Bank of England investigates itself and finds its "Not Guilty" over QE

Well, that's okay then. Never mind perfectly sound pension schemes are closing left, right and centre. The Bank of England has looked into whether its ongoing policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) has any negative effects and has concluded the good outweighs the bad.

Apparently the fact that QE has benefited the rich (top 5%) the most isn't of concern to this Coalition cabinet of millionaires either.  I do wonder why?

The cut in gilts yields due to QE is helping to make many private sector DB pension schemes seem unaffordable and adding to the pressure for them to close. It increases the so called "deficits" which due to current abnormal 200 year market low conditions are already pretty meaningless. 

This has nothing to do with poor investment returns or increases in life expectancy. This is solely down to a discredited and outdated accountancy measure ("mark to market") which the Bank of England is aware of but does nothing about and while the Government has promised not to idly stand by and watch good pension schemes go to the wall, so far, it has done nothing either.    

Housing staff pay price of Cameron’s Britain

Inside Housing magazine published today research showing a huge year on increase in violence against housing staff.

“Spat at and slapped. Bitten. Punched. Forced to the ground and beaten. Every day in the UK a front line housing worker is falling victim to this kind of violent assault”

"Shadow housing minister Jack Dromey said: ‘Government cuts to housing are not only hitting tenants hard but putting at risk the safety of those who serve the public. To add insult to literal injury, changes such as the bedroom tax might see tenants vent their anger on those in the front line.’

While "Jake Berry, parliamentary private secretary to the housing minister, said: ‘Any assaults on housing staff are absolutely unacceptable’, and that Mr Dromey’s comments linking changes to benefits to violence were ‘utterly baseless and completely disgraceful’.

I was quoted as "John Gray, housing association branch secretary at public sector union Unison, said: ‘This is what happens in the everyday life of housing officers up and down the country.’

He added that tenants who fall into rent arrears as a result of the government’s welfare reforms and are threatened with eviction ‘won’t blame the coalition, they’ll blame the infantry’. So you can see which side of the debate I was on.

Since I think what Jack Dromey said is very true. Things will get even worse with the bedroom tax. Not only that but due to Coalition spending cuts in the Health and Safety Executive and local authority enforcement there will be less protection and support available for staff.

It wasn't reported that I had also said when interviewed by Inside Housing that part of the solution was  employers and trade union safety reps working together in partnership to protect staff.  However there were certain "rogue employers" who refuse to work with unions and frankly treat their staff with as much disdain as they do their residents . 

If assaults and injuries occur in organisations where risk assessments are not properly carried out or implemented, incidents not investigated or polices not enforced then the CEO and senior management teams of these organisations need to be targeted by the HSE/Local authorities and dealt with under the law as criminals in the same way as the actual perpetrators of the violence. 

SERTUC Health & Safety Seminar 2011

This seminar in Congress House had Hugh Robertson (TUC) and Judith Hackitt (HSE) speaking and was chaired by SERTUC regional

secretary, Megan Dobney (right of picture).

Hugh made the case that under this government, the cuts to the HSE and getting rid of essential safety enforcement and regulations, will lower standards and result in more work related accidents and illnesses.

In the Q&A that followed I said that things are very depressing but trying to make a small positive out of a huge negative - the best safety protection at work comes from trade union organisation. Many workers currently have completely unrealistic expectations of their legal rights and safeguards. We have to tell them that they will have even less rights in the future. So to protect themselves at work they must join a union and the union must recruit and organise the workforce to make things safe.

Judith accepted that there was unprecedented change but that the cuts do not have to mean that people will be less safe. The HSE is going to try and cut the backroom not the front line. Reviews can be a good thing. The aim is to remove unnecessary bureaucracy not protection. 

In the Q&A there was some "heated" comments which as usual Judith took on the chin and batted straight back. Megan had to remind people that they were "entitled to make forceful statements but must remember to remain on the right side of civility" (a wonderful Chair's intervention which I will steal). Judith did speak out against low fines for criminal breaches of safety laws. She would rather that there was much higher fines but that is the job of the Courts. She thought it was a disgrace that the death of a member of the public was worth more than a worker. She ended by saying the HSE were "not the enemy". That is true. 

While I do expect more people to be injured at work (and worse) due to the Tory and Lib Dem cuts in the HSE budget and the getting rid of essential protections, we have to blame the coalition and not the civil servants. Who at times have to implement and defend the indefensible.

I will post later on the Lofstedt report.

Coalition Council Cuts: Robbing the Poor to pay for the Rich

Highest cuts:-
LB Hackney 8.9%
LB Tower Hamlets 8.9%
LB Newham 8.9%
Manchester MBC 8.9%
Rochdale MBC 8.9%
Knowsley MBC 8.9%
Liverpool MBC 8.9%
St Helens MBC 8.9%
Doncaster MBC 8.9%
S Tyneside MBC 8.9%
Blackburn with Darwen UA 8.9%
Halton UA 8.9%
Hartlepool UA 8.9%
Hull UA 8.9%
Middlesbrough UA 8.9%
NE Lincs UA 8.9%

Lowest cuts:-
Poole 0.97%
Hampshire 0.95%
West Sussex 0.65%
Wokingham 0.63%
Richmond-upon-Thames 0.61%
Buckinghamshire 0.60%
Surrey 0.31%
Dorset +0.25% (yes, that is a plus - an increase not a cut)

Hat Tip to Luke for above information.  Some are arguing that Pickle's figures are wrong and the cuts will be even more drastic and the actual reduction could be up to 9.9%! 

So the leafy Royal Borough of Richmond loses 0.61% and my inner city borough Newham 8.9%.

These reductions are just vile and show that the poor and vulnerable are being penalised for not voting Tory or Lib Dem. Even worse than that they are being used to pay for the excesses of the rich bankers and financiers.