is disappointing that this Pension Institute report has not had any input at all from existing LGPS beneficiary representatives nor does it make any reference to the changes already agreed to the scheme such as theire will be an employer contribution “cap and collar”. This is probably the most significant development in LGPS governance in decades.

I must admit that the “evidence” in the report for the serious “wrong doing” suggested is pretty weak and antidotel. It may or may not be true (and I strongly suspect some of it is) but I wonder if this aggressive approach is the best way forward to win hearts and minds for change?

As s LGPS activist for a number of years, I would also disagree that elected Councillors are “dominant” on London schemes. In fact I will say the opposite and it is professional advisors and Council Officers who are dominant (and in that order). That makes for more potential fiduciary conflicts.

It is illogical to complain of Councillors dominating schemes when at the same time arguing that their 4 year election time span is too short? This is also obviously not just a problem in London and is another argument for MNR to play a positive role like they do in the private sector schemes. MNRs are also more likely to provide continuity. Since I have been a MNR in my scheme in 1996 all the original Councillors, Officers, professional advisers, actuaries and fund managers I first worked with have long gone.

Scale is a crucial issue but it is also one for the private sector. Having 101 pension funds sharing £150 billion is inefficient but what about the hundreds of thousands of tiny private DB/DC schemes? What about the billions invested in contract schemes which have no independent oversight or beneficiary governance?

No recognition either that the way pension liabilities are calculated in the public and private sector schemes is  a complete nonsense due to low gilt yields. Yet they are driving repayment plans and long term asset allocations.

I also wonder about the tabloid references to “gold plated pensions” and “DB in the private sector is dead” (in press release)? The average pension for a women retiring from the Council in 2011 was £2780 per year? Hardly “gold plated”, also there are still 3 million workers in the private sector accruing DB pension benefit. As well as 25% of the LGPS who now work for private organisations?

Just because in the private sector it is now the fashion for many employers to turn their backs on their workers and are seemingly quite happy for them to retire and then die in poverty, doesn’t mean that it is a good thing for teacher assistants, cleaners, clerks and road sweepers to have the same fate?

The taxpayer of course has to subsidise these bad employers and pick up the bill for their poverty pension provision. This will have to change and the reintroduction of DB into the private sector is the only way it is going to happen.

I am also surprised to the reference about the discredited Channel 4 programme and the supposed link with LGPS and Council tax? I think I am right that 80-90% of Council income comes does not come from council tax e.g. Government grants, business rates, charges, fees etc. How is it therefore relevant to link LGPS contributions only to Council tax?

In short I am glad that this report has meant that long standing concerns about LGPS governance being fit for purpose are at long last out in the open. Yet it has ruffled feathers amongst those who are broadly supportive of change and has failed to take on board the argument that it is the democratic deficit that is the root source of most if not all evil in the LGPS.

Update on Pensions

Following recent developments over Public Service pensions I thought I would give my take on things. There has been lot of excited and largely ill-informed postulating.

On Friday the main local government unions UNISON, Unite and the GMB agreed "a joint statement on discussions on a new set of principles and timetable for detailed negotiations on pensions....if agreed, the unions believe they "lay a positive framework" for full negotiations to start in January....The statement stresses that no decisions have been taken over details surrounding contribution increases or the future look of the local government pension scheme".  The Government was willing to proceed on this basis.  However it seems that Eric Pickles MP has been doing his best to wreck a deal.  It appears that his silly letter has now been withdrawn.

Yesterday UNISON health negotiators received a final offer from the employers which they quite rightly intend to consult upon with the Health Service Group elected lay Representatives.

Other unions (with the one exception of the main Civil Service union PCS) appear to be close to an "outline deal".

No-one cannot seriously argue that there hasn't been significant changes and improvements to schemes since the decision was taken to ballot for strike action. Also as the TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said : "Since the day of action on November 30, we've seen a new atmosphere in the negotiations".

I think that some commentators are in danger of cutting their nose to spite their face.  They also clearly do not understand that it is not and never has been (and never will IMO) the role of British trade unions to take action against the wishes and interests of its members.  We are interested in resolving trade disputes and not engaging in infantile and doomed toy town revolutionary politics. While I am very proud of the work that my union does to change society and promote a progressive agenda.  We put the interests of our members first and not what are told to believe by extremist central committees.

By coincidence yesterday evening I was at Congress House in London for a UNISON Regional Council Officer meeting.  There was also a meeting of the TUC Public Services Liaison Group to discuss the negotiations. Outside the main entrance was about 25 protesters (see picture) calling for a National Strike (and various other things).  I went outside to see what was going on and had even had a chat with my former branch chair. I must admit that I did wonder why these tiny number of protesters thought that they had the right to "demand" that 6 million TUC members do as they tell them?

The elected lay Representatives of the Union will decide what to do next. Ordinary trade union members will have the final say about whether these changes are sufficient to settle this dispute. They will vote in a secret ballot either: Yes or No.

Eric Pickles, the LGPS, PM and the Fish Slapping Dance

Yesterday evening as I was driving back to Stow-on-the-Wold after a glorious days walking in Warwickshire (post to follow) listening to PM (News) on Radio 4.  I enjoyed the scene where in response to a request from a listener they imagined the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities, Eric Pickles,being slapped across the face with a wet (or frozen) fish. 

Coming back today in East London today I read about the latest stuff and nonsense Mr Pickles has put out about the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and the response UNISON has made to it here.

The LGPS does not cost each household £300 plus per year.  It costs £67 per year or 5p in every £1 paid in council tax. 

If you really want to know what Eric Pickles looked like 24 years ago and what the 4 million members of the LGPS would like to do with him - then enjoy the Monty Python clip above.

LGA LG Spring conference 2011: Return of the Wreakers and Splitters

During the lunch break at Saturday’s LGA Labour Group spring conference I wandered over to the main entrance of LGA house to have a look at the promised SPEW (Socialist Party of England & Wales) “mass national lobby”.  I looked out of the door and saw about 30 SPEWers ranting and raving incoherently. LGA Labour Group Leader, David Sparks, had agreed to accept a “petition” from the organisers.  This turned out to be a typical hate session against the Labour Party.    Well done for David for agreeing to even meet them and putting up with their childish and crank nonsense.

One of their skinhead organisers then immediately resumed the “Scum” chants at the top of his voice and the masturbatory finger waving.   This moronic and orchestrated “scum; scum; scum” chanting did obviously embarrass some of the more vaguely normal SPEWers but they did nothing to stop it nor did they seem to mind their lobby turning into something akin to an EDL rally. 

This is just Kamikaze politics. If any English Council did not set a balanced budget then the Chief Officer’s would be legally obliged to do so regardless of any political considerations.  If they refused then Pickles would do it.  Does anyone really want Eric Pickles to set their Council budget?

I do believe that if we unite and build - we can defeat this Tory-led government over policies and it is possible we may even bring them down as a government before 2015.  Yet at the first major labour movement political test we find the tiny and unrepresentative ultra left extremists attacking not the ConDems - but Labour Councils!

Instead of working together we see them in the finest Monty Python Life of Brian traditions do their best to wreak and split.  In London Town Halls Council reception staff have been beaten up by these yob protesters and even disabled Councillors attacked.  For what?  What did they think they would gain? Despite the fact that they could not get any one of the 4500 Labour councillors to publicly support their view they went ahead with their completely divisive and sectarian campaign anyway. 

What mandate have these tiny telephone kiosk sects to dictate to anyone what they should do?

Why were they not demonstrating in Cardiff that day at the Tory Spring conference?

Is it not bad enough that opinion polls show that the majority of ordinary people actually think these cuts are necessary.  Now, thanks to the SPEWers, SWPers, LRC and the rest of the Heinz 57 trots – even more people will accept the Tory lies that Councils do not need to slash and burn if they were just a bit more efficient. Well done comrades!

How can the Broad Left now work with these idiots. Who obviously don’t give a toss about the interests of ordinary working people and who think that all you have to do to bring about their revolution is to foam at the mouth and scream abuse.  Grow up - you are just helping the Tories get off the hook.

Talk about Tory fifth columnists.  Pickles must be laughing his ample socks off at his new best mates ever.

Get your facts right about the Local Government Pension Fund says UNISON

"UNISON, the UK’s biggest union, with more than 600,000 members working in local councils, today called on consultants and government ministers to get their facts right on local government pensions.  

The call follows a claim by John Balfe, so-called “independent” pensions consultant, that the scheme’s liabilities had increased to £100 billion.  The Communities and Local Government Minister, Eric Pickles, managed to muddy the waters even more by unsubstantiated claims that  ‘town hall pensions are now costing over £300 a year to every household paying council tax."

Heather Wakefield, UNISON Head of Local Government, said:

“Another week, another attack on the local government pension scheme. These so-called independent pensions consultants and government ministers should get their facts right before they resort to crude scare-mongering.

“Eric Pickles is plain wrong. Less than 6% of council tax payments fund pensions. More than 50% is made up of employee contributions and investment returns.

“The local government pension scheme is in good shape, and is a vital way of allowing mainly low paid workers to save for their retirement. A report out this year confirmed that the scheme could cover all its liabilities for the next twenty years, without a single penny more in contributions. What’s more, the scheme invests hundreds of billions in UK stocks and shares every year – a huge boost to our economy.

“With pensions, its vital to take a long term view. It is totally misleading to take an assessment of the schemes liabilities now and make claims for the future that don’t stack-up.  All investments have taken a knock thanks to the financial crisis, but given time they will recover.”

Key facts on the local government pension scheme:

-       The average local government pension is £4,000 per year, for women this drops to just £2,600, or less than £40 per week.

 -       After intense negotiations, a new pensions agreement in local government was introduced in 2008, setting out terms that include workers paying 6.4% of their salary into the scheme.

-       Local councils get most of their revenue from business rates and from central government grants. In reality, less than 6% of council taxpayers’ rates goes towards funding the pension scheme. More than 50% of the cost is met by employee contributions and investment returns.

 -       Research in 2006 showed that if the LGPS did not exist - based only on current pensioners – it would cost the taxpayer £2bn a year in increased means tested benefits and loss of tax revenue. It would also fuel increased take up of NHS and council care services.

 -       Often overlooked is the huge investment power of the LGPS fund. In 2008 the total value of combined assets in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, were £143 billion - 60% of which was invested in equities or shares, in UK and global stock markets. In the same year, more than £1 billion was invested in each of the top four FTSE companies. If the scheme were to close, and this investment was withdrawn, it would have a huge impact on the UK economy.

-       The LGPS is in better shape than a most other schemes. Even in the depths of the recession, investments provided nearly £3bn for the LGPS in England, accounting for nearly one third (27%) of the scheme’s overall income. Year on year, the scheme takes billions more in contributions and investments returns than it pays out in benefits. Last year, income from member contributions to the scheme in England alone increased by 15% - outstripping expenditure by £6 billion.

-       An Audit Commission report in 2010 stated that the LGPS could pay out all pensions due for the next 20 years without any further contributions.

More information from UNISON Press Office on 0207 551 1555".

(Hat tip UNISON press release)

London Councils Summit: The Evil One is amongst us

The Right Honourable Eric Pickles MP, Secretary for State for Communities and Local Government (left - aka "the evil one") was the keynote speaker at the Summit.  He promised no jokes about bonfire night, about blowing up Parliament or about a Bonfire of Quango’s.  

Being Eric, he happily attacked the Chair Jules Pipe's previous remarks as “Booker Prize” fiction and claimed that the local government settlement had not yet been decided.  He did not recognise the figures about the cuts mentioned by Jules.  He had a dig at Jules and Hackney Council over a supposed expenditure of £38m on temporary staff which resulted in a contractor making £6.5m in profit. 

He promised it will be tough.  But Councils will have powers, influences, choices and more freedom than they have had in decades (probably 25 years).  Even if the coffers were overflowing, we would still pass power down to local councils and communities.  It was Big Government and Big spending that got us into this mess.  If you want local services - don’t control on high.  Give councils control of purse wings, stop tying them up in red tape and let them get on with it.  It's about power and influence as well as raw figures.  We’ve had 3 decades of central control and look where it got us?  Give it a try.  Look at Camden and Islington sharing CEO.  Hammersmith, Westminster and Kensington, demonstrate the future of public services.  All of us should rise to the challenge, innovate and give residents better deals.  The Shackles are removed.  We could save £60 million if all London Local Government Pension Schemes were merged. 

There is a load of rubbish about mergers and super councils.  No one is saying this. Local identity is paramount.  Residents should not notice a difference except better services.  Localism is the only show in town.  Being a prisoner for decades - now is your time to bask in the sun.  Quakers.  Orwellian double speak councils suffocated by government.  We want to let you get on with it.  You don’t want me darkening your doorstep.  It will be the voters.  Instead of saying to me “What should I do Secretary of State?” Do it yourself.

Be genuinely open and transparent. If you are confident you have done no wrong, then there is no reason not to be.  15 councils have put all their spending on line?  Why don’t the others? There is a new balance of power.  Based on fairness (laughter from audience) - is it fair that people on £40k per year get Child benefits? is it fair people in your ward can only live there because they are on benefits?  Time to live in the real world (some clapping but some booing).  I know this for a fact - but had Labour won they would have done the same thing as us (more heckling).  Housing Benefit up £5 billion” this is unfair and unaffordable.  The disgraceful talk about “social cleansing” (I helpfully mentioned "Kosovo") The myths and hysteria - not facts.  

London is a great capital.  London once again is at forefront of local governance and innovation in this country.

There was more “knock about” politics in the Q&A with Eric playing the biggest and baddest Tory Tyke ever and Jules trying to keep order and remain polite and reasonable.  Eric claimed that for 80% of private sector housing benefit claimants the total change will be less than £10 per week so people should “grow up” about this.  There was lots of clapping and heckling which seemed to upset the "Sir Bufton Tufton" Tory Councillors present. 

Since Eric justified the reason why new “public housing” rents will be 80% of market rents by claiming that Housing associations had asked the Tories to do this - I asked a question to Eric about last weeks Inside Housing magazine which predicted that the rent of such new Council and Housing association housing would increase by an average of £130 per week (I repeat a £130 per week) for an average 3 bed property.  But alas he ignored the question. 

UPDATE: Check out another Labour view of Eric's performance.
UPDATE: a good summary by LGC journo Allister Hayman

London Councils Summit: Setting the Agenda – Chair’s Intro and "City" View

On Saturday I went to a “Summit” organised by London Councils in Westminster.  The Chair of London Councils, Hackney Executive Mayor, Jules Pipe (picture) gave an introductory speech to the 200 odd (some very) Councillors from all over London.  Jules' job as Chair is pretty difficult.  On the one hand he is obviously a Labour Party Politician (and is only Chair since the Labour Party controls a majority of Councils in London) but he must also appear to be above politics as Chair.  A difficult balancing act.

He recognised that not everything will be sweetness and light over “money”.  Especially £1.6 billion in cuts.  His message to the Guest Speaker, the Secretary of State, RH Eric Pickles (aka “the evil one”) was that London is a net contributor to rest of the economy.   There should be further consideration of the level of front loading.  Better over 4 years as previously announced.  London is different to the rest of the country due to the cost of housing which is disproportionately high in London.  People will have to move if cuts take place.  Receiving authorities will have problems.  Councillors are not technocrats sent to simply deliver cuts by backroom deals.  People voted for Councillors to act as advocates.  We may fall out but we want  a vigorous debate by the 3 political parties about London’s future.  One side stresses “localism” - the other side the cuts that they think will be devastating to London.  The forum for debate is politics. 

Stuart Fraser, the influential Chair of Policy and Resources Committee, City of London spoke next. 

He thought that there had been changes in politics.  “Localism” and “Big Society”?  How will this come about? Is it about scrutiny, facilitation or funding?  What will be happening to the business rate?  Will control return to Councils?  The City of London business rate funding is 18%.  If they were to get all the money back then they really could line the streets with Gold.  £50 per resident - but he is not holding his breath.  The problem is simple - Money. Other parts of the UK economy are more dependent on public services than London.  We have had good infrastructure settlements.  We need to fight our corner very hard.  London is resilient.  Problem of patchwork London.  Communities that experience severe deprivation alongside others which are quite wealthy.  London is the home of innovation in our country.  Must be positive and move ahead.  London UK economy is worth £20 billion.  The private sector is not just financials.  All industry need good facilities.   He has worked in the city for 45 years and on Council for 20 years.  Newly elected Cllrs may be thinking by now with all these meetings and committees “what have I let myself into”.  What this is - is that you are there to serve a fantastic city. (more posts on rest of day next)

"The devil is in the detail...and I am the detail"

So said the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Jack Pickles, at yesterday evenings GLA/London Council’s bash at the 9th floor of City Hall for all newly elected London Councillors.

I suppose many of us present would in fact agree with Mr Pickles self assessment of himself! He actually gave quite an emollient and even a suspiciously constructive speech about the importance of having elected Councillors (who can be “chucked out” by their electors if they are no good) and came close to promising that the Greater London Authority and Local authorities will receive much greater powers and responsibilities from central government and deleted quango’s. Watch this space I suppose.

London Mayor, Boris Johnson was unable to attend since he had to go to a School play. Fair enough although this did not stop cynical souls amongst us reflect that it was more likely because when he planned this event he did not expect so many Labour Councillors to be elected in London.

We did not escape - since he had specially recorded a vintage bumbling Boris performance on a DVD for us to watch (and endure).

Hackney elected Labour Mayor and new leader of “London Councils” (which represents all 33 local authorities in London) Jules Pipe, gave an upbeat and positive speech about us all working together for the benefit of London and the great services that London Councils provide. He didn’t notice Eric licking his lips at the knowledge of more things that he can demand to be privatised.

I had to leave early in order to go and make a report to my ward meeting but as I left I did reflect upon Boris as London mayor and the first time I had been to the 9th floor City Hall - and I hope to return sometime after May 2012 to a reception run by a Labour Mayor of London.

(Eric is bottom left; Jules is next to him and top left is UNISON and GLA Labour Assembly member Joanne McCartney with Newham Councillors)

UNISON NDC 2010: Defending the Local Government Pension Scheme

On Wednesday morning there was a debate on Defending the LGPS.  I posted about this excellent UNISON Labour Link leaflet on the threat to our pensions just before the General Election.

I hope those who claim there was "no difference" between Labour and the Tories are pleased with themselves.

Anyway, below is my speech on motion 18.  I tried to speak on amendment 18.4 which for some reason deleted the call for there to be a single LGPS pension fund in England, Scotland and Wales.  I got "bumped off" by a "point of order... for the question to be put" (went to an immediate vote without hearing all speakers) .

Here is my speech anyway.

 "John Gray, Tower Hamlets LGPS Representative, With Voting Rights!!

I speak from inside the pension machine – I’ve been a UNISON LGPS rep for 14 Years...I’ve watched fund managers come and go – at great expense to our fund....believe me on this

Conference there is going to be a Public Sector Pension Commission. It will look at the future costs of all public pension schemes.

The union needs a specific response to the Commission that deals with the funded element of the LGPS.

Just like the situation in Holland in 1996 when public sector pensions were under threat – what did the unions, employers and government do then? They created a new pension system for public sector workers.
1 fund, 12 sets of benefits, governed by 5 trade union reps and 5 employer reps,

Consultation committees for scheme members, pensioners and employers

That body then created its own fund manager, in-house, low costs, responsible investor, it’s now the 3rd largest pension fund in the world with one objective to pay the members pensions and not fill their own pockets and drive away in the latest Porsche

And conference in 2008 a study looking at reform of pension’s management for state workers in Ontario Canada said “lower investment fees are but one of the many advantages enjoyed by large plans over smaller ones and over individual savers.

Conference its clear, everyone who has tackle this question of costs looks to consolidate funds

In London there are 34 pension funds, all competing with each other, all with at least 8 fund management contracts each, pouring money into the pockets of the City traders.

Why 34 funds? They are an accident of History, a system well past its sell by date.

What counts is the economic power and efficiency when it comes to our funds.....anything less than 1 in each country will cost us money in lost fees and no economic power

Why not 5, why not 10 why not 20?

Because they cost us more to run, wasted money that we cannot afford to throw away now or for future generations

So I ask you to reject 18.04

Let us offer the coming generations a chance to thank us in the future..thank us for having the nous to help save decent pension provision for them

Give us the policy to move forward with a coherent and calculated set of demands...let us tell Pickles in a time of austerity we know how to save money