The vengeance of of the swivel-eyed loons

Today, the Daily Mail - the bastion of Conservative apologists and middle class prejudice - bemoans that the Queen has not let Tory Ministers remove the traditional privilege day for civil servants - The Queen's Birthday. This can be no surprise, as one of the prioities of the late Margaret Thatcher was to "de-privilege" civil servants and to reduce the size of the Civil Service.

Today her heirs in the Coaltion Government want to continue this process, but this time overtly to open up the work of the Civil Service for privatisation. A swinging set of reductions to existing terms and conditions for new entrants and promotees have recently announced, which removes the traditional Civil Service privilege days. However, perhaps, in fear of legal challenges on the grounds of contractual entitlement, current staff will have 1 and half privilege days "rebadged" as annual leave.

 Also in the sight of Ministers is facility time for trade unionists to carry out the duties on behalf of the members whom elected them. In this attack, they have been some of the more sharped toothed animals in the jungles of Conservatism are hellbent on building up resentment towards trade unions and trades unionists.

There are several ongoing campaigns by Tory backwoods-men and other right-wing elements (a.k.a the swivel-eyed loons):

 Trade Union Reform Campaign, supported by the disgraced former minister Liam Fox, a right-wing group that wants to prevent union officers who are also nurses and teachers from carrying out union duties in work time. It also aims to evict unions from branch offices located in hospitals and schools.

Taxpayers Alliance banging on about taxpayer subsidising unions, bemoaning the number of public sector bodies automatically deducting trade union subscriptions in the payroll process.

The website Conservative Home applauds the changes made by Francis Maude, but are worried these can be easily be reversed by a Labour government unless the Government change the legislation which underpins them. Tory MPs Jesse Norman and Aidan Burley want the withdrawal of the broader range of support given to trade unions  – the free offices, noticeboards and subscriptions being deducted at source by the government payroll department. These are denounced as hidden subsidies which must be must ended.

 These groupings claim to have the ear of Ministers such as Maude, Pickles and Gove, who are at the forefront of the attacks on trades union facility time. As  they are small-minded enough to take away civil servants’ privilege days, they are likely to instruct departments to end the check-off systems for the payment of subs by union members.

As is common with right-wing idealogues they rant and rave about relatively small amounts of money, but turn a blind eyed to their political representatives dipping their hands in the till. Has the Taxpayers Alliance criticised the subsidies of bars and restaurants in the Houses of Parliament? Will they denounce the imminent £20,000 pay increase in MPs' pay as unaffordable in these times of austerity?

When it comes to even-handedness, never trust a Tory!

 

An unwelcome swing to the Right?

Although there were no election this year in Southend, I think the outcome of the County Council and other elections is of great importance to us all.

The hitherto flaky and marginal UK Independence Party have gained 23% of the votes cast nationwide and come second place in the South Shields by-election. UKIP have clearly entered the political mainstream, and their populist stances are likely to receive from disillusioned working class people as they are to destabilise the traditional Tory vote.

In the era of austerity polictics, to which all the major parties support in varying degrees, it is unsurprising that a populist party like UKIP receives a protest vote. The crunch will come at the next General Election when their policies will be more widely scrutinised. I suppose that the main planks of UKIP polic, withdrawal from the European Union and to halt immigration into theUK, have appealed to disillusioned voters. Will the new UKIP voters be pleased when they find that the County Councillors they have just elected simply cannot deliver on either of these policies?

It is disturbing that UKIP seems to have have appealed to "soft racism" with their anti-immigartion stance. I was disturbed to hear in television interviews with people that voted for UKIP, their councillors and, even, Nigel Farage repeat the falsehood that people who immigrate to the UK are immediately given housing. This falsehood has been circulated widely and the major Parties do not want to refute it as a lie. Shamefully, the TV interviewers did not challenge UKIP or their supporters when they repeated this claim.

As long ago as 2009, the Guardian published an article "The myth of immigrants and social housing" which sought to refute the falsehoods that were being peddled. The article states:

The allegation that new migrants are jumping the queue for council housing and housing association homes was nailed as a myth by research recently published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

That study found that more than 60% of new migrants who had come to Britain in the past five years are living in privately rented accomodation, and most newly arrived migrants and asylum seekers are actually banned from access to social housing.

The research was commissioned after Labour minister Margaret Hodge sparked a political row when she called for council house allocations to be linked to length of residence because newly arrived migrants were being given priority for scarce social housing over British-born families.

The success of UKIP, unfortunately will have the effect of dragging the mainstream parties to the right. This was the case when neo-nazi parties were achieving a level of electoral support. Instead of Ed Miliband saying that "One Nation" Labour should not be afraid to debate immigration, he should be calling for the misleading statements of UKIP and others to be challenged in a rational way.

On the day that Margaret Thatcher died

I was listening to Radio 4 on the way into Southend, when I realised that were reporting that Margaret Thatcher had died. They had Michael Howard saying that she had "saved" this country. In the extensive TV coverage, a whole rogues gallery of former prominent Tories were asked their for their tributes and reflections - Aitkin, Archer and Mellor. There was also a rather fawning piece from Paddy Ashdown, being part of the the right-wing coalition has clearly altered his recollections.

The TV coverage did, surprisingly, stress the divisive legacy of her period in office and the resulting north/south divide. I saw the interviews with former miners, and even Derek Hatton, who said that there would not shed a tear and pointed the lasting deprivation to their communities caused by Thatcherite policies.

Even though she was a conviction politician, Thatcher was still created by spin doctors who altered the way she appeared and how she spoke. I always felt that the "housewife" image she cultivated was bogus, especially considering the wealth of Dennis Thatcher. In addition, I feel she did little or nothing for her fellow women and the whole talk of her breaking the glass ceiling is misplaced. The anti-Heath plotters in the Tory Party, lost their leader Keith Joseph and turned to her for political reasons and made her Leader. Strangely, Joseph's malicious attitude to benefit claimants and the poor has found voice again in Osbourne's recent pronouncements.

In the 1980s, the Tories managed to engineer the Big Bang and provide easy money to the emergent middle classes. Thatcher modelled her public persona on the prejudices of the middle classes and gave the impression of fighting for their interests. However, her policies simply entrenched the position of the ultra-rich, and regrettably this continues to this day. How many that received this money still had the shares and property following the recessions of the 1990s? How many Council Houses bought under the right-to-buy were reposssed?

The whole cold warrior phase of her leadership instead of making Britain a voice in the world, simply made us a client state of the USA. Her victory in re-arming Britain with nuclear weapons, and the defeat of those who opposed her aggressive policies, still prevents any serious debate on whether we still need these weapons of mass destruction.

The Labour Party never really got to grips with the Thatcher phenomenom. Kinnock abandoned all his principles but ended up with no-one believing a word he said. In desperation, Labour turned to the would be rock-star with a messiah complex in Blair, who largely accepted every aspect of Thatcherism.

I remember the day that Margaret Thatcher was elected in May 1979, I was delivering newspapers announcing the Tories' victory in the General Election. I also remember the day she left office, then was no cause for celebration then as the Tories clung onto office and to win the 1992 General Election. On the day of her death, I feel decidely non-plussed as she is gone but the legacy of her policies continuing to create divisions with the very rich getting even richer and the poor still poorer.

Drowning Not Waving - part III

Following the publication of my letter in the Echo on Tuesday, the response from the Independents was not from Councillor Woodley, but from Councillor Martin Terry who accuses me of attacking him when I am "a Labour Party activist and frequent candidate" when I didn't mention him at all.

The last time I stood as a Labour candidate for Belfairs ward (May 2012), the deselected Tory Councillor Stephen Aylen ran as an independent and had support from other independents. I do believe that Councillor Woodley even acted as his election agent. In May 2011, when I stood in Southchurch ward, the independents ran a candidate who lived in Thorpe Bay. So I do feel, that I have a right to air my views on the independents and comment on exactly how "independent" they are.

Other correspondents have weighed in against Martin Terry's statement that he would resign and stand against Councillor Kaye in by-election. One notes that independents lost a seat in Westborough  at the elections held at the same time as the General Election, and as they only held on in 2012 by 38 votes, Martin Terry must be worried about holding on to his seat.

I strongly suspect that the wheels will come off the independent bandwagon come the council elections in 2014, and particularly if Southend move to 'all up' elections on a 4 yearly cycle. Only the most prominent and personally popular independent councillors are likely to retain their seats.

I believe that in a democracy anyone should be able to stand as a candidate, perhaps with the exception of fascist parties. That said an independent, should just be a stand-alone candidate who funds and runs their own campaigns. What we have in Southend is in effect an "independent party", that runs candidates across the Borough, and have attracted individuals that have dropped out of the main political parties. Whilst they may not be "party political" they are nevertheless involved in the political process and are therefore accountable for the actions that they take, especially when some of them have an agreement with the ruling Tory Group on Southend Borough Council.

Political Identity in Thorpe Ward?

The letters page (29th March) of the Southend Echo have featured various correspondants denouncing the decision of Councillor Allex Kaye to join (or re-join) the Conservative Party.

I felt obliged to join in this debate and have sent this letter to the Echo -

There would appear be severe problems with political identity in the Thorpe Ward. Councillor Kaye has decided that she is a Tory after all and rejoined the party.

The chairman of the Burges Estate Residents, attacks this decision as betrayal of the people of Thorpe Bay who elected her as an independent. However, Mr Woodley seems to be having identity problems of his own, as he is also an independent councillor for the Ward.

The Thorpe independent councillors signed a memorandum of understanding with the Tory Group on Southend Council.  I’m not sure that voters in the Thorpe Ward will be able to differentiate between independents and Tories at the next Council elections.

I am also bemused by the call by Councillor Martin Terry for Councillor Kay to resign and stand in a by-election as a Conservative. He will resign from his current Council seat and stand as the independents candidate. A very strange political judgement on his part, unless the Westborough Ward has finally grown tired of the independents and theie machinations. As I've said before, Martin is clearly drowning and not waving.

Why I am asking for you to support me in the PCS GEC election?

Why I am asking for you to support me in the R&C Group Executive Committee election?

I am standing in this election for the GEC as a Socialist and Member of Left Unity, along with like-minded colleagues on a shared platform of defend jobs and conditions in HMRC. I am prepared to argue for a new approach in response to the many threats we now face.

Having worked for the Department for nearly 33 years and been active in the Union for the majority of that time, but have never seen the scale of threats in all of this time. The morale amongst members is at an all-time low – brought on by the pay freeze, a constant fear for job security and pensions - the savage increases in pension contributions – reduction in the value of pensions and being forced to work to 68 or until  you drop.

When I first joined the Civil Service, it was understood that although the pay was less than elsewhere - you would get a good pension and terms & conditions. But this “deal” is being reduced on an almost daily basis. But at the same time the Department still demands the same loyalty and expects all the old Civil Services values which are to their benefit.

It is scandalous that the perception of civil servants as privileged, overpaid  with almost complete job security is being fed to the media by the our employer, the Government.  Following two newspaper articles about CS privilege days, the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude has embarked on a crusade against allowing us the Maundy Thursday 1/2 day and the Xmas privilege day.

This is of course the same Francis Maude who in March 2012 responding to a threat of action by fuel tanker drivers, advised the public to fill up gerry cans and store fuel in their garages.  In 2009 the Fees Office rejected his claim for mortgage interest on his Sussex home. Also he had purchased a flat in London, close to another house he already owned he rented out this house and claimed £35K mortgage interest on the flat. According to the Legg Report, he was not asked to payback any of the money he had claimed.

What we are facing is the old ideological animosity from the Conservatives against public sector workers and their trade unions.  The Public Services be they elements of HMRC or the NHS represent potential rich picking for the Tories’ friends in out sourcing companies and the private equity sector. Austerity policies and the need to reduce national debt, have allowed the Coalition Government the excuse to settle old scores with unions like PCS. 

It has been reported that the Government will single out the PCS for special treatment for being too “militant”! Hence we see the vicious attacks on facilities time for or reps and ending the collection of union subs via the payroll. These attacks are small minded and vindictive.

Of all the current attacks, I would point to the changes to the performance management system, under the Civil Service Employee Policy  - CSEP – being led by the Cabinet Office. Hardly anyone will be shocked by the fact that there have been no negotiations with PCS over the changes. Managers in the department are being told that box markings must be divided up on the basis of:

• Exceeded 20% of staff
• Achieved 70% of staff
• Must improve 10% of staff

Clearly this will introduce a culture of a management by fear. Our members who are managers will be forced to implement this system under the threat of being given “must improve” themselves.  I wonder how the 10% of staff will be calculated. Is this why 2 senior members of Excom have recently left to take up private sector jobs?

In the USA, this quota system is known as “stack ranking”. In an article – Microsoft’s Lost Decade- in Vanity Fair magazine, the journalist Kurt Eichenwald said “Every current and former Microsoft employee – every one – cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees” and “it leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies”.  How typical is it of HMRC to adopt a management system that has already been discredited elsewhere in the world?

What should we do in response?

I urge all colleagues to vote Yes/Yes in the current ballot for industrial action. It is not an easy decision for any member to take action when our standard of living is diminishing almost week by week. But then if we do not take a stand, we will without doubt be subjected to worse terms & conditions, have our pensions further raided and have to suffer the indignity of unending pay restraint.

If elected to the GEC, I would strongly argue for selective action that frustrates the employer and does not immediately hit the pockets of PCS members. In my Branch, we are making a call for non-co-operation with performance management system from the outset.  Targeted action is a more contentious issue but is one that PCS must fully explore.  

PCS has had success with selective action in several areas in the Civil Service recently – proposals in the DVLA to issue compulsory redundancies as part of the agency’s plans to cut staff were halted and in the DWP 46 jobs were saved by the PCS holding a ballot for industrial action. Last year, in HMRC the continued action over privatisation in the call centres and sickness absence policy, resulted the enabling agreement which led to FTA staff being given permanent contracts.

I think it is the job of the PCS to bring back the membership from the lowest ebb that I can remember. If we stand together united, and back the action, then we can win on all the threats we currently face.

Keep Blood Testing Services in Southend!

As I am nearing 50 years of age, I have to have annual blood tests to keep a check on the health conditions that afflict a middle-aged man. So I feel that I have have a genuine interest in and am "a stakeholder" in the Blood Testing Services.

For about a fortnight, I have been meaning to post about the proposal from the Strategic Health Authority to move the Blood Testing Services from Southend Hospital to a central laborattory in Bedford. The fast moving pace of events has meant that it is difficult to comment on the current position.

But the unwise and somewhat risible contribution by James Duddridge, Rochford & Southend East Tory MP, has forced me into print so to speak. James' concerns are not concerned with either jobs at Southend Hospital or those of his constituents, but with "spending money better" and  promoting the interests of the private companies muscling their way into the provision of NHS services. He uses the language of an advocate for privatisation. The Bedford laboratory is a partnership with the outsourcing company SERCO.

I would congratulate those comrades from Southend Against The Cuts, Southend TUC and other campaigning groups who staged a protest against the Clinial Commissioning Group (CCG) meeting  at the Civic Centre on 29th January. The public had been invited to submit their concerns and questions to the meeting, however these were summarised in way that the tone of the original contributions were lost. In a remarkable piece if dissembling, the CCG said that this was a "meeting in public, and not a public meeting" and declined to take questions from the floor. This sham is what passes for consultation under the Coalition Government.

I should also acknowledge the contribution of the campaign by the Echo newspaper against the moving of the service to Bedford. In tonight's edition, other local Tory MPs show a bit more savvy than James Duddridge by being cautious and expressing reservations about the proposal. Perhaps they are more in touch with the views of their constituents. Last week, Tory Councillors on Southend Council voted to refer the decision to the Secretary of State for Health. Clearly by "kicking the decision upstairs" the Tory Councillors are hoping to deflect being blamed for this unpopular policy.

To me, the campaign to save the Blood Testing Service is a key battle against the austerity and privatisation policies of the Tories and Lib Dems. It is one that we must win! There may already be one casualty in James Duddridge, by putting himself on the wrong side of the argument and against the interests of the people he is elected to represent.