Community Service Group Seminar - Cardiff on 23-25 September

"The National Community Service Group Seminar will take place on Friday 23 September to Sunday 25 September 2011 in the Angel Hotel, Cardiff. The seminar should be of interest to UNISON activists in the Community service group, working for charities, housing associations, voluntary organisations, and so on.

Local Government and Health Branches are reminded they may have community members who will find this seminar interesting.

The seminar will provide a valuable opportunity to explore key developments within the community and voluntary sector, and it will provide an opportunity to network with others and compare workplace practices. The seminar will look at a variety of issues which are crucial to the sector. Among the guest speakers will be Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), who will give us his take on the impact of the cuts and the government’s ‘big society’ agenda on the voluntary sector; and Hazel Blears MP, who will talk about her view of how trade unions and the Labour Party should approach social enterprises and mutuals. We hope to hold sessions on the cuts, campaigning alongside community groups, pensions, dealing with TUPE transfers, personalisation of social care, and branch and regional approaches to organising".

Check out further details here

Nice One Lawson!

Was I the only one to have his commute into work ruined this morning by listening to this idiotic interview on Radio 4 Today with Compass’s Neil Lawson and Tribune’s Chris McLoughlin?

The interview was supposed to be about an article by David Miliband (of all people) published in Tribune which was interpreted as supporting the idea of a Totnes style MP selection process.

Now I suspect that many Labour Party activists including myself would have reservations about this but it is an interesting idea – what was simply unforgivable in my view was Lawson using the occasion to grandstand and attack his own Party as “Dying” a Party “that doesn’t believe in anything” where members have “absolutely no rights and no say whatsoever”.

Not only that but it is a Party that apparently “doesn’t believe in a different or better society” or has any vision and suggested it was just being run by careerists and opportunists.

With friends like this? ....What really annoys me about this is that we have less than a year to a general election? Yes, there are things wrong with the Labour Party and its internal democracy which need changing. Did this interview actually contribute to changing things or did this ex-lobbyist self publicist just achieve in getting real activists backs up?

The interviewer Jim Naughtie noted pointedly that Lawson refers to his opponents as “they” as if they are from a different party and that ordinary voters will notice this.

What I also found unforgivable is that these two self professed lefties never even bothered to discuss the only really different and radical suggestion by Miliband (again of all people) about a new possible role in the Party for the 3 million trade union political levy payers.

No, no mention of this at all – rather it was just the usual self-indulgent moans and whines by the excluded wing of the self appointed Party Intelligentsia which no doubt gets a sympathetic hearing at dinner parties and first nights.

These people self-evidently don’t give a real damn about the prospects of the Party if they are not the ones in charge. Frankly following this morning's farrago they have only succeeded in making even Hazel Blears seem an ultra Party loyalist.

“Housing bosses received ‘grotesque’ pay increases”

Former Head of Shelter and retiring Board member, Chris Holmes, of the now defunct Housing Corporation attacks housing association bosses for not only their pay but also for initiating mega mergers solely to further their own careers.

He thought that they only got away with this because the Corporation was “too soft”.

He doesn’t think that the market justifies any salary above £200,000 per year. The Corporation tried to speak to some associations about pay but was ignored. Maximum pay levels he thinks should be set depending on size and if these are ignored the association should be put under supervision.

Possibly even more incendiary than this attack is his assertion that in a significant minority of stock transfers, new housing association boards were almost totally made up with white males unrepresentative of their communities.

He finally attacks housing associations for “unnecessary and hugely wasteful” corporate hospitality.

Personally I think even £200,000 per year is too much. Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government receives £137,000. The Prime Minister himself (for crying out loud) earns less £200,000 (£188k). A maximum cap for pay would be a good start. The highest paid CEO is at union busting Anchor Trust where he got a staggering £327k!

It should be possible for the new Housing Regulator the “Tenant Services Authority” (TSA) to verify the claims on the unrepresentative make up of boards.

By coincidence I contacted the TSA on Friday about a union matter and so far have been pleased at their efficient and courteous response.

Check out my previous posts on excessive housing chief pay here and the original interview with Chris this weekend in Inside Housing.

“Housing chiefs enjoy bumper pay hikes”

Soon after I posted last month on the 32% pay increase (to £327,000pa) of the Housing Association boss of Anchor Trust, the UNISON office rang to warn me that someone who was “very angry” had rang them and was trying to contact me.

Now professionally and politically, it is not exactly unknown for “angry” people to want to contact me for various reasons. But when I actually spoke to this elderly person after she emailed me via this blog (who I have never met and whose voice was literally shaking with anger as she spoke) her fury was about this pay rise and ‘... how on earth was it allowed to happen...’ A good question.

Yesterday, Inside Housing reports that the average pay rise of Housing Association Chiefs 2007/2008 was an inflation busting 7.3%. While the top 10 highest paid enjoyed an average 15% increase. Number one of course was John Belcher, chief executive of said Anchor Trust.

Now, I will try and be objective over this news. I will say from the onset that I personally have no objection to hard working, talented, successful people earning significant financial rewards from leading large, complex and, of course, flourishing organisations.

There is of course the inevitable “but”. My “but” is that these salaries should also be reasonable in all the circumstances and not excessive. While one part of me might just simply despair at the numbers, I think also that there are sound, reasoned and persuasive arguments that paying senior management such huge amounts of money is also wrong for good business reasons.

I simply do not believe that you can have a successful organisation with a positive and inclusive company culture, where the senior management are paid vastly more than the mass of employees. Surely there is no justification for paying say more than 10 times the salary of the lowest paid? I include contracted out workers such as cleaners and security staff in this calculation. I suspect that Anchor Trust have such staff on minimum wage. That means that John Belcher earns over 28 times the earnings of such employees (£327,000 divided by £11,481). This just encourages a “them” and “us” attitude.

What is potentially even more destructive to the morale of housing association staff is if their wages are increased by less than inflation while their senior executives enjoy above inflation large pay rises. In many Supporting People contracts staff are being offered no pay rise, skill levels are being reduced and working hours increased for no extra pay. UNISON national housing officer Mike Short argues that this may be discriminative since many of these already low paid workers are female.

Never mind what hard pressed residents think of their Chief Executive’s salary as they struggle to pay their rent or service charges.

Such pay rises are also extremely damaging to the social housing movement as a whole. There have been a number of very negative comments about housing associations made recently by MPs. I have myself met a number of MPs, Assembly members and senior local councillors who despair of housing associations. They are not the “usual suspects”.

Housing associations enjoy large public subsidies in development aid and many residents receive housing benefit to help pay their rent. This is huge amounts of public money that we are talking about. How do we ensure that the salaries paid to senior staff have been properly arrived at and accounted for?

Following the governance failures that led to the demise of Ujima Housing Association, how confident are we that boards are able to challenge excessive pay?

Ironically, while there are justifiable complaints about the level of executive pay in the private sector, at least (in theory anyway) all shareholders have a vote at the company AGM on executive pay. However imperfect this mechanism is it means that the private sector is more accountable than the public sector in this field.

The regulator seems toothless over this issue and more concerned with justifying their own large pay rises.

Clearly the “market” has failed the housing association movement over pay. Bearing in mind recent economic events where we find a ring wing US Republican government nationalising banks, we should now all know beyond doubt that it is right for the state to intervene when the “market” fails in such ways. Better still; intervene now before things get worse.

Last year at the UNISON Housing fringe at the Labour Party conference I questioned the then Housing minister, Yvette Cooper, about excessive pay for association chiefs. She said that she would consider sending a message on this issue. Since it now seems that many executives now get more than twice as much as Local Government & Communities boss Hazel Blears (£138k per year), it appears that the message has been lost in the post?

I expect this year at the conference this issue will not go away. Now is time to act and intervene?

(BTW what did Boston Mayflower have to hide, since they were the only HA to refuse to take part in the Inside Housing Survey?)

Blears Blocks Boris

Good news. A few weeks ago I posted on Mayor Boris caving in to his “pals” in Tory Council Hammersmith & Fulham. Despite the objections of his professional GLA planners, Boris gave permission for a major housing scheme to be built with no social housing in it.

Many fear that the Tories are gerrymandering and trying to stop social housing being built in the Councils they control.

Now Communities Secretary Minister Hazel Blears has intervened by ordering Hammersmith & Fulham Council to withdraw permission while she considers what can be done.

Fingers crossed!

(Picture of Hazel at last years UNISON Labour Link forum)

Gordon and Cabinet listen to Bermondsey Voices

Another more recent picture of Gordon (see last post).

Coincidentally, last night I received a call from a Newham contact who asked me if I could attend an important consultation “meeting” today in Bermondsey, South East London. I asked him who was attending and he gave me the usual cryptic answer that he could not tell me for security purposes (or of course he would have to shoot me).

Fair enough I thought. This morning I was texted the address “Beormund Community Centre, Abbey Street, SE1”. At the community centre we were directed into what appeared to be the sports hall which had a number of round tables and chairs. It was pretty full of people and press/media.

Beormund is a pucker inner city community centre. While queuing to get in you could see “tea dances” taking place in a far hall. Everyone was very friendly and welcoming.

After booking in with my passport I was directed to a table in the corner of the sports hall. In another coincidence I was seated next to friendly Tower Hamlets people. Also on our table was a local housing c0-op member and representatives of a number of local and national organisations.

The official purpose of the meeting was to consult on the Government’s draft legislative programme 2008/9 (Your Voice). The Prime Minister and a number of cabinet ministers including Harriet Harman, Jackie Smith, Alan Johnson, Ed Balls and Hazel Blears turned up and were allocated tables in the room to chair meetings on the legislative programme.

We had Hazel on our table. She was as usual “on form” and led a lively discussion on the 10 most important issues that our table thought important. Many of us around that table had strong views on government policy and legislation however we were kept well in line by Hazel.

Gordon was supposed to sit on our table to discuss things but was waylaid on route. Shame.

At the end Gordon gave a pretty powerful speech to us all. While I didn’t agree with everything (diversity in NHS supply being a good thing?), most of his stuff was very positive. Excellent news on fairness for agency workers

Neither he nor his cabinet ministers seemed down or beaten. Business as usual I think. But I hope that the Bermondsey voices will still be heard.

UNISON Labour Link Forum – Manchester 2007

Busy couple of days, we firstly had apologies from Gordon Brown for not being able to attend (we let him off, he had a baptism of fire with international terrorists and floods), had a new minister of local government, Hazel Blears, as guest speaker, key note speech by our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, Q&A with Labour MEPs and then MPs, workshop on implementing national delegate conference decisions, annual report, debate on Labour Leadership election and motions. There was of course the obligatory UNISON social on the Friday evening where “a good time was had by all”. My red eyes and shaky voice the following morning was down to a horrible common cold and no other possible reason.

The Forum is the annual meeting of elected UNISON Labour Link representatives and was held in the Midland Hotel Manchester city centre. The hotel is actually built on or about the site of the Peterloo Massacre. There was about 150 members present from all over the UK. I haven’t been to Manchester since I was in my 20s, and I was most impressed. I will definitely be coming back for a weekend soon.

Hazel was her usual very impressive self – the four “C’s”, combative, confident, certain and proper working "class". She appears to have shrugged off her defeat in the Deputy Leadership, probably thinks “it’s their loss”. I liked her story about how after she became a young Councillor at Salford (fictional setting for Coronation Street); the Town Clerk (who in those days still used to wear a wig and gown at Council meetings) approached her and said he had a “really important job for her”. She was really excited and thought it would be some significant committee position. However, he then told her “we are refurbishing the member’s room and we would like you to choose the curtains”. She said she was so shocked that she agreed. She pointed out the danger Cameron and the Tories poised at the next election as just being “different”. Regardless of policies there will be a “momentum of change” at the next election which will favour the Tories. Labour has got to be different, not in values but in policies.

I was able to ask her my usual question to new ministers about the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) “governance” issues i.e. why is it that staff are excluded from being represented on their pension schemes. Hazel (as Malcolm Wicks, Stephen Timms and Phil Woolas have responded in the past) admitted that this issue was something that she had not been briefed upon beforehand but suggested that involving staff in their pensions was obviously “a good idea”. We need to speak to her further before she gets nobbled by her civil servants. There is a draft Code of Practice on governance issues out at the moment.

Dave Prentis obviously felt at home at the forum. He was amongst friends. He started off by attacking the BNP, he also had a bit of a dig at the “revolutionary groups” who feed off and take for granted the hard work done by Labour Link in trying to influence MPs. He praised Alan Johnson, for wanting talks to take place over NHS pay within 5 days of him taking over as health secretary, when just 2 weeks ago Brown had told Dave himself that there was no more negotiations over pay. Alan Johnson, even thought we won’t agree with everything he does is someone UNISON can deal with.

Dave went off his speech to respond to Hazel and have a go at the awful governance of many (not all) LGPS schemes. Despite a clear European Union directive that we should have the legal right to 50% representation on these schemes we have none. He pointed out that huge amounts of money in the LGPS is used to provide cheap loans to local authorities instead of being invested for the long term. We will probably need to recruit some 800 UNISON pension reps in the near future to sit on pension schemes.

Dave pointed out that UNISON Labour Link is an integral part of the Union and that as General Secretary he will do everything in his power to promote it.

I spoke on the London motion on the Living Wage, the problems with Co-op and the 4th choice for Housing.

Labour Link is obviously as Dave mentioned a “broad church”. However, despite occasional problems, I felt that pretty much everyone present was genuinely united about promoting the wider Labour movement. All of us have shared values and aspirations and we feel the best way forward to pursue these ideals is via the Labour Party and our affiliated trade union UNISON. Watch this space.

Picture above is of London Delegation - Left to right me, Rachel Voller, Louise Couling, Norma Stephenson (UNISON President), John Gough, Bill Beekoo and Ian Horrigan.

Pictures below of London UNISON members in action Bill, Rachel (left), John Gough and Khi Rafe.

Trade Union Hustings in Congress House

Post on the Trade Unions for Labour (TULO) Hustings held last night in the TUC Headquarters in Congress House last month. Picture is of UNISON Labour Link member Rachel Voller (local Nurse) and Alan Johnson. The main hall was packed. Extra chairs had to be bought in. Brown comes in, lots of clapping, he “works” the front row very well shaking hands and looking very relaxed and confident. He then knocks a microphone off the stage. Recovers well, and starts talking to the audience. A few bits and pieces about his performance.

He talked about “social justice” and “progressive politics”; he mentioned how as a young man the NHS had prevented him from going totally blind. How he was only able to go to university thanks to the Labour Party. The 2.5 million jobs created by Labour during the last 10 years. He thanked the trade union movement for creating the Labour Party 100 years ago, for the NHS, for the minimum wage. He kept referring to the “Labour Movement”.

Gordon left and the 6 candidates then came in, the meeting was chaired by the editor of the New Statesman (John Kampfner?). It was much more formal and tense than the hustings we had in West Ham. Each candidate had only 2 minutes for a speech.

Hilary Benn gave a good speech. He kept reminding me of his Dad, who by co-incidence I had seen in the same hall, same spot, giving a speech on Saturday. He (HB) has an effective “tell it as it is” style.

Hazel gave her usual combative “campaigner-in-chief” speech; attacking Cameron for saying he “understands” what it is like for couples to pay a mortgage when he actually lives in a £1.25million house which was bought for cash.

Alan (I declare an interest) talked about how he was inspired by the trade union movement, but not usually at branch meetings (laughter). He rightly (and bravely) reminded the audience that the movement had made mistake in the past such as opposition to the minimum wage. They repeatedly rejected NUPE (now UNISON) motions at TUC for such a policy. The argument that “rights at work came with your union card” often failed the low paid and the vulnerable at work. Alan also called for a change in the “cultural of betrayal”. Trade union leaders who publicly attack the Labour Party all the time then suddenly 6 weeks before an general election (when realise what would happen if the Tories get in) call for their members to vote Labour, must realise that this damages not only the Party but also the union. He finished by saying Cameron is not the new Blair but the new Kinnock.

Peter concentrated on his anti-racist work and the success in Northern Ireland. He gave a powerful attack on excessive city bonuses.

Jon was interesting. He appeared to be the most intense. The Party needs to change. Lost 200,000 members in 10 years. Need to link the Party with the Government. Need to change policy, improve trade union rights, protect employees, build homes and apologise (but not pull out immediately) for Iraq. Funny enough his body language reminded me of Brown. Waving his finger to make a point and keeping the other arm tightly by his side.

Harriet wanted a powerful and democratic Party. Referred to her trade union credentials and her track record of building her local party to 700 members (not bad).

In the Q&A: Jon was "on the attack" over the “failure” of the government to support the private members bill on employment rights for agency workers. Alan supported the right of 2 or 3 star Councils to build homes (all candidates supported the 4th option!). Alan pointed out that the Councils must not repeat the mistakes of the past. He lived with 3 of kids on a “soulless council estate in south London”. Hilary described the housing shortage and affordability as a “ticking time bomb”. Harriet described the decision to go to war over Iraq as a mistake, abet one made in good faith. Peter said that we need to reconcile the British people over Iraq. Hilary said he didn’t regret the decision, and that we had to support a fragile democracy (to applause).

I still think that Alan Johnson should be deputy leader. He will complement Brown as well as act as a brake, if necessary. Which I hope will be good for the Party as well as the country. He is clearly someone who will speak his mind. His leaflet describes him as “Old” and “New Labour”. However, with his trade union and Labour Party background he could also be someone who could help modernise the wider Labour movement. This, if we were all honest, needs to be done.

Salford, Stratford and Bow Belles: Deputy Leadership Meetings

Excuse the probably sexist pun – Tonight there was the second event organised by West Ham CLP (sponsored by London UNISON Labour Link) in Stratford to meet Deputy Leadership candidates. Last Wednesday we had Hilary, Jon and Harriet. Tonight it was the turn of Alan, Peter and Hazel. First picture is of Hazel with local MP Lyn Brown MP and Rushanara Ali, the new Labour Prospective Parliamentary candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow (to take on Galloway’s) Again, I was acting as a steward (and self appointed CLP photographer), so I only picked up bits and pieces.

Each candidate had 10 minutes followed by a Q&A. Peter was “proud” to have sent his children to a comprehensive in the middle of a South London Council estate. He spoke about his background in the anti apartheid movement and his recent work promoting peace in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that all the candidates had voted in favour of the War in Iraq.

Alan, the only candidate to have left school at 15, he said that the Labour Party was only able achieve things (minimum wage) since it had stopped being losers and started wining general elections. He wanted the 21 century to be one dominated by the progressive left, not as was the case in the 20 century, the regressive right. Controversially, in response to a question, he was the only candidate to indicate that we should consider some type of “amnesty” for illegal migrants while the others were opposed. He recognised that there were difficulties (encouraging further illegal immigration etc) but he thought it was a trade union principle. Peter thought if we adopted this we could lose an election on this point alone.

Hazel started off by saying this is the first hustings she had been to that she had been given a “lollypop” (courtesy of UNISON). Her main thrust was she wanted to be an organising and campaigning deputy leader. Labour will only win the next election through “discipline, unity and loyalty”. If Cameron and the Tories win they will cut through vulnerable people like a knife through butter. She was firmly in favour of Academies which she said had transformed a school in one of the toughest wards in her constituency.

I did note that all the candidates supported (to a lesser or greater degree) Councils being allowed to build social housing. Alan was probably the most enthusiastic. They all stressed their trade union backgrounds. They left at 9.15pm to rush to the “Newsnight” Deputy Leadership live debate. We then had a raffle (tickets picked by Rushanara). After packing and clearing up we then ended up in the pub “The Goose” in Stratford.

Reminder - East London Deputy Leadership Debates 23 & 29 May

Lyn Brown MP, West Ham CLP and London UNISON “Labour Link” invite you to

Two Deputy Leadership Debates

Both at Sarah Bonnell School, Deanery Road, Stratford, E15 4LP. (click on link for map) 10 minutes walk from Statford Station (via Deanery Road) and free on site car parking (enter Manby Street only).

Debate 1 Wednesday 23rd May 2007 (7:30pm for 8:00pm start)
Confirmed speakers Harriot Harman, Jon Cruddas, Hilary Benn

Debate 2 Tuesday 29th May 2007 (7:30pm for 8:00pm start)

Confirmed Speakers Peter Hain, Alan Johnson, Hazel Blears

Time for Questions - Collection and Raffle
All Labour Party members and political fund-paying members of affiliated Trade Unions welcome.

2nd East London meeting arranged for Deputy Leader Candidates

The 2nd East London event for members to meet the candidates will take place on 8pm Tuesday 29 May 2007. Alan Johnson, Hazel Blears and Peter Hain (tbc) will be attending. (1st meeting with Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman takes place on the 23 May).

This has been organised by West Ham Labour Party and Lyn Brown MP (sponsored by London UNISON Labour Link).

Both events will be taking place at Sarah Bonnell School, Deanery Rd, Stratford, E15 4LP. Only 8 minutes walk from Stratford Bus and Train Station (free street car parking nearby)

Neighbouring Constituency Labour Party’s will be invited. Labour Party members and trade union levy paying affiliates only.

For further information contact John Whitworth (CLP Education Officer) jhnwhitworth@Yahoo.co.uk 020 8257 9587 or Alan Griffiths (CLP Secretary) alangriffiths_per@yahoo.co.uk 07773 884339

Hazel Blears at London UNISON Labour Link Forum

Hazel Blears was the guest speaker at the Forum. Which is the annual meeting of London UNISON "Labour Link" branch delegates. It took place at the media room of the Labour Party headquarters in Victoria Street, SW1. Very "New Labour".

I thought her speech and the way she handled questions from the floor was very impressive. She came over as a "real" person, committed to her role and her politics. She was speaking to us as Party Chair, not as a leadership candidate. The question I wanted to ask (but at the last minute I "bottled it" for a technical one on TUPE) was her opinion over whether or not there should be gender balance in the forthcoming leadership elections!

Recently, I saw Peter Hain speak to the UNISON National health and safety committee and Hilary Benn at the London Labour Party conference. I thought they both performed well. I wondered though what sort of cosy chats Hilary and his Dad have over Iraq and Trident?

The meeting was jointly Chaired by Louise Couling (Local Government, also an UNISON NEC member) and Bill Beeko (Health). Jeremy Corbyn MP (former NUPE FTO) gave a Parliamentary report on behalf of London UNISON MP's (members). Keith Birch, the Head of Labour Link gave a competent report on National Labour Link priorities and unlike other reports of the forum I cannot recall him predicting that John McDonnell getting 80% of the UNISON Labour Link vote!!! (dream on)

There were 3 motions. I spoke against a motion about the Labour Leadership elections even though I agreed with much of its analysis. However, this motion suggested that MP's should nominate a "Left" Candidate even if they did not support him (or her). To be frank there is more than 45 "Left" MP's and if due to ego's and personality clashes they can't even agree amongst themselves on a candidate, then why should they expect support from opponents? It is clear that John McDonnell is disliked by many members of the campaign group and the abuse that his supporters have been piling on Meacher makes some sort of an "deal" unlikely. They should both step down in favour of some other more credible candidate (who will still lose). The motion was passed. Such is life.

Rachel Voller (also Health SGE) moved a sensible rule change request for biannual elections to London Labour Link committee which was agreed and the Tower Hamlets motion on the Living Wage Campaign was accepted unanimously (see below)

Motion on Living Wage Campaign

This Forum notes that Labour’s National Minimum Wage remains one of the most popular and highly-regarded achievements of our Government. Forum is proud that UNISON’s predecessor unions were at the forefront of the campaign to establish a national minimum wage at a time when it was not widely supported, even within the trade union movement.

Forum further notes that despite the National Minimum Wage and the success of many of Labour’s economic policies, too many people in Britain and particularly in London remain poor. With costs of living particularly high in the capital, it is estimated that some 400,000 people, despite being employed, live in poverty.

Research by the Family Budget Unit calculates that a two-parent household with two children, in which both parents work – one part-time – needs a disposable income of £7.74 an hour nationally to achieve a 'living wage' without recourse to benefits. The Greater London Authority's living wage unit says that a worker in London, taking full advantage of tax credits and benefits, would need to earn £7.05 an hour to avoid poverty.

Labour’s aspiration to eliminate poverty in our country will only be fulfilled by ending low pay. Forum therefore supports the campaign for a living wage in London and urges Labour to consider extending the remit of the Low Pay Commission to establish a genuine living wage.