No To Elected Mayors

Interesting. UNISON Northern Region is running a campaign against elected Mayors!

What the British Say....

While I don't think that this is a totally accurate reflection of how "Brits" or "Foreigners" think there are some home truths.

A week of campaigning for Sadiq Khan as Labour Mayor of London in West Ham

Some pictures from the door knocking that has been going on by various ward branches in West Ham Labour Party during the last week.

On Sunday I helped out in Custom House. Interestingly, we are also asking residents how they will vote in the European Union referendum and this ward had a high "Remain" in the EU vote.

Thursday evening we were in West Ham ward and were joined by Labour Greater London Assembly candidate for City and East London, Unmesh Desai.

Saturday morning back in West Ham this time with our MP Lyn Brown.  I had a difficult conversation with a constituent who is a council tenant in a 2 bed flat with 2 teenagers (boy and girl) and has been on the waiting list for a move to a larger property for 12 years.

I had to warn her that we have thousands of residents in a similar position or worse and that the Tory plans to make councils sell off off their homes to pay for their right to buy election bribes to Housing Association tenants will be a disaster for people like her. Sadiq Khan as Labour Mayor of London will fix the Tory Housing crisis.

Saturday afternoon I was in the former 2012 Olympic athletic accommodation blocks in what is now East Village in Stratford. The blocks we managed to get into appeared to be half empty since so few had anyone registered to vote. We can only assume that these homes are occupied by non EU nationals. This is not the Olympic legacy that we were promised.

There was a number of other canvass sessions in West Ham last week that I was not able to attend but I will try and help out at all wards during this campaign.

Latest statement from David Cameron on "morally wrong" tax evasion

Love it :)  #resigncameron

Big is not always better. Merger between L&Q, Hyde and East Thames Housing Associations

Press release "UNISON HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS BRANCH RESPONSE – MERGER BETWEEN L&Q,

Over 4,000 workers employed by L&Q, Hyde Group and East Thames will be affected by the plans announced today to merge the three Housing Associations. The new ‘super’ Housing Association is expected to become one of the largest social landlords in Europe.

Commenting on the merger, John Gray, Branch Secretary of the UNISON Housing Associations branch said: “We are seeing more and more of these mergers as social landlords try and shore themselves up against an uncertain future. Conservative policies like Right to Buy, Pay to Stay, and the cut to social rent are forcing the social housing sector into turmoil.”

“The housing crisis in London affects all our members and we welcome increased investment in social housing. But the three associations must recognise that big does not always mean better and that residents and staff will have real concerns about this proposal.”

“Employers must recognise that the success of their plans relies on the efforts of their dedicated workforce. UNISON is the union which speaks for workers in East Thames, Hyde, and L&Q and our priority in talks with all three employers will be to ensure that jobs and working conditions are protected.”

For more information contact Josephine Grahl, UNISON Housing Associations Branch Manager/Organiser, on 020 7697 4030/4031 or info@unisonhablondon.org

Notes for editors

· UNISON represents 1.3 million workers employed in the public sector, by private contractors and in the not-for-profit sector, including over 20,000 members in housing associations. The UNISON Housing Associations Branch represents over 3,000 workers in social and supported housing across Greater London.

Update: check out Redbrick view on merger news https://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/grand-plans-but-tenants-just-an-afterthought-and-worse/

"Government to respond to petition challenging LGPS investment reforms"

From Professional Pensions website. (I must send them a new picture to use!)

"More than 10,000 people have signed a parliamentary petition launched by Unison to examine proposed changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) investment regulations.

The union has been challenging some of the government's proposals which it is concerned could lead to ministers telling the LGPS to invest in UK infrastructure projects.

The government is keen for the LGPS to increase investment in UK infrastructure, given just 1% of the scheme's total assets is allocated to the asset class. It hopes that pooling the scheme's 89 funds will help achieve this, as well as changes to the current investment regulations that restrict how much can be invested in infrastructure.

(Further readingbelow)

• Who controls the LGPS: members or the government?
• What could an LGPS national infrastructure platform look like?

The government responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. A debate will be considered in parliament if 100,000 people sign up.

Unison is hoping an eventual debate would put the LGPS reforms under scrutiny. "The spotlight and publicity from doing this will hopefully make the government think again," said union representative John Gray (pictured above).

"What the government is proposing is unlawful. We know what happens when people make investment decisions based on political pressures. Osborne seems to think the LGPS is some sort of British sovereign wealth fund. It is not. It is there to pay pensions."

First Actuarial partner Rob Hammond who agreed with some of Unison's points said: "It would be unhelpful if there was something so prescriptive from government as to how schemes should invest."

A consultation on the proposed changes to investment regulation ended in February, where several bodies warned they would give too much power to the government.

In the past Unison has argued the government's reform agenda contradicts European pension law. Unlike private sector schemes, the LGPS is not subject to the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) as the government has used a get-out clause allowing a pension fund to be exempt from certain parts of the directive where benefits are guaranteed by the public authority.

Unison has argued for years that this exemption is wrong and that LGPS must comply with IORP. The directive says member states must not subject investment decisions of institution or manager to any prior approval or system notification".

The petition is now nearly 20,000 - sign here in under 2 minutes  https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125475

UNISON Housing Association branch votes in favour of staying in EU and campaigning to do so

The picture is from tonight's meeting of the new Executive Committee (and our regional officer Colin Inniss) of Greater London UNISON branch meeting in Kings Cross which decided to respond to a consultation by the national union over Europe, by voting to stay in and encourage our members to also do so.

It was felt that we cannot "duck" the issue and our members will expect UNISON to have a position on the EU and that despite all its faults it did protect workers' rights, promote peace and equalities.  

The union wide consultation finished this evening and the final decision about our policy on the EU will be taken by the UNISON NEC next week.

Check out the motion in favour that was also passed here http://grayee.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/trade-unionists-for-in-tu4in.html and the website http://www.anothereurope.org/

"The loans that have left councils impoverished and saddled with debt"

Check out this article on Friday in The Guardian about Housing Associations and Councils which have been ripped off by the Banks over the toxic LOBO loans they were mis-sold. I have an obvious interest and concern in both organisations.

This is a national disgrace but since there are time limits on possible legal action we all need to act quickly. Sticking your head in the sand and doing nothing is not an option.

Councils and Housing Associations need to join up together to sue the banks and advisors.
 
"What looked like an attractive deal has been catastrophic for many social landlords and local authorities - and it’s the people at the bottom who suffer...

For many councils and housing associations, the wolf is at the door. In Spanish and Portuguese, lobo is one word for the fearsome canine. It’s fitting then, that the latest instrument of predatory capitalism to attract attention – lender option borrower option agreements – are called lobo loans for short.

The loans, typically long-term from 40 to 70 years, were taken up by as many as 63% of local authorities in the UK, as a way of funding services post-recession. For housing associations, many considered lobo loans the only funding option given the shrinking of grants: the less stable associations had committed to development contracts, but were starved of cash.

But there’s a catch: there’s always a catch. The terms may have looked attractive, but for a reason. Many local authorities took a gamble when taking out lobo loans: if base interest rates rose (and most people assumed they would), they’d get a good deal. But they didn’t rise, and many local authorities didn’t get a good deal.

And, as the name suggests, the loan terms aren’t set in stone: the lender’s option could be to hike fixed rates at predetermined dates where they are permitted to alter the loan facility. The borrower’s option is to accept that rate, or repay the loan.

In 2009, 30 housing associations took out lobos after the financial industry took to selling them to local authorities and social landlords on an industrial scale. Borrowers thought that they were insuring themselves against possible high interest rates, but the derivatives built into the loans meant that the costs were linked to market performance, so borrowers actually pay more when rates fall.

Now, the likelihood of housing associations building more, while saddled with so much debt, is looking unlikely and local authorities have essentially shot themselves in the foot.
Newham council, the Financial Times reports, took out 27 loans at a face value of £563m. The latest fair value of the loans now puts them at £959m, with interest rates in excess of 7% on some loans.

The Evening Standard reports Thames Valley Housing in London has had to renegotiate the terms of its loans, and many borrowers are facing renegotiation or the prospect of paying high break fees, all of which essentially pour council taxpayers’ and tenants’ cash down the plughole.

What looked like an attractive deal has been catastrophic for many social landlords and local authorities - and at a time when councils are facing cuts at a level not seen for a generation, and housing associations are struggling to build homes and are being battered by cuts.

The loans should never have been sold: they are extremely complex financial instruments, and pricing them is far beyond the capabilities of housing associations and local authorities. But also, the use of derivatives by local authorities is potentially unlawful, and has been since the 1989 Hammersmith and Fulham swaps case. Council leaders and MPs have written to Andrew Tyrie, chair of the Treasury select committee calling for an investigation into potential mis-selling.

Treasury guidance stipulates that “public sector organisations may borrow from private sector sources only if the transaction delivers better value for money for the Exchequer as a whole.” It’s difficult to see how the lobo loans scandal has done anything more than impoverish housing associations and local authorities, while once again lining the pockets of certain large banks.

The most dispiriting point is this: the financial industry has learned nothing from the crash. For a brief period when the global economy melted down in 2008, many people genuinely believed the industry would be forced to change.

Unregulated, it was left to package up toxic bonds and brag about excess. Surely, governments would impose regulation, and a cowed banking sector would follow suit and rein in the excesses that had caused banks to blow up? Neither happened. So, yet again, we find ourselves facing a financial crisis, this time in local authority and housing finance, and rather than see a resolution, we’ll just see the people at the bottom suffer".

Keep Osbourne's thieving hands off our Pensions! Sign the UNISON Petition

At the same time as Tory Chancellor George Osbourne, is trying to steal jobs from steel workers, benefits from the disabled, tax credits from the working poor and homes owned by Councils, he is also trying to plunder the local government pension scheme (LGPS).

The government is seeking powers to direct Council pension funds to pay into their pet infrastructure investment schemes and even interfere in the day to day running of the £180 billion funds and make them only invest in accordance to the current UK Government's foreign policy.

Ironic for someone who claims to be a small state Conservative and is refusing to nationalise the UK steel works because he believes in "free markets" and that the government shouldn't own anything.

It may be that the local government pension funds should invest more in infrastructure but they should be the ones making that investment decision after receiving proper advice, since they will have to carry the can if it all goes wrong. There is no "Crown Promise" nor even the tender mercies of the Pension Protection Fund for these schemes if they make the wrong investments decisions and go belly up.

British foreign policy is also notorious for recognising and supporting nasty, corrupt, totalitarian regimes but putting aside any ethical issues for the moment, that doesn't mean that these countries are suitable investment choices for council pensions funds to put their members' money into. Such regimes are often economic basket cases and not safe for pensions..  
 
Since there has been no debate in Parliament on this "nationalisation" UNISON is encouraging its members to sign this Parliamentary Petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125475 (see below) to get a debate in the House on this matter.

5 million people rely on the LGPS to pay their pensions. Government wants powers over LGPS investment funds, but they could gamble away members’ money on infrastructure projects. This is not allowed in any other UK scheme, including the MPs'. The LGPS must be invested in members’ best interests.

Parliament must debate this issue and make the government accountable for these powers of intervention as any such direction may breach the law. Specifically Article 18 paragraph 3 of the EU Directive 41/2003 Institutions for Occupational Retire Provision: “Member States shall not require institutions located in their territory to invest in particular categories of assets.”

Sign this petition

A Muslim Mayor to Fight Extremism and Make London Safe

I have been away last week in Wales and now catching up on posts. Picture is from the campaign launch of Labour Candidate for London Mayor, Sadiq Khan MP, that I attended beforehand in Westminster. 

Former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, spoke first at the launch, about her experiences in Government about tackling extremism and how it is the responsibility of all of us to keep Londoners safe.  She also reminded us that Sadiq and his family had been targeted by extremists because of his moderate views.

In his speech Sadiq made it clear that keeping London safe would be his number one priority if elected and he would be a Muslim Mayor who will tackle extremism. 

In the past extremists have attacked him and told his friends and family that he will "Go to hell" because he believes in democracy.  He also received death threats after he voted in favour of same sex marriage and had to consult the Police on protection for his wife and children.

All Londoners face the threat from extremism. He remembers trying to contact his wife and daughters after the bombing on 7\7 to make sure they were safe and reassure them he was okay. British Muslims need to speak loud and clear against the poisonous ideology of a tiny majority.

To take the fight to the extremists, his plan is straight forward. Firstly, make sure that the London has the resources necessary to tackle it and the Police are backed to do what is necessary.

Secondly, act to tackle the underlying conditions that allow extremism and radicalisation to take root. 

On both measures I think Sadiq is streets ahead of his Tory rival, Zac Goldsmith. Who is a right wing Tory, who has supported cuts in Community Policing. The Met Police overall has been cut by £600 million and the number PCSOs slashed by more than 70%.  We need the community to trust the local Police and give them intelligence to defeat the terrorists.

On the 2nd point, how can a multi-millionaire Old Etonian, have a clue about the poverty and social segregation that creates terrorism?  The disgraceful "dog whistle" politics of his campaign team and his right wing tabloid allies attempts to try and brand Sadiq and all Muslims as "suspect" is frankly disgraceful.

Sadiq wants to challenge segregation by changing planning laws and to start genuine community programmes that will make a difference. He wants and expects British Muslims to speak out loud and clear against the poisonous ideology of the extremists . Take down their websites. Overhaul the failing "Prevent" programme.

Another difference with the Tory candidate is that Sadiq will campaign to stay in the European Union, not only to protect London businesses and jobs but to keep its vital role in tackling terrorism and keeping London safe.

I will be out in West Ham campaigning for Sadiq tomorrow morning. Meeting in Custom House, 11am, at Corner Shipman Rd and Prince Regents Ln, E16 3DT