West Ham CLP October Update - Winning the General Election

Happy October! This email gives you information about our next all members meeting with shadow housing Minister Emma Reynolds, details about the TUC march and what we're doing in West Ham to make sure the next government is a Labour government.

Winning the General Election 

The 2015 general election will be won or lost in some of the key marginal seats around the country. We're paired with our near neighbours - Ilford North to get Wes Streeting elected as their Labour MP. Up until the new year we'll campaign in Ilford North on the second and fourth Saturday of the month - beginning this Saturday 11 October.

We'll meet at Fairlop station (on the Central line) at 2pm or 1.30pm at Forest Gate Youth Centre, Woodgrange Road, E7 0DH. Contact is John Gray.

Ilford North - future dates

11 October 2pm Fairlop stn (or 1.30pm Forest Gate Youth Centre)
25 October 2pm Fairlop stn (or 1.30pm Forest Gate Youth Centre if cars/drivers available)
8 November 2pm Fairlop stn (or 1.30pm Forest Gate Youth Centre if cars/drivers available)
22 November 2pm Fairlop stn (or 1.30pm Forest Gate Youth Centre if cars/drivers available)
6 December 2pm Fairlop stn (or 1.30pm Forest Gate Youth Centre if cars/drivers available)

We're also be hosting a phone bank on Wednesday evenings at 306 High St, Stratford. And we'll also help out our old friends in Thurrock constituency and we'll be spending a few Thursday evenings in Bermondsey and Old Southwark.

If you want to get rid of the Tory/Lib Dem government please come and join us - let Julianne know if you'd like to know more.

All members meeting (GC) 23 October 

Our guest speaker is Labour's shadow Minister for housing - Emma Reynolds MP. We hope you'll join us for what's likely to be a lively session. We meet 7.30pm at 306 High Street Stratford, E15 1AJ.

TUC march 18 October 

West Ham CLP will be joining the TUC march and rally. We'll be meeting outside Stratford station 10.30am on Saturday 18 October. Contact is John Whitworth. We hope we'll see you at GC or in Ilford North or at the TUC march.

Best wishes Julianne Marriott and Gordon Miller (West Ham CLP Vice Chairs)

Big, Bad & Dangerous...? Do we need Housing Associations? #Lab14

This Labour Party conference housing fringe took place on the Monday afternoon outside the secure area. There was an error in the programme about timings which meant I think some people missing it. 

The Chair was from the New
Statesman, Jon Bernstein (centre of photo)

First speaker was shadow planning minister, Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP. Roberta said we need to build 200,000 homes per year and asked how will housing associations be part of this mix? Affordability will be key and the Michael Lyons report for the Party will be out soon. We should also be about "Place making". What jobs and services are needed? not just about new housing units. Many councils will not want to take role of housing developers so there is a strong role for associations.

Next was Rod Cahill, the Chief Executive of Catalyst Housing (on right) who started in housing as a trainee in the London Borough of Camden in 1975. In that year Housing Associations only built 22,000 properties while local authorities built 145,000. Unlike now. There has been a 100,000 per year shortfall in new build for the last 30 years which means we are need 3 million extra new homes which causes shortage and affordability problems.

It will take a long time to increase production. Catalyst will build 1200 new homes this year. Rod believes that Housing Associations are a key part of the solution. There is a need to generate surpluses to cross subsidy the cost of new build. There has been a 70% cut in capital support by this government. Without surplus they would not be able to build at social rents. Catalyst made £40 million last year which they will reinvest in bricks and mortar.

There needs also to be a change in planning. There is an anti development culture. We need clarity about affordable rents. We need land and to re-professionalise Housing. We need government support for when the market drops and we are unable to cross subsidise. Public money can be found for absolute national priorities. We need to go back to 40 years when we built 300,000 homes per year.

Cllr Julian Bell, the leader of Ealing Council (standing) spoke about a "perfect storm" in housing. With the problem of "beds in sheds" and affordability.  You need to earn £70,000 per year to buy a house in Ealing where the average price is near £300,000. In his borough they had set up a Housing commission to examine what can be done and increase supply. Raising the HRA headroom would help.

Last speaker was London Assembly Housing spokesperson Tom Copley. Tom was interested in Councils providing housing because of the scale of the problem and that the private sector wouldn't fill the gap. No incentive for the private sector to build since in their interests to restrict supply. There is still an arbitrary cap on housing investment in the UK but not over other forms of prudential borrowing. We only the only country to define housing investment as government debt. Tom believes everyone needs to step up including the private sector.

My question to the panel as a Labour Councillor and UNISON Housing Association branch secretary was that that any solution to the Housing crisis will have to result in even more government spending and subsidy. I said I am not digging Rod out in particular since this is a sector issue. The problem with housing associations is that they have a democratic governance deficit. They need to raise their game to account for public money. The average CEOs has increased their salary by above inflation while their staff are given less; some of them despite being charities refuse to even recognise trade unions while many have little or no involvement of residents in the running of their organisations. If Housing Associations want to be on board then there has to be change.

Rod said they do recognise trade unions and what does my question have to do with housing supply? Housing associations are private organisations and do not rely on public money. Only £1 in every £6 invested is public money. I said that this is about governance and housing associations do rely on housing benefit and past public investment. Unless we have proper accountability and structures they should not get public money.

A Manifesto for Labour 2015: Newham Compass with Jon Cruddas MP

This should be a great event which I am sorry to say that I will have to miss. The venue is really good and we have a private room with access to a bar.

Future of the Local Government Pension Scheme - LAPFF at #Lab14

Still catching up on my posts from Labour Party conference. On the Monday lunchtime I attended the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) fringe.

The Chair of LAPFF, Cllr Kieran Quinn (standing in photo) spoke first on the future of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and that the government had lost its nerve about forcing the merger of the schemes. He doesn't know if it will be on the agenda of any new government post May next year.

Kieran believes that fees are too high and by acting collectively you can drive out costs but decisions should be made locally. The government also seems to be backing off forcing schemes to invest in passive rather than actively managed investment funds.

Next speaker was Henry Boucher (on left), who is a fund manager and partner of Sarasin & Partners.

Henry is an active fund manager. He posed the question "Is active management really worth it?" and answered it by saying not all active managers are worth it and some are indeed over paid. But in the LGPS there are better results for lower fees than many other investments in the world. Research has shown that 40% of all fees are taken by only 10% of asserts,  mostly hedge funds.

He thinks the chief problem is that shareholders fail to hold companies to account. The USA even use to have what was called "bearer share certificates" with no names on them. Companies ran themselves. Chief Executives are being allowed to pay themselves too much. It cannot be right that they get an average $30 million per year.

He wants companies to be run properly and not use slave labour or destroy the environment. We need state of the art governance. The LGPS is good on this but needs some changes. However, it doesn't make sense to have all investments in passive funds.

My question about changes in LGPS governance with the requirement to involve employees more and how the panel thought this would happen?

Kieran thought that a greater scrutiny role by employees is for the good. The more diversity in boards the stronger the decision making process. He understands that some of the trade unions think there is a democratic deficit in the LGPS.

(Chair was Alan MacDougall from PIRC)

It's a rich man's world - find out how you compare

"Using data from the World Income's Database we have built an online widget which shows where your income stands relative to the 0.1% in the UK. Want to know how far off you are from the richest man in the world, Carlos Slim? Check it here now".

I am on a decent wage and this was my result:-

"This year you'll pay about £7,054 in tax – a whopping 0.00076% of the amount F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone has avoided paying over the last 9 years! He stores money in offshore banks, making it tax-free. Otherwise he'd have contributed about £1.2 billion.

When people and companies dodge tax it means less money for governments to spend on hospitals, schools and clean water – ultimately it's poor people that pay the price"

Hat tip The Spirit Level documentary

"Landlords face strikes after predicted rise in pension contributions"

On Friday Inside Housing Magazine reported on some of my comments about how angry UNISON members will be if employers tried to close their pension schemes or raise contributions so high that schemes would have to close anyway since no one could afford to join.

The world is a very different place from where it was 3 years ago, when some employers took advantage of the recession to close schemes or increase contributions. While we are certainly not out of the economic woods yet, most Housing Associations are now enjoying record surpluses and paying their Executives inflation plus pay rises and bonuses.

Modern day Defined benefit pension schemes are affordable and sustainable. If any employer decides now that it wants its employees to end up dying in miserable retirement poverty then they could find themselves in for a fight.

Why Menzies Aviation is a health & safety investment nightmare: UNISON London Pension Network & SEIU

The group picture is from last Tuesday's lunchtime network meeting of London UNISON pension Member Nominated Representatives and Trustees.  I chair the network which has met every 3 months for the past 10 years or so. It is an opportunity for us to meet up and discuss pension and investment issues, training and Capital Stewardship. The pension world (and in particular the Local Government Pension Scheme) is undergoing massive changes and in the last year the network has been very active. 

Each meeting we try to have interesting guest speakers. This time we had invited Heather Szerlag and Wendy Weiner (centre of photo) from the 2 million strong SEIU which is a sister public service union to UNISON which organises in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.

Wendy and Heather briefed us on the investment and reputational risk that our pension funds face from investing in the British listed company Menzies. In the UK the company is best known for its retail newsagent chain but in the United States it owns Menzies Aviation which is a major international provider of services to airports.  

Many of these services are so called heavy manual or "below the wings"jobs. Which are hidden from public view and often dangerous. Menzies has an appalling health and safety record in the United States. Four Menzies workers have been killed in recent years and the company has had numerous fines and safety violations filed against it by the regulator including a "serious wilful risk" citation. Their record on safety is far worse than its competitors.

Not only is there a reputational risk to pension funds from its investments in Menzies there is also a clear financial risk since Menzies record is so bad it is in danger of losing its licence to operate at US airports. Top international carriers are also worried at the reputational risk of being associated with Menzies.

Menzies Aviation refuses to recognise trade unions which I think is cause and effect of its dangerous workplace practises. If they treat their workers in such a way I shudder at the thought of how they take passenger and aircrew safety. In the UK "Safety studies show that workers are twice as likely to be injured in a non-unionised workplace. This is because in unionised workplaces, employers are required to work with union-appointed safety reps and set up safety committees".

In order to protect its members SEIU is trying to highlight the issue and risk to investors. It was agreed for us to take this matter up with our investment managers and advisers.

I was very disappointed to learn that the biggest single investor in Menzies, the fund manager Schroders, refuses to meet or even talk to the SEIU? Schroders manage a 16.18% holding on behalf of investors and you would have thought that they would want to find out more about such significant  risks and I think they are being irresponsible not to do so.

"Middle classes relying on housing benefit"

Quote from the Tory supporting "The Times" (2 October 2014). Not sure that earning £20k per year makes you "middle class" though? Stuff about the waste of money on housing benefit instead of being used to build new homes at decent rents is telling.

"A study by the National Housing Federation shows an increasing number of middle-class households are having to rely on housing benefit to pay their rent. The research shows middle-income households earning between £20,000 and £30,000 a year accounted for two-thirds of all new housing benefit claims in the past six years, whilst the proportion of households seeking benefits despite being in work has doubled to 22% since 2008.

The Times states that in the 1970s, 80% of government housing spending went on building homes, with 20% on housing benefits but now, with the annual housing benefit bill stood at £24bn a year, the proportions are the other way round. (The Times, Page: 2"

Why I support the TUC Demonstration "Britain Needs a Pay Rise" #Oct18

This is the speech that my fellow West Ham ward Councillor, John Whitworth, gave in the Newham Council Chamber on Monday evening.

"I am seconding the motion to actively support the TUC Demonstration “Britain Needs a Pay Rise” for three main reasons:

1) Social justice 2) Political benefits 3) Material and social benefits

Social justice - People in full-time employment should be able to earn enough for them and their families to be able to live decently. At the present time this is often not the case. This Tory-led government until now has allowed the minimum wage to fall below the level of inflation, forcing the poorest paid make the greatest sacrifice in the austerity programme and increasing the gap between rich and poor even further.

Over the last 40 years there have been many improvements in British society, often resulting from the efforts of the Labour Party, but during this period the divide between the most wealthy and the poorest has continued to widen.

I believe that as members of the Labour Party we should have as a minimum objective to promote greater equality by reducing this wealth gap - and supporting the TUCs campaign to raise workers’ pay is a necessary step in this direction.

2) Political benefits

Responding to the call of the TUC to help organise the “Britain Needs a Pay Rise” march will bring the Council, party activists and residents together with the unions in a common cause to improve the pay and wellbeing of the poorest paid.

The Council, as an employer, has not always been able to side with the unions, but as Labour councillors I believe we have a vocation to support them in their defence of workers’ interests whenever possible. This is an occasion when the whole of the Labour movement can put pressure on the Coalition government to help the greatest victims of the government’s policies. In the run up to the General Election when the Coalition seems at last ready to offer the poorest paid more, our championing of their cause will only be judged to our credit.

3) Material and social benefits

Apart from the justice of the case for raising the minimum wage – and ensuring the means of enforcing it – the social benefits of better pay are well-known. In our borough where there are such a large number of low income families, the greater ability of workers to thrive by their own efforts will promote economic resilience and provide incentives for the unemployed to accept jobs that seem worth doing, thereby fostering the social integration of the newly employed.

Our participation in the march “ Britain Needs a Pay Rise” will send a message to poorly paid workers that we actively support their cause and do not accept the Coalition’s policy which has imposed on them the greatest sacrifice and so far has denied them the benefits of the recovery".

(Motion was passed unanimously - following the change in rules I think that John may be the first ever Councillor to be pictured speaking at a full council meeting?)

Trade unions together fringe "A bit of common sense: Winning for ordinary people" #Lab14

This was my first fringe of Conference which took place on the Sunday lunchtime. The speakers were Paul Kenny, General Secretary of the  GMB, Louise Haigh PPC, Chair Byron Taylor TULO, Lisa Nandy MP Shadow Minister for Cabinet Office and Joanne Hepworth, Npower workplace rep.

This was a packed out fringe with standing room only at the back of the room. Paul spoke first and pointed out that the Scotland referendum shows people are interested in politics. What he wants is Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, to not be radical but normal. Normal people go to work and should not be in fear. It is not normal for rich bosses to be earning a fortune, while the state subsidises their low paid workers and then they go off to fiddle their taxes!

Louise talked about the economy and the need to question what type of economy we want? There was not a global crisis because we paid teachers too much. We need to drive down tax avoidance and drive up wages. The lowest paid spend more of their income which drives growth. She used to work in the City. We need to change the financial system.  We need to dismantle banks and restructure them. Tax high frequency trading. Get worker representative's on company boards.

Joanne believed that we need to get young workers involved in the union movement by listening. She first needed a union after being issued with first written warning for being sick following a serious car accident. She was suspended in the Npower call centre for putting the phone down on an abusive customer. Luckily she knew she had rights and fought the decision with her union and won.

Last speaker was the always very good, Lisa Nandy MP, who wanted to restore common sense in Westminster. To do that we need more women.  Not only Parliament since she recently shared a question panel with 3 men who were all called Simon.

She spends too much time in Parliament and should instead spend more time in her Consistency in Wigan. How can we have diversity in politics since there are currently 18 millionaires in the Cabinet? We need people in Parliament who actually "get it". Trade unions use to be this route and it is good they are doing this again.

The media is controlled by small handful of wealthy men so no wonder the issues of low paid women are never there. She was born and loves being in Manchester but half of its children live in poverty. The Conference is taking place at the site of the Peterloo Massacre. Politics is not just about a seat on the table but about changing society.

I asked the panel a question that I remember hearing on the radio, when a German historian said "Why is it that in Germany the trade unions are seen as partners you can do business with but in the UK they are seen as the enemy? How do we change this?

Paul responded by saying he was not a great fan of the German model. A Partnership needs to be equal. Otherwise there is no respect for labour. Germany has its own problems and its traditional model is falling to pieces and they actually want to be a bit more like us.

Lisa said she was born in 1979. She didn't know what had happened before but in every job she ever had the solution to problems at work is trade unions.

Louise said she doesn't believe in importing other models to the UK and that in Germany there was less union membership. She also said that Labour must change the way it selects candidates. She had to spend 2 months of her life working 16 hour days to be selected as a PPC. Only "professional" candidates can afford to do this.

Paul made a great typical "telling it as it is" last comment by saying the union movement must take its share of the blame for the lack of working class trade unionists selected as prospective Labour MPs in recent years.  Things are much better now but our fault is that for a long time we just said what "great organisers we were" when actually we were being out organised left, right and centre by Progress and others.