Strong, Committed and One Nation Labour MEP Candidates

This is a Labour Party press release. Of the candidates that I know its congratulations in London to Lucy Anderson and commiserations to Ivana, Kamaljeet and Sanchia. Well done to Newham Councillor Farah Nazeer for a credible performance in the South East region.

"Today Labour unveils its candidates to fight the 2014 European Elections. Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, said: “I am proud that such strong, committed and inspiring people have been picked by Labour Party members to be their MEP candidates for next year’s Euro Elections.

“Like the people they seek to represent, they come from all walks of life and from all different communities across the UK. “Unlike David Cameron whose first priority on Europe is appeasing the ever more extreme demands of Tory backbenchers, Labour MEPs will be a powerful One Nation voice who stand up for ordinary hardworking families.

“Their top priority is to be a strong voice in the European Parliament to make sure they get the best deal and bring jobs and growth here in the UK.”

1. The following candidates have been selected to represent Labour in the 2014 European Parliamentary election:

East Midlands 1. WILLMOTT, Glenis 2. PALMER, Rory 3. WOODINGS, Linda 4. HADADI, Khalid 5. BROOKS, Nicki Eastern 1. HOWITT, Richard 2. MAYER, Alex 3. MARTIN, Sandy 4. JOSHI, Bhavna 5. BISHOP, Paul 6. AYUB, Naseem 7. OSTROWSKI, Chris

London 1. MORAES, Claude 2. HONEYBALL, Mary 3. ANDERSON, Lucy 4. DANCE, Seb 5. BARTOLETTI, Ivana 6. JANDU, Kamaljeet 7. ALASIA, Sanchia 8. BIONDI, Andrea

North 1. KIRTON-DARLING, Judith 2. BRANNEN, Paul 3. SHOTTON, Jayne North West 1. MCCARTHY, Arlene 2. GRIFFIN, Theresa 3. KHAN, Afzal 4. WARD, Julie 5. KHAN, Wajid 6. STOGIA, Angeliki 7. CARTER, Steve 8. LAMB, Pascale

South East 1. DODDS, Anneliese 2. HOWARTH, John 3. WESTLEY, Emily 4. SINGH, Del 5. NAZEER, Farah 6. SWINDLEHURST, James 7. HUGHES, Maggie 8. WATKINS, James 9. LANDLES, Karen 10. To be confirmed

South West 1. MOODY, Clare 2. FORD, Glyn 3. REEDER, Ann 4. ROBERTS, Hadleigh 5. ROBINSON, Jude 6. ALI, Junab

West Midlands 1. GILL, Neena 2. SIMON, Siôn 3. WALTHO, Lynda 4. KHAN, Ansar Ali 5. HAMER, Olwen 6. ETHAPEMI, Tony 7. EDWARDS, Claire

Yorkshire and The Humber 1. MCAVAN, Linda 2. CORBETT, Richard 3. TUNNICLIFFE , Eleanor 4. KHAN, Asghar 5. MIRFIN-BOUKOURIS, Helen 6. HUGHES , Darren

Scotland 1. MARTIN, David 2. STIHLER, Catherine 3. MUNN, Derek 4. MURRAY, Katrina 5. KHAN, Asim 6. O'BRIEN, Kirsty

Wales 1. VAUGHAN, Derek 2. BRYANT, Jayne 3. THOMAS, Alex 4. REES, Christina 2.

Labour party applies a "zipping procedure" to ensure a balance of male and female candidates. 3. The election to the European Parliament is a list system. The Labour Party ran a one member one vote ballot of its members to determine the order of candidates on the list. Across the country, nearly 70,000 Labour party members took part in the process.

VICTORY FOR LEWISHAM HOSPITAL CAMPAIGNERS!

Great news! Press release from today "UNISON, the UK’s largest health union, today welcomed the High Court decision that Jeremy Hunt acted unlawfully in deciding that casualty and maternity services at Lewisham Hospital should be downgraded.

Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON, said: “Today’s decision is a victory for all the local people who turned out time and time again to protect services at Lewisham Hospital. The High Court rightly ruled that the health secretary acted unlawfully in riding roughshod over the wishes of the community and that is a lesson that the Government ignores at its peril

“This decision will give heart to health campaigners across the country where other hospitals may be threatened by Government plans to close or downgrade much valued health services.”

The BBC reports that the challenge had been brought about by Save Lewisham Hospital and the London Borough of Lewisham and quotes Labour Mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, that "justice had been delivered to a hospital well-managed, highly-respected and financially solvent".

Hat tip Nicole Minet

Procrastinators UNITE...tomorrow

Mañana Rules OK. Hat tip Franzi Bee.

Employment Tribunal fees start today

This is a sad day for British justice and the protection of ordinary people at work. Check out this BBC report " Under the rules, it will cost £160 or £250 to lodge a claim, with a further charge of either £230 or £950 if the case goes ahead....in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the fees are £400 to lodge an appeal and another £1,200 for a full hearing".

I am pleased that UNISON has been given permission to challenge these fees in a Judicial Review.

But it not just the fees. The minimum time to be employed before you can claim unfair dismissal is now 2 years not 1 year.

Independent trade union and employer representatives have been kicked off as lay judges in most tribunals. Employer's can threaten and bully employees out of a job by holding what is called "protected conversations" with them. "Conversations" that cannot normally be quoted in a tribunal. Possible awards have been reduced and restricted.

Costs can (and are) already levied for so called "frivolous claims".

The only possible positive thing arising from all this is that workers who don't join a trade union because they think the law will protect them at work will have to wake up and get real. The law will not not protect them at work, nor their employers. Only your union can protect you at work. UNISON and other trade unions have already pledged to pay the fees for members in a union supported case.

ps. Check out that well know communist, "Red" Lord Justice Mummery defence of the existing system.

Why there is a rural housing crisis

This article was published in Country Standard Summer 2013 page 9. "By John Gray UNISON Housing Association Branch Secretary and National Executive Council Member

Why is it that there is a massive shortage of rural housing when all Councillors support affordable housing yet not enough is built ? Is this because the government is not funding housing associations or Councils to build?

Despite the crocodile tears of Government ministers and many rural councils about the massive shortage of affordable homes in the countryside for local people, the reasons are actually pretty straight forward and can be solved.

Firstly, the Nimby’s (Not In My Back Yard) Brigade. Often you find that those who are adequately housed in attractive countryside don’t want more homes to be built that they think may spoil their view out of the garden conservatory. Especially if these homes are thought to house possible “working class people”!

Changes to planning law means that Councils are not obliged to insist on the building of affordable homes if they don’t want to - and many don’t, they simply don’t care, regardless of the need.

We also seem to think that converting large chunks of the so called “green belt” into huge, ugly exploitative factory farms, often set up solely to take advantage of generous EU and UK government subsidies is preferable to building some new homes.

The countryside has in too many areas been colonised by a blight of retirement bungalows and weekend second homes for our wealthy urban middle class elites. As well as wreaking village communities by destroying local schools, shops and pubs. This results also in the double whammy of a lack of supply of homes and a very high demand - which pushes up prices completely out of reach for those who do not have access to a wealthy Bank of Mum and Dad.

There is also far less existing social housing in rural areas than urban (13% compared to 22%) as well as low wages and lack of jobs. The disastrous government policy of the so called “affordable rents” regime for new properties (and in many cases the new lettings of existing stock) costing up to 80% of market rents compared to the traditional social rent of 50% of market rates is another death nail. The barking mad destruction of the Agricultural Wages Board which will even lower pay is yet another.

The Bankers crisis and the huge cuts in housing investment by this Tory Government have of course just made the problem far, far worse.

There is some hope for the future since it seems that there is antidotal evidence at least that Tory MPs are being button holed in their Conservative Association Clubs by angry members who are fed up with their kids living at home until in their thirties, since even their offspring cannot afford their own place.

There is also concern expressed that there is no “help” available anymore to clean their homes, do their gardens or serve their food and drink at the local posh restaurant.

There are signs that the Countryside is turning and there is a feeling that enough is enough. Labour Councillors are now being returned in Shire and district Council elections up and down the country. This month in rural Dorset we will celebrate the Tolpuddle Martyrs and remember a time when the countryside was at the forefront of radical politics.

Maybe, just maybe, our contemporary rural poverty and homelessness may spark something a little similar.

Why the Archbishop is wrong over pension investing in Wonga

I think that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a decent, honourable man and I certainly support his campaign for the Church of England to help credit unions compete and drive Wonga out of the payday loan business.

It was obviously embarrassing for him to find out a day after the launch of his campaign that his £5.5 billion Church pension fund had a small investment in Wonga but I think he was wrong to call for its disinvestment.  Wonga has a despicable business model based on ripping off its vulnerable customer base but hey, "welcome to capitalism", this is what happens when you get poor corporate governance of a company coupled with wholly inadequate state regulation.

Engagement by responsible investors with the companies they own is key. If the Church of England pension fund just sells up and leaves every company it has a problem with then this will just undermine other responsible owners who may be trying to change it for the better.

According to this BBC report the Church Pension fund can already invest in companies that benefit from "3% of their income from pornography, 10% from military products and services, or 25% from other industries such as gambling, alcohol and high interest rate lenders". 

What the Church pension fund should be doing (and to be fair it does good work on this already) is working with other responsible investors in trying to challenge and change their business practices.

Engagement does have its limits. Last Wednesday evening I went to a social event run by the pension website Mallowstreet. I had a discussion with people present who support engagement but believe that fund managers should be allowed to invest in any publicly quoted company that complies with the law. I disagree. There must be the exception that proves the rule. What do you do with a company or market that engagement has just totally failed? Engagement must have some bite and as a last resort - disinvestment must be a final option. I think of South Africa in the 1980's and the worldwide Tobacco industry now.

This Is What happens When You Try To Film the Police in Sweden ...

Great Video. Must ask West Ham Safer Neighbourhoods team about their dance moves :)

Tower Hamlets Labour Councillors Iftar with the Community.

I had been invited on Tuesday evening by Labour Group leader (and long standing Unison member) Cllr Sirajul Islam to their Iftar at the
Waterlily function rooms at Mile End.

Ifter is the evening meal that Muslims break their fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan. I have worked in Tower Hamlets for 20 years but this was the first formal Ifter I have ever attended.

It was a marvelous event with hundreds of guests and overflowing tables. I was somewhat surprised to see my old comrade, the Branch secretary of Unison Tower Hamlets Local Government branch present at this Labour Party event.  I wondered after all the trails and tribulations of his current Party if he is considering coming home to Labour?

Even more surprising was to see controversial Tower Hamlets blogger, a Sunday Express Editor and fellow North Wales Gog, Ted Jeory, with his lovely wife Alberta, who was brought up locally in Whitechapel. I just had to sit next to him and ask if he had felt any sharp pains in his back since he had been in the hall?

There were a number of speeches including by local Poplar & Limehouse MP Jim Fitzpatrick, who gave a rousing endorsement of Labour Tower Hamlets Mayor candidate, John Biggs, partly in Sylheti (apparently with a slight Scottish accent). While Bethnal Green and Bow MP, Rushanara Ali, claimed that Jim's Sylheti was better than hers! She introduced the star attraction, East London Labour Assembly Member and Mayor Candidate, John Biggs.
 
Also multi-faith contributions and prayers from Christian and Muslim preachers. Cllr Abdal Ullah was the main compere who kept things running smoothly and to time.

I think that you must have tremendous respect for British Muslims, for fasting from drawn to dusk in high summer. It cannot be easy at any time of the year but non Muslims I come across simply cannot believe that they are not able to drink water as well as eat no food during the current super hot and humid conditions. Many also pray early and late into the night which means they have to endure a lack of sleep as well.

Iftar is obviously a religious event but I most impressed with the courtesy and respect shown to guests such as myself. The fast finished that night at 9.10pm. I am not at all sure that I will have been so polite and well mannered if I had no food or drink for the previous 18 hours.

Hat tip pictures in collage to Sami Photography.

Update: Check out Hope Not Hate "The Big Iftar"  and "Dine at Mine" if you have never been to a Iftar.

The £35 Billion of Pension Tax Relief being Ripped off by the Rich?

The British State quite rightly gives significant tax relief to subsidise pension provision. So why is it that recent research shows that the richest 1% of our society get 17% of all tax relief while the majority of basic rate tax payers only get less than a 1/3rd?

Why do the low paid have to contribute more to their pensions than the high paid? The person who cleans the Chief Executive's office has to pay more out of their income for their pension than their highly paid boss. In an era when there was decent guaranteed pensions this might have been a price worth paying but now it is simply a rip off of the poor for the rich.  The £34 billion of pension tax relief should be shared fairly.

BTW Why don't the right wing groups such as the Tax Evaders Alliance kick off about this? Is it because many of their funder's benefit from this tax rip off?

"Commenting on new pension tax relief research...by the Pensions Policy Institute (PPI), TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said:

'Tax relief is an important way to encourage pension saving but the benefits are currently far too skewed towards the very wealthy.

'It cannot be right that basic rate taxpayers make the majority of all pension contributions but receive less than a third of the total tax relief budget. Additional rate taxpayers, who earn at least £150,000 and represent the top one per cent of earners, receive 17 per cent of all tax relief.

'The PPI report also highlights a serious flaw in the current tax relief system, with many people receiving relief at the higher or additional rate, but then becoming basic rate taxpayers in retirement.

'Hundreds of thousands of wealthy pensioners are likely to be benefiting from this anomaly, having effectively avoided income tax on a portion of their earnings during their working life.

'With the cost of pensions tax relief set to rise to £35bn a year, the case for a simpler, fairer system is stronger than ever.'

The report analyses a number of proposals to reform pensions tax relief, including the introduction of a flat rate for tax relief and a cash limit on lump sums in retirement that are eligible for tax relief.

Frances O'Grady added: 'The TUC fully backs the proposal to set a flat rate of tax relief at 30 per cent. This would transfer some of the benefits from the very wealthy to lower and middle income earners without any additional cost to the Exchequer.

'Tax relief on lump sum payments is even more skewed towards the super rich, with the two per cent of lump sums worth over £150,000 accounting for almost a third of all expenditure.

'The government must consider a cash limit on lump sum tax relief. A limit of £36,000 would halve the cost of tax relief without affecting the vast majority of pension savers.'

Key facts from the PPI report:
More than half of all pension contributions are made by basic rate taxpayers, who receive less than a third of pension tax relief.
Higher rate taxpayers contribute only 37 per cent of all pension contributions yet receive the majority of tax relief.
Additional rate taxpayers contribute 9 per cent and receive 17 per cent.

- The PPI research can be downloaded from www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk - The TUC has part-sponsored the PPI research, along with Age UK, Partnership and The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Ed Miliband & How to overcome distrust in British Politics

Yesterday evening I went to the Coin Street Community Centre in South London with fellow UNISON Labour Link activists to take part in a Q&A with the Labour Leader.

The room was packed with affiliated trade unionists and Labour Party activists with some media also present. It was stiflingly hot due to the current heatwave.

Ed came in and explained to the audience that he is not going to speak long since he wants to have a conversation.

He wants to start a conversion with trade union members and activists that will lead to a Special Conference in the spring next year to agree changes (only allow affiliations from union members who actively choose to support the Labour Party rather than block affiliations - see my initial thoughts here on subject). 

Politics should be powered by ordinary people. He has 4 points to make: Politics is dominated by the wealthy and powerful. You can see Big Tobacco at Downing Street. Is this about a break with the links with the unions? No, the unions founded the Labour Party.  The unions are the voice of  working people.  This is not about removing this voice but how that voice is exercised.  

The problem is that many people think that the Tories write them off and Labour takes them for granted? We need to persuade people to join the Party. Not just Trade unionists but small business people as well. The excellent experience of the French socialists in their recent Presidential election is what he hopes for the London Mayor Primary with registered Labour supporters.  If we want to change we need to hear the voices of the people.  Leadership of the Party is essential but we need a genuine movement rooted in every community.

There then followed quite a far reaching debate. Ed repeatedly said it was "open house". He was asked questions on whether the purpose of a primary is to stop "left" candidates in London? (answer "No"). The lack of Labour Parliamentary candidates who are women, BME or working class (answer "agreed" and he will do something about this).  "Jack" a 92 Year trade unionist in the audience took Ed to task for the failure of the Party to recruit more union members to the Party. Ed asked him how long he had been in the Party. Jack replied he first voted for Labour in 1945 while in the Army in Egypt. He joined the Party later after he left the Communist Party. 

There was some support for Ed's proposals about trade unions from activists but most contributions on this subject were more cautious or frankly sceptical. Ed made it clear that he could not understand why a trade union member who did not support Labour could be affiliated to the Party. He thought that things had changed in recent years and that sense of collectivism amongst working people was not as strong as it use to be.

I got the opportunity to ask him a question. I introduced myself and pointed I am an activist in  UNISON and we have always allowed members to opt in to pay the Labour Levy but I respect the rights of other unions who have gone through internal democratic processes to affiliate all or part of their membership. I didn't think that things had changed that much since there had always been significant numbers of working class Tories in the union movement.

My main point was why are we doing this less than 2 years before a general election when the Tories will out spend us as usual and we will need every penny we can get to defeat them? Why not allow all affiliates to become full Party members, lets then have 3,200,000 members and if a Tory gets a membership card in the post he doesn't like - he can resign.

Ed responded by saying he understood the risks to funding and as Leader was taking responsibility for this decision.

After probably 25 or so questions (including a 12 and 14 year old from Tower Hamlets) Ed called the meeting to a close since it was so hot. No one made the obvious joke about the cause being all that "hot air"!

A very competent performance by Ed but I do hope first and foremost if the changes go ahead that he is right and that we will have enough money in 2015 to defeat the Tories and overcome their extremely "wealthy and powerful" donors.

Secondly, while I suspect UNISON influence in the Party will probably be strengthened by his proposals, the Party itself needs to change as well as any changes to union affiliation. Unless you give individual members more meaningful influence in the running of the Party then you are simply not going to get a new mass "movement rooted in every community". 

Afterwards we went off to a local pub to continue to put the world to rights and rehydrate (medicinal reasons only).

(Hat tip picture of me asking Ed question to James Beckles)