Thursday 30 June 2011

Ministers lose the argument on "unaffordable" pensions

Francis Maude flounders as he fails to defend the claim that public sector pensions are "unaffordable".

A PCS staff member prepares for today's strike over pensions.

Staff member Mike Jones of the Public and Commercial Sevices Union (PCS) moves placards in preparation for today's strike over pensions. Photograph: Getty Images.

The first mass strikes since the general election are officially underway. The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and three teaching unions - the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and the University and College Union (UCU) - have all taken industrial action over planned changes to public sector pensions. A third of schools are expected to close, with another third "partially affected", and two-thirds of universities have cancelled lectures.

Ministers are generally bullish, holding the line that the public "won't understand" the strikes, but on at least one key point - the alleged "unaffordability" of public sector pensions - they've lost the argument this morning. Confronted by the formidably articulate PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka (recently interviewed by Mehdi for the NS) on the Today programme, Francis Maude floundered. Asked to justify the government's repeated claim that public sector pensions are "unaffordable" (David Cameron claimed that the system was in danger of going "broke" in his speech on Monday), the Cabinet Office minister simply couldn't. And he couldn't because the data tells a different story.

As the graph below from the government-commissioned Hutton Report shows, public sector pension payments are set to peak at 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-11 before gradually falling over the next fifty years to 1.4 per cent in 2059-60. The government's plan to ask employees to work longer and pay more is a political choice, not an economic necessity.

A

As the Public Accounts Committee observed: "Officials appeared to define affordability on the basis of public perception rather than judgement on the cost in relation to either GDP or total public spending." In other words, the public have been misled and ministers are determined to keep misleading them. Unable to justify the myth that public sector pensions are "unaffordable", the desperate Maude fell back on the claim that they are "untenable", without having the decency to explain why this was so.

Continuing the cynical attempt to set public and private sector workers against each other, Maude commented: "not very many people in the private sector can still enjoy pensions like that." True, two-thirds of private-sector employees are not enrolled in a workplace pension scheme, compared to just 12 per cent of public-sector workers. But this is an argument for improving provision in the private sector, not for driving it down in the public sector. Ministers appear determined to fire the starting gun on a race to the bottom.

We can debate the merits of industrial action as a form of protest. But with public sector workers facing a triple crunch - higher contributions, a tougher inflation index and lower benefits - it's hardly surprising that they feel compelled to defend their rights. Even before any of the Hutton reforms are introduced, George Osborne's decision to uprate benefits in line with CPI, rather than the RPI, has already reduced the value of some pensions by 15 per cent.

Strip away the government's rhetoric ("unaffordable", "untenable") and the empirical truth is that ministers are forcing workers to take another pay cut, forcing them to pick up the tab for a crisis that they did not cause. The public might be on the side of ministers, for now at least, but the facts are on the side of the unions.


Published today in The New Statesman

Tuesday 28 June 2011

Rally for the Alternative

Join a rally to support the day of action on the 30th June.







Blackpool Against Cuts, supported by PCS is holding a mass rally of strikers and people affected by the cuts at St Johns Square at 3:30 pm.






We are all in this together.

Thursday 30th June... Strike for the Alternative

Support the strike on Thursday.

Support the picket lines at the Norcross site between 07:00 and 10:00 am at the main gate and pedestrian entrance on Norcross Lane and the entrance on White Carr.

Show solidarity with the teachers and lecturers and refuse to cross the lines at your childrens schools and colleges.

We are all in this together.

All in this together?

Wages cut. Pensions cut. Jobs cut. Services cut. Defence, police, health... all cut.

And yet, in the last year the taxpayer increased funding by nearly 18% to the Prince of Wales!

An increase of more that 3 times the rate of inflation... and this does not even include the cost of his sons wedding... that we are paying for as well.

All in this together? Don't make us laugh.

Sunday 26 June 2011

School heads snub Gove's bid to bust strike.

Education Secretary Michael Gove was told in no uncertain terms to wind his neck in today after he attempted to tell head teachers what their "moral duty" was to students - saying they should keep schools open during upcoming public-sector strikes on June 30.

In a letter sent to schools, the Tory MP claimed that the planned industrial action over controversial proposals to alter public-sector pensions was not justified, portraying it as an attack on pupils and parents.

Mr Gove said he was aware of strong feelings among teachers over pensions and that he was "personally committed to working openly, honestly and constructively to ensure that teachers continue to receive the high-quality pensions that they deserve and value."

He added that the government was discussing the issue with unions and that therefore "with the attendant risk of disruption to pupils' education and family life, (school closures are) not justified.

"My view is that we all have a strong moral duty to pupils and parents to keep schools open, and the government wants to help you achieve that."

But Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) general secretary Brian Lightman was unimpressed by Mr Gove's "unhelpful" rhetoric.

He said: "School leaders are fully aware of their moral duty to pupils and their parents and of their responsibilities regarding decisions about the operation of their schools. This problem is, however, not of their making.

"ASCL has already written to the Prime Minister about the damaging effects of this dispute and has not yet received a reply."

He said the solution to the problem was for the government to seek an urgent resolution "rather than sending unnecessary and unhelpful exhortations of the kind received by headteachers today."

National Union of Teachers general secretary Christine Blower said: "There's also a legal duty for key management to make sure the health and safety of children and staff is properly considered, so if there really are insufficient staff to be open, then a school should be closed."

Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) general secretary Mary Bousted said Mr Gove was wrong to assume that heads are not angry about attacks to their pensions and are not members of the unions planning to strike.

"He should recognise that the government's proposals, particularly to move from final salary to career average pensions, will cause a recruitment and retention crisis among heads and deputies," she said.

"Why would anyone want to work their way up to a headship if their pension doesn't reflect the level of responsibility or demands of the job?"

Around 300,000 teachers are expected to take to the picket lines next Thursday as part of a wider public-sector strike over pensions and cuts to jobs, services and pay.

paddym@peoples-press.com

Friday 24 June 2011

Mark Serwotka interview...

... New Statesman, 23rd June 2011

The first thing that strikes you about Mark Serwotka is how mild-mannered and reasonable he seems. Born in Cardiff in 1963 and raised in the valleys after being adopted from a Catholic orphanage, he speaks with a soft Welsh accent and comes across as a calm and intelligent man. Yet critics have described the leader of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) as the "most ideologically driven and politically asinine of the union top brass" (Independent) and an "unreconstructed Trotskyite" (Sunday Times). At a recent meeting of union leaders, Brendan Barber, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), called him a "fundamentalist".

On 15 June, Serwotka's union voted to go on strike over proposed reforms to public-sector pensions, joining teachers' unions including the National Union of Teachers, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the University and College Union, which had agreed on a mass walkout at the end of the month. With up to 750,000 teachers, lecturers, civil servants and public-sector workers ready to take co-ordinated action, 30 June could be the biggest day of strikes in years.

So is Serwotka the new Arthur Scargill, intent on waging war with the government? He describes himself as a "radical socialist". Is he a Marxist? He hesitates. "Am I a Marxist? Hmm." Another pause. "I was in a Trotskyist organisation when I was younger - the Socialist Organiser - but only briefly. I was influenced by Marxism but I've never been doctrinaire."

In recent years, he has "flirted" with various left-wing parties, including George Galloway's Respect, and he voted for the Green Party in the last general election. But in the local elections this year, he spoiled his ballot paper. "I've never subscribed to the lesser-evil-ism of modern politics," he explains. "Growing up in Wales, it was Labour, Labour, Labour. But [since] its move rightwards and embrace of the markets, Labour doesn't speak for me."

Serwotka dropped out of school at the age of 16 and became a civil service benefits clerk. He asked to join the union on his first day. Within a month, he was on the branch committee. "I have always believed that unions are very important," he says. "I guess it's something rooted in the way I was brought up."

He was elected general secretary of PCS in November 2000, defeating the Blairite incumbent Barry Reamsbottom (who initially refused to accept the result). One of Serwotka's campaign pledges was that he would refuse to take a full wage, yet his salary in 2009 was £86,244. "The union's executive voted not to allow me to have a lower rate of pay, as it affects collective bargaining," Serwotka says, before reminding me that, since 2001, he has donated £80,000 out of his wages to the union's hardship fund. "I don't think any other union leader has given that amount of money," he says. "But I admit that I am incredibly well recompensed compared to the people I represent."

Those 300,000 people who make up the country's fifth-largest trade union work in a range of government departments and include benefits officers, tax inspectors and court clerks. Serwotka describes the government's plans to force his members to "work longer, pay more and get less" as "naked deficit reduction" and a "tax on public-sector workers".

He makes it clear that the PCS ballot was about jobs and pay as well as pensions. His union claims that 100,000 jobs are at risk. "The pensions issue," he says, "was just the vehicle that allowed for legal, co-ordinated strikes with the teachers' unions. If we are defeated on pensions, it makes it a lot easier to cut the jobs and services but if we can fight back, then the ability for that resistance to broaden out shouldn't be underestimated."

Bubble boys

Serwotka is confident and well informed. When I ask about rising public-sector pension costs, he points to page 22 of the March 2011 report by the former Labour cabinet minister John Hutton (which forms the basis of the coalition's plans on pensions) and states that payments will "fall gradually to around 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 2059-2060, after peaking at 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-2011".

What about the accusation that the strike has limited support inside his union? The turnout in the ballot was only 32 per cent, so the 61 per cent who voted in favour represents just one in five members. "I wish the turnout was higher, but if the coalition wanted a higher turnout, they'd make it easier to vote, not harder. Why can't we have internet voting, telephone voting and secret balloting in the workplace under supervised conditions?"

As for Hutton's argument that we have to "face up to the financial consequences" of living longer, Serwotka cites Work, Stress and Health: the Whitehall II Study, published by the Cabinet Office in 2004, which shows how workers in the lowest civil service employment grades were much more likely to die prematurely than those in the highest grades. "How can you ask people to work for 50 years," he says, "if, as in my case, they left school at 16?"

He says that he is prepared to accept Hutton's recommendation for a public service pension scheme based on career-average earnings rather than final salaries - his union agreed to career averaging for new entrants in 2005 - but there is a condition: "We're up for negotiating on career averaging if it is based on the same costs and not based on driving the costs down."

Does he have a bottom line? "No one should have to pay any extra money unless their pension scheme valuation deems it necessary; there should be no central increase in the pension age and the government should be prepared to negotiate the inflation-indexing of pensions." But Serwotka doesn't believe that coalition ministers are interested in negotiations. He points to a speech made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, on 17 June, which announced detailed plans to increase pension contributions - and the working age - for millions of public-sector workers, all without the agreement of unions.

Didn't the PCS pre-empt the outcome of negotiations by calling a strike two days before Alexander's intervention? Serwotka shakes his head. "They have already changed pensions from RPI [Retail Prices Index] to CPI [Consumer Prices Index], reducing the value by 15 per cent. They have already announced contribution increases - in the Spending Review - so we're striking because of the things that they've already done and are already happening."

So, what happens to negotiations? He insists that, without strikes, the chances of the unions' negotiations with the government being successful are "nil".

“I always take the view in negotiations that if they don't see anyone putting pressure on them, there's no pressure to concede," he says. "I think the 30 June strike action will show that people are not prepared to accept the changes and one of two things will happen: ministers will decide, 'We have to see them off,' and harden their position, or they'll say, 'All right, then, we're going to be a bit more meaningful about our discussions.'"

Serwotka predicts a bleak future for industrial relations in the UK. "After 30 June, we will be having more strikes, department by department, against specific job cuts. In essence, we see 30 June as a political event - about mass mobilisation to put pressure on the government. The strikes in departments will be about making those departments and ministers feel the consequences of cutting jobs."

He views the coalition government as right-wing, cynical and cruel. "They've used the economic woes as cover to do things that some of them have been dreaming about for years. It is class warfare; it is about shrinking the state, shrinking welfare and taking on the unions."

Does he believe that ministers are indifferent to the fate of his members and that of other public-sector workers? "I don't think they give a shit," he says. "People who have lived in a bubble of privilege all their lives have no concept of what ordinary life is like." What about the Labour Party? Unlike the four big unions - Unite, Unison, GMB and the Communication Workers Union - PCS is not affiliated with Labour. "I think Ed Balls is becoming more combative," Serwotka says. "He has moved leftwards since he left government." He seems less keen, however, on the Labour leader. "For me, Ed Miliband has been disappointing. He's not confident or robust enough."

Fight club

Is Serwotka walking into a Tory trap, giving the Chancellor, George Osborne, the confrontation that he wants that will divert attention from a failing economy (as Balls, among others, has suggested)? He shrugs. "I think it's very easy to talk yourself out of doing anything. Not doing anything means defeat and it invites more aggression." He admits that his militant approach has put most of his fellow union leaders "on the spot" - especially after the TUC march and rally on 26 March, which "was brilliant", but "didn't save a single job or service". Many activists in other unions, he claims, are asking: "Why aren't we doing any of this?"

Serwotka prefers not to use the language of "general strikes" or to hark back to the miners' strike as Unison's general secretary, Dave Prentis, did in a newspaper interview on 18 June. Nonetheless, he predicts that Britain is on course for the "biggest strikes, in terms of numbers, in decades".
“The only reason I don't use the phrase 'general strike'," he says, "is that I think what you say should have a clear resonance and should be deliverable. And it is deliverable to have co-ordinated strikes involving millions."

He believes that these mass strikes will be ongoing in a year's time - "I think they will grow incrementally" - and says it is "possible" that they will continue throughout this parliament. "The difference between us and the miners is that, in an all-out strike, there was a demonstrable point where you won or lost, but what we're doing is rolling, and much more political. This is not about bringing employers to their knees but about forcing the government to back down on cuts."

Yet is he in danger of meeting the same fate as Scargill, who picked a fight with a Conservative-led government that he couldn't win? "I admire a lot of what Scargill did," Serwotka says. "I don't share his politics but I admire the bravery of the National Union of Mineworkers leadership and I have no doubt that they were right to do what they did."

But they lost, I point out. "I don't take the view that we can't win," he says.

He ends with a very personal and combative message for the government - and, perhaps, for his fellow union leaders, too. "My father once said to me: 'If you fight in life, you're not guaranteed to win. But if you never fight, you lose every time.'"

Mehdi Hasan is senior editor (politics) of the NS

Members Update

Members have asked how the branch will communicate information about the forthcoming action on the 30th June.

Will we, for instance, be holding workplace meetings?

The answer to this is no. The reason for this is that any meetings, or indeed work involved in arranging industrial action cannot be undertaken within official faclilities arrangements. Hence, meetings would have to be conducted outside of working time and off the site. We believe that arranging such events would not be productive.

We will therefore restrict communications to leaflets, posters and this blog.

It is worth noting that deskdrops for instance, specifically in respect of industrial action are always conducted during the members free time... during lunch breaks for instance. Also the cost of printing any such leaflets falls to the union and is conducted privately off site to avoid any confusion.

UK Uncut... friends or foes?

You might remember that on the March For The Alternative arranged by the TUC to protest against ConDem public service cuts... UK Uncut and other less peaceful groups highjacked the rolling news on our massive and peaceful demonstration.

Their actions tended to detract from the great success of the day and overshadowed the message that the TUC and of course PCS wanted to get across.

It now seems that UK Uncut are now planning a comedy pillow fight near Parliament on the 30th June.

We think that this is a mistake. We urge UK Uncut to think again and ask activists within this union to try to disuade them from their planned action on what should rightly be a trade unionists day.

That said, it is worth noting that Boris Johnson and Theresa May both accused protesters from UK Uncut who occupied Fortnum & Mason during the March TUC demo of "violence" and "damage," even though their protest was peaceful.

The police are prosecuting the occupiers for having the temerity to go into Fortnum's to complain about tax avoidance instead of buying posh jam. Fortnum's in turn is keeping up its Conservative Party funding. This January, Selfridges gave the Conservatives £25,000. Like Fortnum's, Selfridges is owned by the super-rich family of Canadian billionaire Galen Weston.
Galen's daughter Alannah Weston is Selfridge's "creative director," while other family members run Fortnum's. The Weston family used to fund the Conservatives through another company called Wittington Investments, but the charity commission ruled that these donations - nearly £1 million - were illegal.

Since 2006 the Westons have switched to giving the Tories money through Selfridges, with this latest donation bringing the total to £80,000. The money gives the Westons membership of the Tory "treasurers group," entitling them to free meetings with George Osborne and other Cabinet members.

As has been seeen before... We are all in this together!

The Looney Tunes antics of bungling Balls...

Ed Balls says that "trade unions must not walk in to the trap" of striking to defend their pensions. He says it is all a cunning plan by George Osborne to blame unions for the economy going wobbly.

Hundreds of thousands of trade unionists will ignore Balls's crafty strategy of not fighting on June 30, when teachers and civil servants strike.

Balls's deceptive kung fu move of defending pensions by doing absolutely nothing doesn't seem to appeal.

Maybe it's because Balls's previous crafty moves have gone so badly. Far from avoiding traps, Balls can't wait to rush into them.

Back in 1991 he wrote in Marxism Today: "The allure of a minimum wage is deceptive and should be resisted" and "could make poverty worse."

Minimum wage make poverty worse? How could he be so daft?

Balls fell into the classic trap of believing a minimum wage would lead to high unemployment.

He wrote that the government "cannot tell private employers both how much to pay people and how many people to employ" because "if it sets a floor to wages, some employers will cut costs by cutting employment. Lower employment could exacerbate the problems of poverty."

Luckily the unions persuaded Labour to ignore Balls, so the last government left some positive legacy.

Balls also fell into the trap of recommending banking and financial deregulation when he was an adviser to Gordon Brown and then Treasury minister. That went really well.

And Balls fell deep into the trap of thinking the Iraq war would work out OK.

These days he admits making a "mistake," that "it was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price and for which many people paid with their lives."

We now know from Mehdi Hasan's biography of the Labour leader that Ed Miliband did argue with Brown to resign over the Iraq war in 2003, ringing from the US to make the case to Gordon.

But Balls sneered at Miliband, arguing that Brown should stick with the war. That went really well too.

In fact Balls seems to jump into every right-wing trap he can. He sees a rake lying on the ground and steps firmly on the head so the shaft smacks him in the face.

Balance a pail of water on top of the door and you can be sure Balls will barge through, leaving himself soaked and humiliated, wearing a bucket like a comedy hat.

There goes Balls, with the "Kick me" sign on his back, ready to shake hands with whoever has the electric buzzer in their palm, desperate to smell the squirty flower on your lapel.

You hardly even have to disguise your spike-filled pit with leaves before he'll dive in. Even if he put on a long flappy shoes, a big red nose, multicoloured jacket and bald head wig he wouldn't have any less credibility, trap-avoidance-wise.

Balls seems to have convened a "trap-avoidance panel" chaired by Wiley E Coyote, with expert advice from Yosemite Sam and Daffy Duck. But the sad thing is he thinks he's the Roadrunner.

So it is not surprising that striking trade unionists are unconvinced.

The worst thing is that Balls has fallen in to the classic new Labour trap.

Balls tried last year to get votes from union members in his bid for the Labour leadership. His long election statement to Unions Direct included the claim that "the Tory/Liberal attacks on public-sector pensions are hypocritical, unfair and unwarranted - at worst they are an excuse for cuts - and I will fight them tooth and nail."

Balls added that "properly listening to and engaging with union members is the best way for Labour to stay rooted and in touch with millions of working people on modest and middle incomes who depend on Labour to stand up for them."

He didn't win the leadership, but he got a shadow cabinet job as consolation.

Now Balls thinks he can take the union vote for granted and win right-wing support by dissing the strikers.

But these attempts at triangulation just wear away Labour's core support, while the obvious opportunism doesn't win new friends.

On June 30 there will be a big show of opposition to the government and Balls will have trapped himself in irrelevance.

Solomon Hughes 23rd June 2011 Morning Star

Friday 17 June 2011

Who is Francis Maude?

At the 2005 general election, Maude returned to the Shadow Cabinet as Chairman of the Conservative Party.

During his tenure, alongside newly elected leader David Cameron, the Conservatives adopted the A-List of parliamentary candidates, with priority being given to women and ethnic minorities.

However, he was accused of hypocrisy by promoting a "family-friendly" image while being the non-executive chairman of the Jubilee Trust, which held 21% of American pornographic actress Jill Kelly's adult DVD business, and chairman of the Mission Marketing Group, which has advertised for WKD drinks and Playboy.Maude, "who has railed against irresponsible lending by banks and mortgage companies", was accused of hypocrisy for receiving more than £100,000 as a director of a company that has profited from sub-prime mortgages. His annual salary was £25,000 from 2002 to 2005, for attending around six meetings a year of the company , and £12000 a year 2006 to 2008. The company went into liquidation in April 2009.

In 2008 - 2009 Francis Maude recieved £155, 797 ( on top of his MP salary ) expenses to cover, staying away from home, travel, office costs, stationary costs.

An analysis of the cabinet's very generous pension packages show that he can retire at 60 with lucrative million-pound-plus pension provisions paying them at least £50,000 a year inflation-proofed for the rest of their lives. The packages have been described by experts as 'beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary people'.

Francis Maude will spend the next two weeks campaigning against public servants, he will portray them as greedy, he will say we have gold plated pensions, he will try to turn parents against teachers, members of the public against hard working public servants......dont fall for it, Maude is one of the people that benefited from the banking crisis..............All Civil Servants including Prison Governors, Prison Officers, OSGs....Do not be bullied by this man.

Wednesday 15 June 2011

Don't fall for the brazen lie

Multimillionaire Tory Cabinet members are up in arms over the decisions made by modestly paid teachers and civil servants to stand up in defence of their pensions.

Privately educated Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude, whose personal wealth is estimated at around £3 million, alleged that no-one in the private sector has access to pensions such as those enjoyed by civil servants.

Civil Service pensions and those of teachers don't drop in their recipients' laps as manna from heaven.

They are paid for both by personal contributions and as a long-term trade-off that offers a reasonable pension as compensation for salaries that do not match the best in the private sector.

Maude must be aware that there are a select few in the private sector who receive pensions pay-offs that dwarf those of even the best-paid teachers and civil servants.

These people form the same elite that pays its in crowd mind-boggling salaries and bonuses while lecturing the rest of us on tightening our belts for the common good.

The Cabinet Office Minister might also compare MPs' pension schemes with those of public-service workers to see which offer the best returns.

He might also like to consider fringe benefits open to MPs while in opposition, such as his own penchant for collecting highly lucrative directorships for little effort.

And there's his ability to claim £35,000 in public support for a mortgage on a new flat just a few minutes walk from his existing home, which he then proceeded to rent out. Read more here

During his attack on teachers and civil servants, Maude claimed that, if the coalition of multimillionaires "hadn't inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world, we might not have to be taking these steps."

No-one ought to fall for such a brazen lie. The Tories and their Liberal Democrat partners in crime can't help themselves. It's their default position.

Big business and the wealthy don't depend on the essential services that public-sector workers provide. They demand cuts because they see spending on welfare and public services as money that could have been used as tax cuts for themselves.

If anyone were in any doubt on this point, David Cameron, who was born into opulence and married into even greater riches, explained his government's determination to cap annual benefits, irrespective of need.

"It cannot be right for some families to get over £26,000 a year in benefits. That is paid for by people working hard and paying their taxes," he declared.

What he meant is that benefits are paid for by some people working hard and paying their taxes, because other people and many profitable businesses escape paying their share through legal but unjustifiable tax-avoidance schemes.

The Labour opposition's job is complicated by the fact that the Blair-Brown governments defended the tax-avoidance havens and low rates of direct taxation on the super-rich in Britain.

The curse of new Labour is also exemplified by Cameron's ability to cite Tony Blair's reference to public spending being out of control and John Hutton's willingness to do the Tories' dirty work on public-service pensions.

Fortunately, public-service trade unions have consistently criticised attacks on their members by governments of whatever label.

June 30 promises to be a magnificent day of resistance, which should be the first engagement in a campaign to defeat the anti-worker policies of this illegitimate coalition.

From The Morning Star 15th June 2011

Public sector workers in the Ministry of Defence to strike over cuts

More than 20,000 civil servants in the Ministry of Defence have voted overwhelmingly to strike over cuts to their jobs, pensions and pay, the Public and Commercial Services union announces.

61.1% of members voted in favour of strike action and 83.6% in favour of action short of strike, on a turnout of 32.4%.

The workers were included in a UK-wide ballot of more than 250,000 PCS members in which 61.1% voted for a strike and 83.6% voted for other forms of industrial action, on a turnout of 32.4%.

The union is working closely with education unions, the National Union of Teachers and Association of Teachers and Lecturers, whose members have also voted to strike. It is also co-ordinating with the University and College Union which has already voted and taken strike action over cuts to pensions.

The first date of strike action will be 30 June with the possibility of further industrial action throughout the summer and in the autumn. PCS members in the Ministry of Defence will mount picket lines at all major MoD sites throughout the UK.

PCS is campaigning against the government’s slash and burn approach to tackling the budget deficit which will mean vital public services are axed, hundreds of thousands of public sector workers will be thrown out of work, and those that remain will have their pay and pensions cut.

The government has made it clear it will implement Lord Hutton’s proposals on public sector pensions, meaning civil and public servants face a doubling or tripling of their contributions and will have to work longer for much less in retirement. This is despite the National Audit Office and Lord Hutton himself confirming public sector pensions are affordable now and sustainable in future.

PCS MoD group president, Chris Dando said

Everything we have ever worked for is under threat.

There is an alternative to these cuts. The government should be investing in public services to help our economy to grow, creating jobs not cutting them, and clamping down on the wealthy tax dodgers who deprive our public finances of tens of billions of pounds a year. The Ministry of Defence spends more than £500 million every single month on external spending, much of which is unnecessary and could be better used within the defence budget.

We do not accept that a single job needs to be lost or a single penny cut from public spending. No one’s job, benefit, pension, college course, pay packet or public service is any more or less important than anyone else’s. If these cuts take place in the Ministry of Defence, the front life will suffer and ultimately lives will be lost.

Even the government admits that the modest pay and pensions of public servants did not cause the recession, so we shouldn’t be blamed or punished for it.

Thursday 9 June 2011

Pension Calculator


Click here to find out how much the Government want to steal from your pension.

Human cost of welfare reform

Laurie Penny, New Statesman 3rd June 2011

Who will stand up for the welfare state? Not the Conservative Party, whose mantra - "Making work pay" - has turned out to be a cruel euphemism for slashing already meagre welfare payments and steering the long-term sick into the magical land of jobs. Not Labour, which declined a second reading of the Welfare Reform Bill; after all, its attacks on disability and sickness benefits when in power laid the groundwork for the coalition's planned destruction of the Attlee settlement. And it won't be the press.

With most official statistics indicating that gutting welfare on the brink of a second recession will leave millions in penury, the government has resorted to stoking tabloid hysteria, feeding the weekend papers a ready-boxed scare story tied with a thick ribbon of prejudice. Details of the most ersatz claims used by fraudulent welfare claimants have been distributed to build the growing consensus that the poor are simply not worth looking after. This is a consensus that nobody in opposition seems to have the guts to challenge.

In reality, benefit fraud rates remain stubbornly low, at 1 per cent. For every person who claims that a fear of ladders prevents them from cleaning windows, there are 99 others for whom incapacity or unemployment benefits are a vital lifeline. So vital that staff at jobcentres have been issued a six-point plan for how to deal with rejected claimants at risk of suicide. The government appears relaxed about the human cost of welfare reform.

The headline figure is that benefit fraud costs taxpayers £1.6bn each year. That figure is a fabrication. According to statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions, this includes over £600m in "official" and customer errors. Factoring out pension scams, the figure is just £250m. To put that number in its proper context, the most conservative estimates hold that corporate tax avoidance costs the Treasury £25bn per year: 100 times the cost of benefit fraud.

Moral case

Threatening the workless with destitution may make good headlines but it is no way to increase employment when there are no jobs to go to.
Unemployment in Britain stands at 2.5 million, including almost a million under-25s. The employment minister, Chris Grayling, wants us to believe that the private sector will provide jobs for these people, as well as another million public-sector workers and welfare recipients who will soon be joining the dole queue. Unfortunately, private-sector employment has flatlined, there are six dole claimants for every vacancy and Father Christmas is just your dad faffing about in a nylon suit.

There used to be a liberal consensus that it was the government's responsibility to provide employment and ensure that those unable to work were entitled to a minimum standard of living. As the Welfare Reform Bill oozes unchallenged through the Commons, the real scandal is not that the government is lying through its teeth in order to justify its evisceration of the welfare state. The scandal is that no one in Westminster is prepared to make a moral case for welfare provision as the honest heart of social democracy.

Wednesday 8 June 2011

Public’s cash ‘leaked’ into RBS bonuses ...

... Taxpayer cash used to boost bankers’ bonuses admitted Royal Bank of Scotland boss Stephen Hester on Wednesday.

This was because there was an ‘implicit’ guarantee that the lenders would be bailed out in a crisis, he told MPs .

Asked about the ‘implicit subsidy’, he said: ‘The subsidy could have fed through to lots of places – the price of loans, the general economy, employment in banks and bonuses. I assume there would have been some leakage to all the above.’

It emerged earlier this year that more than 100 RBS staff were paid more than £1million each last year – despite losses exceeding £1billion.

The bonus pot for its investment bankers fell to £950million compared with £1.3billion in 2009.

RBS is 83 per cent owned by the taxpayer after a £45billion bailout and nearly £2 trillion in various forms of financing from the public purse to rescue the whole of the financial sector.


Local MP's call for 'fracking' inquiry

Ministers were facing growing pressure last night to investigate the safety and environmental impacts of drilling for shale gas after fears that it could have triggered two small earthquakes in Lancashire.

Critics say the released gas can contaminate local water supplies and that seismic activity could be linked with the technique. They also argue that prospecting for shale gas – which is banned in France, as well as New York and Pennsylvania states – leaves a far worse carbon footprint than conventional gas drilling.

Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has given the controversial technique, known as "fracking", a clean bill of health and insisted it is already subject to "robust" controls. The Commons Energy Select Committee has also backed the procedure, arguing that Britain could have considerable reserves of shale gas that should be exploited to reduce the country's reliance on energy imports.

But MPs of all parties told The Independent the time had come for government scientists to examine all the scientific evidence after signs that exploratory drilling could have caused tremors near Blackpool.

The energy company Cuadrilla Resources has suspended its operations in the area to investigate any possible connection with its activities. The process of fracking involves injecting fluids at high pressure deep underground to blast apart rocks in which gas could be trapped.

MPs last night demanded a thorough investigation by government scientists into the possible risks – and potential benefits – of fracking. Gordon Marsden, the Labour MP for Blackpool South, called on Mr Huhne to review all the evidence. "I will be writing to the department to say that, in the light of the moratorium the company has placed on [shale gas] drilling, it would be helpful if it could look at the issues sooner rather than later," Mr Marsden said.

He said the regulatory regime around the industry, which is still in its infancy in Britain, remained "very underdeveloped". He added: "There remain questions to be answered about the viability of the process." Eric Ollerenshaw, the Conservative MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood, said he wanted to see "real unbiased evidence about the pros and cons" of shale gas drilling. "We need a lot more information and a lot more public consultation," he said.

The Independent, 08/06/2011

Cameron's NHS spending pledge is worthless

The PM claims that spending will rise but the figures show that it will be frozen or even cut.

One of David Cameron's "five guarantees" on the NHS is that spending on the health service will rise "in real terms" over the course of this Parliament. In his speech on the NHS today, the PM boasted that there would be "£11.5 billion more in cash for the NHS in 2015 than in 2010". He added: "We are not cutting the NHS. In fact, we are spending more on it."

Cameron is referring to the fact that spending on the NHS, which currently stands at £102.9 bn, will rise to £114.4bn by 2014-15, a cash increase of £11.5bn. But what he ignores is that all of this increase will be swallowed up by inflation. The purchasing power of the NHS will be progressively reduced as the price of drugs and equipment continues to rise.

Once we take inflation into account, health spending will be frozen or even cut. As Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King's Fund, writes in the latest edition of the British Medical Journal, "by 2014-15 the amount of money the NHS has to spend in real terms, its purchasing power, will have gone down by 0.9%." Thus, not only will Cameron fail to meet his flagship pledge to increase spending on the NHS "in real terms", he will fail to even protect it from the cuts.

Of course, George Osborne could announce an inflation-busting increase in health spending to ensure the government keeps its pledge (although that would mean even larger cuts elsewhere). But for now, it's simply dishonest of Cameron to claim that he is raising spending on the NHS. Without any new money, his "spending guarantee" is worthless.

The New Statesman, 08/06/2011

Tuesday 7 June 2011

Vote Yes, Yes (or at least vote)


The Veterans Agency National Branch recommends that its members vote Yes, Yes in the campaign ballot arriving with you shortly.

However, whatever your personal view might be, we implore all members to use their ballots in this campaign, yes or no.

The government are watching turnout for our vote and the higher the figure the greater the weight of our members opinion.







So please, remember to vote.

Cameron's Permanent Secretary's Key Role in Southern Cross Scandal

Jeremy Heywood was a leading figure at investment bank Morgan Stanley, which advised on the sale of the troubled firm in 2006.

He is now David Cameron’s Permanent Secretary at Downing Street and is tipped to be the next Cabinet Secretary.

His No 10 role puts him at the nerve-centre of a Government that may end up using taxpayers’ money to bail out the residential care group.

It is not clear how much of a personal bonus Mr Heywood was paid for overseeing the Southern Cross float in 2006.

However banking sources said it is certain that he will have been handsomely rewarded for running the team which won it.

The floatation has been heavily criticised because it left the company financially vulnerable and unable to withstand the property crash of 2008.

Some 31,000 frail elderly people in 750 care homes face an uncertain future now Southern Cross is hovering on the brink of bankruptcy.

U.S. private equity firm Blackstone bought the firm in 2004, floated it on the stock market two years later and sold all its shares in 2007 – taking a huge profit.

A report by the GMB union reveals the controversial stock market floatation was guided by Morgan Stanley, where Mr Heywood was co-head of UK investment banking between 2004 and 2007 during a break from the civil service.

It advised Blackstone on the float, informing it of Stock Exchange rules, helping draw up a prospectus, setting the share sale price and attracting investors.

The 2006 float valued Southern Cross at £425million and released huge profits for directors and for Blackstone.

Morgan Stanley is believed to have shared in a £10million fee with other advisers, including Swiss bank UBS.

They all seem to be in it together.

Fight The Closure of Hoyle Resource Centre

Hoyle is a rehabilitation centre providing essential care for people between hospital and home, as well as respite for families/carers.


WHAT THE CLOSURE WILL MEAN:

Destroying jobs and communities

· Elimination of 23 beds providing an essential service to service users and their families

· Axing the jobs of about 30 dedicated staff, dramatically affecting the livelihoods of 30 families

Privatisation

· Private sector could not provide services on a par with dedicated Hoyle staff

Waste of money

· £750,000 was recently spent on an investment programme for Hoyle!!

DEFEND HOYLE SERVICE USERS!

DEFEND HOYLE STAFF!

RESIST PRIVATISATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES!

DEMONSTRATE

4.30PM

WEDNESDAY 8 JUNE

TOWN HALL, TALBOT SQ.

Thursday 2 June 2011

Zero pay increases in the public sector...

...whilst 3% increase in the private sector!

Public sector pay settlements were running at zero in the three months to April, for the first time since records began in the 1960s, research suggests.

The median pay settlement in the private sector rose to 3% from 2.5% in the three months to March, research group Incomes Data Services (IDS) said.

The public sector pay freeze was announced last year by the government as it tried to reduce the UK's deficit.

The TUC said the government was making public sector workers a "scapegoat".

The median figure is the one at which half of workers are getting a higher settlement and half are getting a lower one.

Bank of England policymakers will study the figures closely.

Some members have indicated that they are more likely to vote for a rise in interest rates if there is evidence that high inflation, currently at 4.5%, is leading to bigger wage increases.

'Key month'

IDS, which monitors annual pay settlements, said the increase in the private sector median reflected a rise in manufacturing pay awards.

"April is a key month for public sector pay reviews and the latest figures begin to show the effects of government policy on public sector pay," IDS said.

But it added that the median for the whole economy remains at 2.5%, despite the addition of the freezes in the public sector.

IDS said that some sectors in particular were starting to offer pay rises.

"There is a little bit of a return to normality in the private sector," Ken Mulkearn, editor of the IDS report, told the BBC.

"Industries like the car industry and parts of the utilities industry are leading the way on settlements, so they're good areas to work in terms of pay rises at the moment."

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said while it was encouraging to see private sector pay awards increase, they were still running significantly below inflation, and the public sector was still feeling the real pain.

"By forcing through pay cuts and seeking to increase pension contributions on top of heavy job losses, the government is making public servants the scapegoat for a financial crisis they played no part in causing," he said.

This idiot will now bailout private care homes...

...with our money of course.

Taxpayers face having to rescue more than 31,000 vulnerable people amid financial meltdown at the UK’s biggest care-home company.

The bill could run into hundreds of millions of pounds after ruthless City speculators left Southern Cross Healthcare in dire straits.

There is anger and outrage that so many lives have been thrown into turmoil through the actions of City venture capitalists.

The U.S. private equity firm Blackstone, led by Stephen Schwarzman, bought Southern Cross in 2004 for £162million and sold it three years later. It is believed to have quadrupled its investment.

But to achieve this it sold off the company’s homes, robbing Southern Cross of its capital and forcing it to lease the properties back from another company.

Downing Street announced yesterday that the Government will use public money to ensure those in the 750 affected homes can stay – amid warnings that moving them would lead to the deaths of the most vulnerable.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393294/Southern-Cross-Healthcare-destroyed-Stephen-Schwarzmans-private-equity-firm-Blackstone.html#ixzz1O6wcdM9y

Wednesday 1 June 2011

Coalition's £56m a day bill to private companies

The coalition has contracted private companies at the rate of nearly £56.6m a day since January, according to a Guardian analysis of government documents that casts new light on the extent of Whitehall's reliance on firms to do its work.

Nearly 3,000 contracts have been awarded this year, including a burgeoning bill for the government's reforms. They include unexpected costs arising out of the coalition's "bonfire of the quangos", new Whitehall advisers for "free" schools and contracts worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to help reform GP commissioning.

The Department for Education has tendered for "lead advisers" to support its reforms in free schools and academies while the Audit Commission, scrapped by the government, has had to spend thousands more because of its stalled closure.

There are four consultancy contracts to "aid the transition" to GP commissioning, a central part of the health bill. They are collectively worth up to £300,000. The government is conducting a so-called listening exercise during a natural pause in the legislation, which was set up in response to widespread opposition.

The details emerged amid 2,849 contracts each worth more than £10,000 signed by ministers since the turn of the year, revealing for the first time the rate and pace of government outsourcing.

On average contracts are being signed at a rate of £56.6m a day. There is some evidence of a spike in spending in the runup to the end of the financial year deadline of 1 April.

This gives an absolute lie to claims that they are cutting to save money. They are cutting for ideological reasons, and placing the public purse into provate hands.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/30/coalition-bill-private-companies

Government pension plans worse than anything we imagined

MoD group ballot circular 2 MoD/C/103/11

Think back to your school days and it is a pretty safe assumption that not many, if any of us at all wanted to choose the civil service as a career choice. However we are now all civil servants and the one benefit that many of us joined the civil service for – a fair and equitable pension – is under threat of obliteration.

The government is planning to cut your pension. They want you to pay more, work longer and get less. Pensions are deferred pay, so you are effectively being asked to take a pay cut. We urge you to vote YES YES to defend your pension.

Latest proposals

The latest government pension proposals in a leaked Treasury paper are devastating. The paper confirms the government's intention to abandon the current civil service pension scheme. It wants to introduce a new "career average pay" scheme, giving civil servants massively less.

Not only will contributions increase by 3.3 percent, they are suggesting you would only get 1/100 of career average pay for every year in the civil service. This compares to the current scheme that gives you 1/60 of final pay (premium scheme), or 1/80 of final pay (classic scheme) plus a lump sum payment, depending on when you joined the scheme.

Younger civil servants would have to work until 68 for a pension worth less than half of their career average pay. Older civil servants would earn far less pension between now and retirement. The Treasury proposals would mean you losing even more than our union had previously thought. They show just how badly the government's plans will affect our futures.

RPI to CPI

The government have already introduced a change from RPI to CPI indexation of our pensions with no negotiation and in breach of their own manifesto commitments to protect accrued rights – a change which will cost existing and future pensioners many thousands of pounds.

The effect of moving from RPI to CPI indexation will be huge. The RPI is a higher inflation measure than the CPI - 0.8 per cent a year on average since 2000 – so future pension increases will be lower. A civil servant retiring now with a £10,000 pension will lose £35,000 or more over the average 25-year retirement.

Who do you believe?

The government says this may not be its final position. However, the talks between unions and government are three months old - and the proposals the government has now brought to the table are worse than anything we imagined. The government wants discussions to finish by the end of June.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister leading the talks has said, “it is a fact that people are living longer, which means that pensions are costing significantly more. We cannot expect other taxpayers to fund the increased costs of our pensions, particularly at a time when for many of them their pension benefits have been significantly reduced."

Ex-Labour cabinet minister John Hutton was appointed to head a commission into public sector pensions in June 2010. Lord Hutton's interim report was announced in early October 2010. His report rejected the myth that public service pensions are 'gold plated' and argued against 'a race to the bottom'

More importantly, Hutton’s report and last week a separate Commons public accounts committee report confirmed that the 2006 changes to public sector pensions are reducing costs now and in the future and that public sector pensions are sustainable and affordable now and in the future.

The National Audit Office have also confirmed recently that the cost of public sector pension schemes will fall as planned – from 1.9% of GDP now to 1.4% of GDP in 2060.

However, chancellor George Osborne explicitly told parliament that ‘from the perspective of filling the hole in the public finances, we will seek changes that deliver an additional £1.8bn of savings per year in the cost of public service pensions by 2014-15’." So public sector pensions are being cut not because they are unaffordable or unsustainable but because there's a hole in the public finances. That hole was caused by the banking crisis and the recession that resulted.

Probably the most telling comment is from Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England: “The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it. I’m surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has.”

The alternative

There is an alternative. The government should:

  1. Create jobs to boost the economy
  2. Invest in housing and transport
  3. Collect the £120 billion in tax evaded, avoided and uncollected every year.

The Ministry of Defence should:

  • Civilianise the 40,000 non-deployable military personnel.
  • Remove consultants, contractors or agency staff
  • Examine contracts that charge ridiculous amounts for items or services
  • Reduce external spending in our department – in March this year, MoD spent £517,412,567.93 in external spending.

Conclusion

All of this shows that it's more important than ever that we get an overwhelming YES YES vote and a very high turnout in our national ballot. This will support our union and the other unions who are balloting in our negotiations with the government. Now is the time to act to defend your pensions - Vote YES YES and urge your colleagues to do the same.