2010 NEC elections results

The independent scrutineers’ report on voting in the above elections, which closed at 12 noon on Thursday 6th May 2010, is as follows:

President

Number of eligible voters: 287,506
Votes cast by post: 31,453
Total number of votes cast: 31,453
Turnout: 10.9%
Number of votes found to be invalid: 634
Total number of valid votes to be counted: 30,819

Result (1 to elect)

GODRICH, Janice (Department for Work & Pensions) 15,909 - ELECTED
BREEN, Diane (Department for Work & Pensions) 9,729
MOLONEY, John (Department for Transport) 5,181


Deputy President & Vice-Presidents


Number of eligible voters: 287,506
Votes cast by post: 31,453
Total number of votes cast: 31,453
Turnout: 10.9%
Number of votes found to be invalid: 631
Total number of valid votes to be counted: 30,822

Result (4 to elect)

The count was conducted in accordance with the constraints set out in Principal Rule 10A of the Union.

BEAN, Dave (HM Revenue & Customs) 16,166 Elected
MORRIS, Glenys (Ministry of Justice) 15,118 Elected
BOND, Sue (Equality & Human Rights Commission) 14,546 Elected
McINALLY, John (Department for Work & Pensions) 14,278 Elected
BRYSON, Rob (Department for Work & Pensions) 13,644
KURUP, Ravi (HM Revenue & Customs) 11,395
HENDERSON, Andrew (D.B.I.S.) 9,650
BROWNE, Marjorie (Department for Work & Pensions) 8,856


Ordinary Members


Number of eligible voters: 287,506
Votes cast by post: 31,453
Total number of votes cast: 31,453
Turnout: 10.9%
Number of votes found to be invalid: 565
Total number of valid votes to be counted: 30,888
Result (30 to elect)

The count was conducted in accordance with the constraints set out in Principal Rule 10A of the Union.

MERRY, Lorna (HM Revenue & Customs) 13,255 Elected
McFADDEN, Dominic (HM Revenue & Customs) 13,223 Elected
McHUGH, Kevin (HM Revenue & Customs) 12,866 Elected
WESLEY, Hector (HM Revenue & Customs) 12,698 Elected
LICENSE, Neil (HM Revenue & Customs) 12,584 Elected
KELLY, Emily (Land Registry) 12,277 Elected
HOLBOURNE, Zita (ACAS) 12,267 Elected
REID, Andy (HM Revenue & Customs) 12,262 Elected
BROWN, Paula (Health & Safety Executive) 12,204 Elected
HALL, Sam (Department for Work & Pensions) 12,153 Elected
FERGUSON, Mary (Department for Work & Pensions) 12,130 Elected
COMER, Steve (UK Border Agency) 12,113 Elected
BROWN, Alan (Department for Work & Pensions) 12,101 Elected
GEDLING, Cheryl (Scottish Government) 12,009 Elected
ALBERT, Ian (Department for Work & Pensions) 11,827 Elected
WILLIAMS, Rob (Department for Work & Pensions) 11,795 Elected
BREEN, Diane (Department for Work & Pensions) 11,734 Elected
LLOYD, Marion (D.B.I.S.) 11,727 Elected
DENNIS, Alan (Ministry of Defence) 11,586 Elected
BRYSON, Rob (Department for Work & Pensions) 11,524 Elected
GREENWAY, Kevin (Ministry of Justice) 11,519 Elected
KHALIF, Adam (Department for Work & Pensions) 11,461 Elected
CHILDS, Eddie (Ministry of Justice) 11,423 Elected
COLLIS, Simon (HM Revenue & Customs) 11,325 Elected
FRANKLAND-BARBER, Lynda (HM Revenue & Customs) 11,309 Elected
WILDE, Jake (HM Revenue & Customs) 11,293 **
DUNN, Joy (Scottish Government) 10,974 Elected
GREEN, Jackie (Ministry of Justice) 10,722 Elected
CONWAY, Tony (Government Offices) 10,717 Elected
JAMIESON, John (Registers of Scotland) 10,620 Elected
BAKER, Mark (Planning Inspectorate) 10,539* Elected*
WILLIAMS, Paul (Driving Standards Agency) 10,534*
DERBYSHIRE, Michael (Ministry of Justice) 10,423
KURUP, Ravi (HM Revenue & Customs) 10,386
MORRISON, Chris (Capgemini) 10,386
BARROWCLOUGH, Rachel (Department for Work & Pensions) 10,333
RICHARDS, David (Child Maintenance Enforcement Comm.) 10,329
MAGEE, Andy (HM Revenue & Customs) 9,937
FULLER, Howard (Department for Work & Pensions) 9,676
COVINGTON, Mary (D.B.I.S.) 9,290
NIMMO, Alan (Child Maintenance Enforcement Comm.) 9,181
DODD, Owen (Home Office Pay & Pension Services) 9,129
KANG, Gurmit (Department for Work & Pensions) 9,120
KIRKHAM, Frank (Ministry of Defence) 8,890
WRIGHT, Annette (Department for Work & Pensions) 8,847
HASKINGS, James (Cabinet Office) 8,801
COX, Joe (Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission) 8,761
LORD, Chris (D.B.I.S.) 8,738
HARKINS, Bernard James (Crown Office & Procurator F.S.) 8,735
GIESCHEN, Hubert (Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) 8,345
REYNOLDS, James (D.B.I.S.) 8,185
CAMPBELL, Moira (Child Maintenance Enforcement Comm.) 8,145
HENDERSON, Andrew (D.B.I.S) 7,922
HUZZARD, Rosie (Department for Work & Pensions) 7,321
LYONS, Gerry (HM Revenue & Customs) 7,013
LAIDLAW, Bev (Department for Work & Pensions) 6,904
RAFTERY, Theresa (Department for Work & Pensions) 6,614
BROWNE, Marjorie (Department for Work & Pensions) 6,607
BIRD, Nick (Department for Work & Pensions) 6,481
HUNTER, Peter (HM Revenue & Customs) 6,464
HULME, Christine (Department for Work & Pensions) 6,331
CATTEN, Sue (Department for Work & Pensions) 6,110
MOLONEY, John (Department for Transport) 5,906
THOMPSON, George (Department for Work & Pensions) 5,357
JOHNSON, Karen (D.C.L.G.) 4,996
RIGBY, Mike (Metropolitan Police Service) 4,717
KENNY, Martin (Government Offices) 4,669
HICKEY, Christopher (D.C.L.G.) 4,659
CROFT, Teresa (Metropolitan Police Service) 4,630
DUNBAR, Chris (Department for Work & Pensions) 4,344
OKONKWO, Damian (Metropolitan Police Service) 4,314
McNAUGHT, George Anthony (Metropolitan Police Service) 4,051
WINZAR, Stuart (Metropolitan Police Service) 3,853
IQBAL, Jawid (Highways Agency) 3,798
MEGONE, Tim (Treasury Solicitors Department) 3,538
VINCENT, Dave (Ministry of Justice) 2,964

*votes confirmed by recount.

**not elected due to limit of eight elected candidates from any one employer.

MAJOR VICTORY FOR UNION OVER PLANS TO CUT CIVIL SERVICE REDUNDANCY PAY

The Public and Commercial Services union has won a major legal victory against government plans to drastically cut civil service redundancy payments.

Following a two-day judicial review hearing in the High Court in April, Mr Justice Sales ruled today (10 May) that the previous government acted unlawfully when it introduced, without PCS’s agreement, a new redundancy scheme reducing the rights staff had accrued over time.

In what is a dramatic win for the union’s 270,000 public sector members, the judgement quashes a revised scheme that the government had sought to impose from 1 April.

It means the next government, when it is established, must reopen negotiations with the union if it is to agree a new arrangement that protects existing members’ rights.

The union has always maintained the changes to the civil service compensation scheme, which governs payments in the event of redundancy and early retirement, would have made it easier and cheaper to cut tens of thousands of civil service jobs and privatise more of our public services. It has also argued consistently that the government had no authority to act independently.

When PCS members took three days of strike action in March, including on budget day, Gus O’Donnell described it as “misguided” and Tessa Jowell, then the civil service minister said the “time for talking is over”.

Despite widespread anger among the government’s workforce, and opposition from 176 MPs including 121 Labour backbenchers, changes aimed at saving £500 million over three years were forced through. If they had been allowed to stand they would in many cases have robbed civil servants of thousands of pounds if they were forced out of their job.

Strike action was suspended during the election - though the union continued to campaign in targeted constituencies across the UK - but PCS now says a failure to comply with the ruling would risk angering civil servants still further, leading to the possibility of more industrial action.

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said:

"Our members in the civil and public services refused to sit back and watch their terms and conditions being ripped up in front of their eyes. Our members in the civil and public services refused to sit back and watch their terms and conditions being ripped up in front of their eyes. This ruling is a huge tribute to them for mounting one of the most impressive campaigns this union has seen, in the face of some disgraceful criticism from their employer and ministers.

We have always accepted that changes are necessary but all we ever asked is that they were fair and protected those who have given loyal service. We will now be knocking on the door of the next government to remind ministers they are legally obliged to reach an agreement with us. If they do not meet their obligations, the union will have to consider further industrial and legal action.”

Hugh Lanning, PCS deputy general secretary, called on the next government to comply with the judgement and enter into talks as a matter of urgency to reach a fair agreement for all civil servants, adding:

“This is a major victory for our members, who were being deprived of their rights by a government that refused to talk and reach agreement. Let’s hope the new government obeys the law.”

Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said:

“The law says that the government can’t change redundancy rights which have already accrued for civil servants unless the unions agree. As the judge said, this was unsurprising in the circumstances of civil service employment. PCS did not agree to the new scheme and so it was found to be unlawful.”

Eton Rifles.

David 'Call me Dave' Cameron's endorsement of The Jam’s 1979 anthem, The Eton Rifles, which the Conservative leader fondly recalled singing along to whilst studying at, er, Eton, has prompted a response from its creator.

Paul Weller popped up on Channel 4 News to point out that it was actually a song about class warfare specifically attacking Etonian privilege.

“If you can’t take the time or have the intellect to see what the song’s about, you haven’t got much chance of running the country, have you?” sniped Weller.

Bullseye!

Greece in ruins, but?

The Greek economy is heading towards insolvency with the EU looking to shore it up with massive loans only on proviso that the Greek people take savage cuts to their pay, pensions, jobs and services.

Meanwhile it is reported that wealthy Greeks are driving up London property prices in the £2 million plus range. In fact that end of the market has seen prices rise by some 21% in the last year... with wealthy Greeks accounting for 6% of all sales in the capital.

But whose money are they spending? If Greece is near bankrupt, how is it that all these wealthy Greeks can afford luxury property in London?

Voting Tory? Then get the facts...

If Cameron wins, he will not only thwart any move to fairer voting, he will act fast to rig the system in his favour. Even neutrals agree that his plan to cut the number of MPs by 10% – presented as a mere cost-cutting measure – will be one of the grossest acts of gerrymandering in British political history. Cameron will redraw the boundaries so that his rivals lose seats and he gains them, locking in a semi-permanent Conservative majority. Reform of our absurd, unelected second chamber will be postponed indefinitely, enabling Cameron to pack the Lords with his mates and sugar daddies, including perhaps a few more of those businessmen who so obligingly sided with the Conservatives in condemning Labour's plans for national insurance.

The Tories say they've ringfenced health spending, but check the small print. They plan to drop Labour's guarantee on waiting times. No longer will any patient be sure to see a cancer specialist within two weeks: under the Tories, that decision will be left to the consultant. Fine for the sharp-elbowed middle class, who are used to barging their way to the front of the queue. Not so good for the poorest who, all the data shows, struggle to get the most from public services.

Despite all the austerity talk, the Tories have clung to their promise to give an inheritance tax break to the 3,000 richest families in the country. In the words of Nick Clegg, it's the "double-millionaires" Cameron wants to help. And yet, given the hole in the public finances, cash will have to come from somewhere. The obvious source – not that the Conservative leader has ever been challenged on it – is an increase in VAT. That's the most regressive of all taxes, inflicting disproportionate pain on the poorest: pain that will only deepen with the coming Tory assault on tax credits. A third cause for alarm can be expressed in three words: Chancellor George Osborne.

This last downturn has not quite felt like the worst since the Great Depression, whatever the economists say. Unemployment, house repossessions and bankruptcies are all fractions of what they were in the 1990s recession. That's not by accident. It's a function of Labour's active interventionism, which has sought to reduce the impact of the downturn on those at the sharpest end. Such state activity clashes with every Conservative instinct. Cameron still describes government as more problem than solution. Last time the Tories were in charge, dealing with a recession that was actually much less severe, the pain was greater and the weakest suffered most. There is nothing in current Tory policy – despite Cameron's final debate plea to the camera that it's "the most vulnerable, the most frail and the poorest" he truly cares about – to suggest it won't be like that again.

Lancaster & Fleetwood Candidates CQT

Last Wednesday the main candidates in the Lancaster & Fleetwood ward took part in a question time organised by PCS in the Milto Street Centre. The following is a selection of their answers to a few questions:

Question 1: With all the main parties advocating cuts in public services, what assurances can you give me that I will still have a job in 12 months time?

Conservative:
· No party can make ultimate commitment to job security.
· Pay freeze in public sector over £18k
· Committed to stopping NI increase which would severely impact on NHS wage bill.
· Public Services need to be more efficient.
· There is a budget deficit crisis that needs dealing with.

Lib Dem:
· Wage bill majority of public spending.
· Look at where services are delivered and cut jobs strategically through voluntary redundancy.
· Senior Mgt reduction undertaken through negotiation with interested parties.
· Pay restraint of 2.5% or £400 per annum across the board.
· Public sector wages are an essential part of this constituencies economy, have been keeping it afloat in the downturn.

Labour:
· NI increase would mean that the govt can maintain investment in public services.
· Direct threat from Conservatives as they would not implement this.
· TUs should be included and negotiated with on all proposed changes to public services.
· As a trade unionist candidate, Civil Servants in this constituency should be assured that I will be looking out for their interests.

Green
· Raise taxation on the rich and large corporations.
· Cutting public services harms the most vulnerable in society.
· The low tax burden on the rich under this govt has led to public services being under-funded.
· Anyone earning over £110k would face a 50% tax rate.
· Impose an environmental tax to raise funds.
· Scrap Trident and ID cards to raise funds.
· Ordinary people are paying for financial sector mistakes, this should not continue.
· Leading economists are advising against the other parties approaches as could lead to a double-dip recession.

Question 2: What would the parties do to address the impending oil crisis outlined in the J.O.E report?

Labour:
· Will look at renewable energy including nuclear, wind farms, tidal barrages.
· Need to reduce carbon emissions.
· No clear answer but can’t afford to rely on fossil fuels.
· These new energy sources would see jobs being created in the constituency and 1.2million jobs nationally.

Conservative:
· Agree with Labour candidate.
· Shortage of fossil fuels and dependency on countries such as Russia are not helpful.
· Nuclear provides a secure option.
· Support investment in electric cars etc to reduce dependency on oil.

Green:
· Against nuclear power as it is dangerous and still no clear plan as to how to dispose of waste.
· The Green new deal would see investment in renewable energy and is a jobs rich policy.
· Would create 1m new jobs in this area.
· Supports our tax gap pledge in order to generate revenue, an easy win.

Lib Dem:
· Vitally important that public sector react to energy crisis to ensure sustainability.
· Support 10/10 Friends of the Earth initiative and has implemented it in his role on city council.
· Initiatives like 10/10 improve working conditions, bring savings and improve services for the public.
· Reducing energy consumption in public sector is essential and works.

Question 3: Do the candidates feel there is an increased apathy among the electorate?

Lib Dem:
· Not seeing apathy on doorstep.
· Leaders’ debates have seen a surge in interest especially among young people.
· Did see apathy around the time of Euro elections though as MPs expenses scandal broke in the right wing press and democracy suffered as a result.
· Would bring about electoral reform through single transferrable vote option.

Conservative:
· Real cynicism among electorate.
· TV debates have lifted the situation and more people getting involved as a result.
· Does not feel there will be as low a turn-out as expected.
· Need for meaningful Electoral Reform – constituent representation.

Labour:
· Recession and expenses has caused disengagement in electorate, the lowest point being during European elections.
· Economy has improved and changes to expenses procedure been implemented to improve transparency has improved things.
· TV debates has grown enthusiasm.
· Electoral Reform is essential and included in Labour manifesto, they will abolish House of Lords, form a second chamber which will be proportionally representative and hold referendum on constituency reform.

Green:
· Feels people are despairing and are looking for change.
· Green Party should have had a platform within Leaders debates.
· In 1997 public were excited by Labour landslide but have been let down.
· Green Party would see electoral reform through proportional representation which the Conservative party are against.

Question 4: Do GM crops cause more problems than they solve?

Green:
· GM crops causing serious problems not a solution.
· Seeds are being patented which is having a devastating effect on Farmers.

Conservative:
· Agree with Green Party.
· Need to improve food labelling to make it clearer.

Lib Dem:
· Agree with all of the previous candidates.
· Need to move towards more locally sourced food.

Labour:
· Agree with all the other candidates’ points.
· Need to ensure we know our food sources.

Whose policy is it...

...that allows the richest people in Britain to have seen a record boom in wealth over the past year.

Their fortunes have soared by 30% even though much of the UK is struggling to recover from recession and the near-collapse of the banking system.

It is the largest rise in wealth since the rich list was first published 21 years ago. The 2010 Sunday Times Rich List, published today, reveals that the 1,000 richest people in the country increased their wealth by £77 billion last year, bringing their total wealth to £335.5 billion — it is startling that as a nation we are struggling with a £170 billion deficit... or just over double the amount that the richest have profited from... in one short year!

And be in no doubt that it is from us and us alone that this profit has come. We have directly injected cash into banks, finance and property... and it is in these areas that the rich have benefited most, profiting from our pay, our pensions and our jobs. The economy has not grown at all (well 0.2%) so where else can the ruling elite have made such gains if not from the money we have injected ostensibly to fend off a double dip recession. All the while they have been taking a multiple dip into the cash we have provided to support the economy.

In short we have been robbed and spectacularly so by the greediest and most venal bunch of wastrels in the history of the world.

All of this begs the question why is it all we have heard from the politicians has been an asinine debate about a mere £6 billion in national insurance increase that again the richest object to most. It can only be that all the main parties are mere puppets of the vested interests that mean to go on getting richer whatever the cost to the majority.

PCS Elections

The following slates were agreed by members at the AGM:

PCS NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (NEC) ELECTIONS
President:
GODRICH, Janice DWP - Glasgow South
Vice President:
BEAN, Dave – HMRC Leicester
BOND, Sue – PSG EHRC
McINALLY, John DWP - Avon
MORRIS, Glenys – MoJ, London Courts
NEC
ALBERT, Ian – DWP HQ London
FERGUSON, Mary – DWP Tyneview Park
McFADDEN, Dominic – HMRC Intelligence & Investigation
BAKER, Mark – DfT/DCLG/GO ETR Bristol & South West
GEDLING, Cheryl – Scot Exec Central
MCHUGH, Kevin – HMRC Benton Park View
BROWN, Alan – DWP, Glasgow North
GREENWAY, Kevin - MOJ
MERRY, Lorna – HMRC Bucks & Oxon
BROWN, Paula – HSE HALL, Sam – DWP Highlands & Islands
MORRISON, Chris – Com Sec, Telford Aspire
CHILDS, Eddie - MOJ HOLBOURNE, Zita - DTI ACAS National
REID, Andy – HMRC Westminster Valuation
COMER, Steve – HMRC South West JAMIESON, John – PSG Registers of Scotland RICHARDS, Dave – DWP West London
CONWAY, Tony – Gov Off West Midlands KELLY, Emily – Land Registry Lytham and Lancashire
STEEPLES, Victoria - OFT
DENNIS, Alan – MOD Central London
KHALIF, Adam – DWP DWP HQ (London)
WESLEY, Hector – HMRC London West Revenue
DERBYSHIRE, Mike – MoJ Hampshire & Isle of Wight
LICENSE, Neil – HMRC Yorkshire & North Lincs
WILLIAMS, Paul – DfT/DCLG/GO ETR Nottingham Branch
DUNN. Joy – Scot Exec Leith
LLOYD, Marion – DfES Sheffield
WILLIAMS, Rob – DWP Bradford

MoD Group Elections

President :
Chris DANDO (Foxhill)
Vice President:
KC JONES (Leconfield)
Treasurer :
John WILSON (West Midlands)
Organiser
Jim WILLIAMSON (High Wycombe)
Assistant Secretaries
Dougie BROWNLIE (Scotland West)
Ian CRAVEN (Yorkshire) Kerstine
HILLARY (Scotland East)
KC JONES (Leconfield)
Steve ROBINSON (Abbey Wood Filton)
John RUSSELL (Yorkshire)

GEC
Dougie BROWNLIE (Scotland West)
Ian CRAVEN (Yorkshire)
Sandra CRAVEN (Yorkshire)
Colin CUNNINGHAM (Mildenhall/Lakenheath)
Kerstine HILLARY (Scotland East)
Robert Jacks (Scotland West)
John LYONS (Scotland West)
Angy McKENZIE (Central London)
James RATCLIFF (Central London)
Steve ROBINSON (Abbey Wood Filton)
Eric ROTHERY (Gloucester)
John RUSSELL (Yorkshire)
Kevin TOLMIE (Scotland East)
Jim WILLIAMSON (High Wycombe)
John WILSON (West Midlands)

Group Auditors
John DIXON (Leconfield)
Paul WHITELEY (Leconfield)
Standing orders committee
Stephen SHIPMAN (Mildenhall/Lakenheath)

Its the economy, Stupid!

In a surprise move today 77 of the worlds leading economists have written to The Times newspaper supporting Gordon Brown over the elections key economic argument. The economists argue that Tory plans to axe £6 billion of government spending this year would cost jobs, risk tipping the economy back into recession and imperil efforts to cut the deficit.

Tories argue that leading businesses are on their side which is true. But unfortunately for them, it is also revealled today that these very same businesses are killing smaller businesses by failing to pay their bills timeously. It is understood that as much as £15 Billion is owed by the big to the small for over 120 days! In total it is understood that at any given time the biggest businesses owe the smallest over £45 Billion!

Effectively these Tory supporting captains of industry use the smallest as de facto interest free lending banks. And they baulk at paying tax? Now there's a surprise!

Branch election update

Members will be aware that prior to the Annual General Meeting of 2010 the branch conducted an electoral ballot for the office of Branch Treasurer.

There were two candidates, Christopher Senior and Gavin Fox.

As announced at the AGM, I confirm that Christopher Senior was re-elected to the position of Veterans Agency National Branch Treasurer.

Congratulations to Chris and commiserations to Gavin.

Kenneth Riley - I fought the Nazis. Will you?

The following was from a Hope Not Hate mailing:

When I enlisted in the army 66 years ago, I did it for Britain.

Now I need you to do something for me.

The BNP is trying to strangle our great nation with the same extremist and fascist agenda that Hitler's Nazis threatened us with decades ago. Today, the war isn't being fought on the battlefield - but in the ballot box.

Hope Not Hate is on the front lines of our fight. They're organising to make sure modern-day Nazis aren't elected on 6 May and to preserve the Britain for which I fought so hard. If I had my health I would be out there with them. But I can't - so I'm writing to ask you to volunteer for me.

Please join Hope Not Hate's Day of Action this weekend - the campaign has laid on transport to help you get to the areas in which you are needed the most:

http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/fightthenazis

I was barely in my twenties when I went to fight for Britain. I left home with friends - all young lads like myself - and many never returned.

Today, the BNP salute and say "Heil Hitler" - and they support the same all-white Britain. They're proud of what the Nazis did to my friends, and what they did to millions of innocent people throughout Europe.

We didn't fight with our lives on the line years ago just to be right back here today.

We need to do everything we can to stop the BNP from being elected to local councils and to Parliament. Those boys lost to the war would proudly go door-to-door with Hope Not Hate to fight against the fascist BNP today.

There are no tanks and no guns in this fight - but we still need your courage to speak out.

Attend a Hope Not Hate event this weekend and join the fight against fascism:

http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/fightthenazis

The elections on 6 May are personal to me - and I hope they will be to you. I'd like to thank you in advance for your service.

Yours,

Kenneth Riley
Normandy Veteran - Tank Division

Policies? Manifestos? Facts?

It is very hard for us to make a serious choice in this election without talking about one factor above all others – class. This isn't about David Cameron's background; it's about his policies. It is a provable fact that he will redistribute wealth – substantially – but in a strange direction: from everyone in the big wide middle and bottom of British society, to the very top.

Here are some facts.

Dave will hand a £1.2bn inheritance tax cut to the richest 2 per cent in Britain – with most going to the 3,000 wealthiest estates (including his wife's).

Then Dave promises to end the 50p top rate of tax, giving another £2.4bn to the richest 1 per cent.

Then he has pledged to cut taxes on the pensions of the richest, handing another £3.2bn to the same 1 per cent.

Then his marriage tax relief policies will give 13 times more to the rich than the poor. To pay for this, he will slash programmes for the middle and the skint, like the Child Trust Fund, SureStart and state schools.

We also know that tens of thousands of public sector jobs and the very services they maintain are under serious threat of cuts and sell off to the private sector. We also know that this branch is comitted to Public Services, Before Private Profit.

Fact!

(courtesy of Johann Hari at the Independent)

Tories' public sector jobs savings 'cost 40,000 jobs'

The Conservatives would cut up to £2 billion from the public sector payroll, according to their key efficiency adviser, in a move which could lead to the loss of 40,000 jobs.

Sir Peter Gershon, who defected from Labour to join a Tory advisory panel in December, laid out for the first time how the Tories plan to make a total of £12 billion of savings.

The Tories have consistently said that more needs to be done to tackle the deficit, but to date they have been reluctant to give a breakdown of how they would achieve the extra £12bn of cuts, which would come on top of £15bn of savings that Labour has said it would make.

The £12bn of savings would be twice the cost of the Conservatives' plan to limit Labour's proposed National Insurance rises, which has dominated the first few days of the election campaign.

Speaking on Friday morning, David Cameron said: "We are saying that you need to go further and faster in public spending [cuts] than Labour."

Corporate Greed Before Public Services

30 more British corporations have unsurprisingly come out in favour of Tory plans to give them tax breaks at the expense of what they euphemistically term "government waste" and we know to be our jobs, our pay and our pensions.

To counter this, we suggest that we could all do our personal bit towards protecting our jobs, our pay and our pensions. The immediate and most effective way would be for us all to boycott goods and services of all of those companies with immediate effect. Companies such as easyJet and Travelodge, as well as the more usual suspects such as Virgin and B&Q. Even better would be to write or email such companies and let them know how you feel.

The full list of greedy corporations sucking up today to gain the patronage of the percieved victors of the next election are:

Kirby Adams, Chief Executive, Corus; Surinder Arora, Chairman, Arora International Hotels; Stefan Barden, Chief Executive, Northern Foods; Robert Bensoussan, Executive Chairman, LK Bennett; Simon Blagden, Chairman, Fujitsu Telecommunications (Europe); Tony Brown, Chief Executive, Beales; Chris Dawson, Founder and Managing Director, The Range; Sir John Egan; Ralph Findlay, Chief Executive, Marston’s plc; Stephen Goodyear, Chief Executive, Young & Co’s Brewery PLC; Anthony Habgood, Chairman, Reed Elsevier; Andy Harrison, Chief Executive, easyJet; Peter Harrison, Chief Executive, Furniture Village; Grant Hearn, Chief Executive, Travelodge; Peter Hindle, Chief Executive, Jewson; Neil Hornby, Chairman, Hornby plc and Umeco plc; Luke Johnson, Founder of Risk Capital Partners and Chairman of Royal Society of Arts; John King, Chief Executive, House of Fraser; Richard Kirk, Chief Executive, The Peacock Group; Simon Lockett, Chief Executive, Premier Oil Plc; Rick Medlock, CFO, Inmarsat Plc; Mike Norris, Chief Executive, Computacenter; Tony Pidgeley, Group Chairman, Berkeley Group Holdings Plc; Jamie Ritblat, Chief Executive, Delancey; Nick Robertson, Chief Executive, ASOS; Tim Steiner, Chief Executive, Ocado; Michael Turner, Chief Executive, Fuller, Smith & Turner Plc; Tom Wells, Chairman, Charles Wells Ltd and Muntons plc; Nick Wheeler, Founder, Charles Tyrwhitt; Bob Wigley, Chairman of Sovereign Reversions plc.

Redundancy Payouts Cut To Statutory Minimum

QinetiQ's new chief executive wants to cut redundancy payouts to the statutory minimum – a maximum of 30 weeks' pay for older workers – later this year, as the company plans to make 1000 of its 6500 workers redundant. He also wants to cut the notice period of six months for compulsory redundancy, along with other staff terms and conditions.

These are the same minimum terms that are being forced upon us under the new terms of Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

Read more here.

Teachers join civil servants fight

Following a rousing speech by Mark Serwotka to the National Union of Teachers yesterday, they voted to combine forces with PCS, the biggest civil service union, to hold simultaneous strike ballots if pay is frozen or pensions and working conditions are cut.

Delegates at the NUT conference chanted “the workers, united, will never be defeated”, fists raised, during a standing ovation for the call by Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, for co-ordinated action across the public sector.

“Our message to the politicians should be simple,” Mr Serwotka told the NUT. “If you’re coming for our jobs, our pensions, our services and our education, we are going to stand together and we are going to defend them. And we are going to take united industrial action as a last resort, if we have to, because we know it’s the best way of defending ourselves.”

Cartoon of the day...

Civil servants to pay for Tory tax cut

The 'Boy' George Osborne said today that thousands of public sector posts would be left unfilled and major IT projects would be axed under Tory plans to give tax cuts following a general election.

This will be the thin end of a very large wedge.

If they are successful in the next election, you can bet two things... attacks on our right to take industrial action... followed by huge cuts in public sector jobs, pay and pensions.

Read more here.

I bet that subsidies to wealthy landowners go untouched though!

Read here how Samantha Camerons father-exploits Labours green subsidy for wind farm and nets himself £3.5m a year

NO EXEMPTIONS IN THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

In the days leading up to the industrial action on 8 and 9 March, the department wrote to our union asking for exemptions to the industrial action in certain areas of the Ministry of Defence. Whilst our union has this list, we will not be publishing it, as we firmly believe every single PCS member in the Ministry of Defence is of value to the department.

The list is extremely useful, however and we will be using it in future, but for different reasons to those intended by MoD management!

It is extremely significant that by sending us the list and asking for exemptions, the department is admitting that certain functions and certain personnel within the MoD are absolutely vital. There are undoubtedly some jobs that support the front line more directly than others, but whether you are a guard at Walker House in Liverpool, a PPPA case advisor in Bath or the permanent under secretary in Main Building, London, every civilian worker in our department contributes to the support to the front line.

However, every single civilian worker in our department is also affected by the proposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme (CSCS). The MoD have not written to the Cabinet Office with the list of what they deem to be essential personnel asking for exemption to the changes proposed to the CSCS. The MoD is quite happy to ask for exemptions and goodwill from our union, but is unwilling to safeguard the very members it wants exempted!!

Therefore, our union will be granting no exemptions in the industrial action on 24 March. Loyal, hardworking MoD employees are having their loyalty and dedication firmly thrown back in their faces by an uncaring, yet deceitful employer.
Every PCS member will now be aware of the privatisation and job cuts agenda being put forward as manifesto pledges by all of the mainstream political parties. If and when any of these proposals reach fruition, we will be cross-referencing the threatened areas with the list of exemptions requested by MoD management to this industrial action.

If we find a single job that is threatened, we will ask a simple question – if these members of staff are so important to the Ministry of Defence that they need exempted from industrial action, why are you now selling them off or pushing them out the door?

Finally, please make non-members aware of the threat to their compensation scheme entitlements and ask them to join our union. We appeal to every branch and member to consider what they can do to help our union become stronger. We have proven that when we stand together we can resist attacks from the employer and defend our jobs. Make sure everyone where you are is in our union and is prepared to stand up and defend our entitlements and our jobs.

THE CAMPAIGN CONTINUES; ALL OUT ON 24 MARCH - NO JOB CUTS ON THE CHEAP.

Feedback from Picket Lines for 8 & 9 March Action

PCS members in the MoD group have delivered massive support for action in defence of the civil service compensation scheme on 8 and 9 March.


The action was also well supported across our union as a whole, which has undoubtedly had a massive impact on the delivery of the services that PCS members provide across the civil and public service. This will send a clear message to the government that our union will not allow them to tear up our contracted accrued rights without a fight.


The report backs from picket lines have been fantastic for the MoD group with all but one indicating that this is the best-supported action in recent memory. We believe that up to 80% of MoD members observed the action. This is a clear indication of members’ anger and resolve to make a stance to defend our accrued rights.


Attached is a leaflet that gives you a feel of the support we delivered on the 8 & 9 March. Click here to access it. We should be proud of what we achieved.


There are still report backs missing from 25 of our branches, which we know in most cases they had picket lines. We have however 9 branches that did not have picket lines on either of the days.


I hope you find this useful when going out to members to show the impact and support that we delivered.


You have already contributed to put intense pressure on the Government to re-open negotiations. The media coverage was unprecedented both at a national and a local level and we were able to get our message out to a wider audience. More MP’s have now signed Early Day Motion (EDM) 252 up to 162 which represents 1/3 of all MP’s eligible to sign an EDM.


It is now necessary to increase the pressure further before the 1st April when the Government are attempting to force through these proposals. Therefore the National Executive Committee has called a further day of strike action on the 19 March. We still believe that there is the opportunity for a negotiated settlement if there is the will on the part of our employer. But they still need to see our strength of feeling against their actions so far.


We are asking you to dig deep to keep the pressure up and take this next step on 24 March.

Further Industrial Action 24th March 2010

After the successful industrial action combating the Governments reprehensible attack on the CSCS – a term and condition of service that the Government intend to unilaterally alter to all staff’s detriment, a move that heralds a fresh round of job loses and privatisations – the Civil Service are all out on Budget Day Wednesday 24th March.

Some members have wondered why communication has been low on this, it is because our management would discipline the local reps if we used facility to communicate industrial action. The flyers we put round Tomlinson House today were printed privately and distributed in reps own time. This is also why we cannot email such things as voting figures round the membership, a question we have been asked, except on a one on one basis when directly requested. However the figures are there for all to see on the PCS homepage.

Many thanks to all those who took part in the 8th and 9th action. We hope you’ll join us in unity again to send a message to Tessa Jowell that she cannot tear our contracts up like this. Lets face it, the answer to why are the very bankers who led us to financial ruin were not having their obscene bonuses removed was… They have contracts. Tessa, so do we. Lord Ashcroft may be a very naughty boy but the Government won’t tackle his obscene disregard of UK tax law as it is “retrospective”. But the attack on the CSCS is retrospective.

The idea that all civil service unions bar PCS have agreed the changes is actually a misrepresentation of the truth. There are other unions opposing these changes also but, remember this. We represent 80% of the civil service.

One Out – All Out.

What Financial Crisis?

The number of billionaires has soared in the past year, and dozens of people who lost that elite status in the credit crisis have won it back as stock markets and commodities prices have rebounded.

If you want to know what a billion looks like: its this £1,000,000,000. That is one thousand millions.


The March edition of Forbes magazine, out today, has become essential reading for the world's super-rich. While many studiously try to protect their privacy and stay below the radar, others have hired public relations advisers to make sure they get on the list. The US still dominates the list of billionaires, which is 1,011 long this year. That is up from 793 of 2009, largely thanks to the rebound in commodities prices which has brought many Russians back into the elite club.

If you wonder how much money they have between them the number looks something like this:

£1,011,000,000,000 at the bare minimum. That number is over a trillion.

Get a load of this: The world's richest people:

1 Carlos Slim Helu (last year: 3) $53.5bn (last year: $35.0bn)
The cigar-puffing 70-year-old took control of Mexico's telecoms monopoly and now owns the largest mobile operator in Latin America.

Bill Gates (1) $53.0bn ($40.0bn)
Gates's wealth is still largely tied up in Microsoft, though he spends his time now on philanthropy.

3 Warren Buffett (2) $47.0bn ($37.0bn)
Close to his 80th birthday, the investment guru has begun giving his fortune away to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

4 Mukesh Ambani (7) $29.0bn ($19.5bn)
Won the lion's share of his father's Indian conglomerate, Reliance Industries, in a carve-up with his brother, Anil.
5 Lakshmi Mittal (8) $28.7bn ($19.3bn)
The Indian-born, London-based steel tycoon lost more than half his fortune in 2008, but since then commodities prices have bounced back.

6 Larry Ellison (4) $28.0bn ($22.5bn)
He founded and still runs the database software firm Oracle, but he is happiest these days sailing and won the America's Cup in February.

7 Bernard Arnault (15) $27.5bn ($16.5bn)
Europe's richest man built LVMH, which owns Louis Vuitton, Moët et Chandon and Hennessey.

8 Eike Batista (61) $27.0bn ($7.5bn)
Born to a German mother and Brazilian father, he floated his oil and gas firm just when the oil price peaked.

Our PCS strike was no mistake

Critics of the recent PCS strike have their numbers wrong – cuts pose a real threat to vulnerable, low-paid civil servants, says Mark Serwotka in todays Guardian

I read with dismay the two articles on Comment is Free written during our 48-hour strike on 8 and 9 March. The first, by the pseudonymous "Kurt Chapman", is a frightening combination of mathematical inaccuracy and personal attack. PCS members are not the dupes of my ego, as he insultingly suggests, but well-informed and dedicated public servants who know precisely what an attack on their terms looks like, and overwhelmingly supported the strike. If the ethereal Kurt wishes to join the debate he should discard the cloak of anonymity.

Phillip Inman, like the cabinet office minister Tessa Jowell, talks about bringing the civil service into line with the rest of the public sector, but there is no attempt to do this on pay. That renowned friend of the workers Margaret Thatcher agreed our redundancy terms, which recognised that our pay rates are lower than elsewhere. Civil servants earned an average salary of just £22,850 last year, lower than the averages in both the rest of the public sector and in the private sector.

It seems only a levelling-down of workers' entitlements is OK. Yes, some workers have worse conditions, but as our rep Andy Thomas pointed out in a media interview yesterday, "that's an argument for everyone in the country to be paid the minimum wage, it's an argument for everyone in this country to sleep under Waterloo Bridge".

People join unions to defend their interests against employers' attempts to attack their terms and their job, and to stop an employer-driven race to the bottom on pay, pensions and other terms and conditions. PCS members have contractual rights, and they are determined to defend them. The action on 8 and 9 March was tremendously well supported, showing the depth of feeling on this, with rallies in every region and widespread media coverage.

To compare civil servants with fat-cat bankers getting bonuses of millions on top of six- or seven-figure salaries, as Philip Inman does, is like comparing common assault with genocide. Few of my members will recognise the picture painted of "generous pay, homes and sundry benefits". Bailed-out banks, which caused this whole economic crisis, are giving away billions in taxpayers' cash to already ludicrously wealthy individuals.

Like his anonymous companion, Inman also gets his maths wrong, and my union would love to meet the actuary who came up with his pension figures of a civil servant paid £30,000 enjoying a £20,000 pension. The average civil service pension is just £4,200.

Any civil servant earning more than £20,000 will be worse off under the government's proposals. Anyone leaving on voluntary terms will also see a potential cut, and for most people the entitlement to an early pension is lost. And because of these savings, everyone's job is more vulnerable because entire workforces will be cheaper to sack or to privatise – and all three parties are telling our members that's what's in store.

Nearly 100,000 posts have been lost in the civil service in the last five years, and this attack on redundancy terms makes every single member more vulnerable. The reality of those working in the civil service is one of lower pay than in the rest of the public sector and the private sector, and considerable job vulnerability.
The government's motivation is crude cost-cutting, not justice for the low-paid or equity for the young. None of the proposed savings are being recycled into better pay or better pensions for the young. They are part of the grand redistribution from taxpayers and all workers to prop up the bank-led casino economy, which the government was lauding right up until it collapsed causing this crisis, and seems determined to excuse from any reparations now.

The message from PCS members, echoing around Europe, is that we will not pay for the failure of the bankers and the politicians who deregulated and let it happen. Attempts to create false divides between young and old or public and private will not wash. The people of the UK know they are being fleeced not by low-paid civil servants, but by fat-cat bankers and their compliant politicians.

Striking civil servants' defiant message

By Joe Robinson Blackpool Gazette

PUBLIC sector workers – in the middle of a two-day strike – insist they are fighting for the economic future of the Fylde coast.

Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) members took to the picket lines at Norcross, Warbreck and St Annes yesterday at the start of the 48-hour walkout.Workers taking part in industrial action include court staff, job centre employees, those working at benefit offices, tax centres and the Coastguard, which is still answering emergency call outs. No vital services were affected by the walkout.Public sector services remained open, although the Coastguard, members of the PCS, did not respond to routine calls.Fylde coast union chiefs say they are furious about plans by the Government to reduce redundancy compensation, which they believe is a pre-cursor to widespread cuts.

Ian Melvin, branch secretary of the PCS at Norcross, warned the Government's plans could lead to huge job losses.He said: "The Government is really taking the axe to the compensation prior to making people redundant or transferring people to contractors in the private sector."This could have a huge impact on the Fylde coast and around a third of staff could be made redundant in the near future."We really are fighting for the economic future of the region because the Government is one of the biggest employers."

Rally

Please see below the details for Monday's rally. Start time no later than 12.30.

Preston

55th Division Club
119 Church Street Preston Lancashire PR1 3BT
Refreshments available from 12.00pm

CHAIR: Dave Wilson, Vice-Chair PCS NW Regional Committee
Emily Kelly, PCS National Executive Committee
Avis Gilmore, NUT Regional Secretary

ALL OUT ON 8TH AND 9TH MARCH – NO JOB CUTS ON THE CHEAP

As we build towards the industrial action on 8 and 9 March, it has been reported that the defence select committee have major questions over a £21 billion funding gap in our department stating responses from the department have been, “at best confused and unhelpful, at worst deliberately obstructive".

In recent months in the Ministry of Defence, we have seen:

· PR10 options being drafted that plan to cut thousands of jobs
· The Grimstone review looking for a minimum of £180 million of savings through cutting yet more civil service posts
· Announcements made to the media to close MoD sites before staff have been informed, far less consulted
· All mainstream political parties promising pay freezes or pay curbs (as MP's vote themselves a £1,000 rise!!)
· Continuous attacks on MoD civilian staff by discredited politicians
· Attacks on overtime
· Attacks on travel and subsistence

If we do have a £21 billion black hole, the strategic defence review that will be undertaken after the general election will undoubtedly make all of the above look like small fry in comparison.

It will not be thousands of jobs that will be under threat, or millions of pounds to be saved. It will be tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds required.

If the changes to the compensation scheme are forced through, it will mean your job is under threat, and if this happens then the department will get rid of you cheaply. Forget the many years loyal, dedicated service you have put in, forget that wee bit extra you have put in on countless occasions – you are just a number who will be discarded without a second thought.

The Ministry of Defence like every other governmental department is now only interested in numbers – financial numbers to make the balance sheet meet at the end of the year. Anything, or anybody else is incidental.

In the PCS MoD group, we have held over 130 CSCS meetings since last Autumn, speaking to approximately 8,000 members. Almost universally, MoD members have supported our union’s campaign and campaigning objectives. Next Monday and Tuesday we know that already we will have over 50 picket lines at MoD sites, and this number is growing by the hour.

It is now time for every PCS member in the Ministry of Defence to stand together and get fully behind our union. We have proven that when we stand together we can resist attacks from the employer and defend our jobs. Make sure everyone where you are is in our union and is prepared to stand up and defend our entitlements and our jobs.

ALL OUT ON 8TH AND 9TH MARCH – NO JOB CUTS ON THE CHEAP

Bob Rollings Chris Dando KC Jones

PCS response to Bill Jeffrey

To: All Members (1:10) MoD/MB/18/10

Dear Colleagues,

It is regrettable that our Permanent under Secretary, Bill Jeffrey, has chosen to intervene in the ongoing Civil Service Compensation Scheme dispute and sought to undermine our union’s campaign to defend members’ terms and conditions.

At a time when confidence and belief in the leadership of the department is at an all time low, as demonstrated by the recent Your Say survey results, it is even more unfortunate that he chooses to do so using spin and propaganda rather than a genuine attempt to debate the issues and negotiate a settlement to the dispute.

Our union must respond to this blatant attempt to undermine our industrial action, properly called after a democratic ballot, but also firmly rebut the myths and half-truths he uses to defend the indefensible.

Myth 1 - “Someone aged 46, on a salary of £25,000 a year and with 25 years service, being made redundant would have entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,550 in many private sector organisations. In the Civil Service, under the new terms, it would be £60,000.”

Fact 1 – Leaving aside the fact that MOD’s Permanent under Secretary seems happy that his department should now aspire to treat his staff like the worst private sector employers (which may go some way to explain the Your Say survey results!) the fact remains that at the moment, that same individual would receive a payment of £75,000, therefore they stand to lose £15,000 under the new proposals. Also, all staff currently aged under 50 will lose the entitlement to enhanced pension under FER/CER terms once they reach the age of 50. So under this scheme, future long-serving civil servants will be worse off than now.

Myth 2 – “For nearly 50% of civil servants earning £20,000 or less there will be little difference between the current and the new terms; indeed some people will be better off under the new terms.”

Fact 2 - Almost every member will be potentially worse off in the event of voluntary redundancy because management will have almost complete discretion. PCS campaigning so far has forced the Cabinet Office to improve their offer six times, but there is still further room for improvement so that all civil servants, even Permanent under Secretaries, suffer no detriment.

Myth 3 – “Anyone being made compulsorily redundant under the new terms with more than 14½ years of service will get, as a minimum, compensation of two years’ pay.”

Fact 3 – But only if your compensation payment for two year’s salary is less than £60,000. If it is more than £60,000, you will be capped at this figure. Members with pre-1987 reserved rights, the majority of whom this will affect stand to lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Myth 4 – “There is special protection for those close to retirement; specifically anyone over 50 (and with at least 5 years’ service) on 31 March 2010 who is made compulsorily redundant in the future will continue to benefit from the current terms by reference to their service as at March 2010.”

Fact 4 – Any service that is accrued from April 2010 will be on the new, much weaker terms. With all mainstream political parties promising pay freezes or pay curbs, the likelihood is that the majority of civil servants will now have to work till late in their 60’s to make ends meet, therefore on many occasions, members will have to work ten, fifteen, sometimes more years on the much inferior terms. It is also worth noting that under the current proposals, the entitlement to enhance pension will be abolished for staff who become 50 in the future (approx 70% of PCS members).

Myth 5 – “It is also very important to say that all of the other unions involved in the CSCS negotiations – the FDA, Prospect, Prison Officers’ Association, the GMB and Unite – have agreed the new terms as being fair and balanced.”

Fact 5 – PCS is the largest civil service union, with three times as many civil service members as the others unions combined. It is PCS members who would be most at risk from cuts in the future. In their latest bulletin, Prospect have grudgingly had to admit this – “On a straightforward count of members this is true.” What other basis is there?

However, what other unions may have agreed to is between their leadership and their members, many of whom seem distinctly underwhelmed by the ‘deal’ struck on their behalf without consultation.

Myth 6 – “Such action will be neither understood nor supported by people employed elsewhere in the economy where redundancy terms remain much less generous than those in the Civil Service.”

Fact 6 – Most people employed elsewhere will understand that having detrimental changes to their terms and conditions imposed on them is the act of a bad employer and would seek to oppose them. Until now, any changes to the civil service compensation scheme have always been in agreement with the trade unions. The last changes were made during the Thatcher Conservative government in the late 80’s; a government that can hardly be viewed historically as worker friendly! Our compensation entitlements are on a par with those across the public sector, but the civil service has been targeted as the pilot area to get rid of these entitlements.

We know that further attacks on our terms and conditions are likely whoever wins the general election, with ill health benefits, travel and subsistence and pay all in the firing line. Standing up for our rights now is the right thing to do, as if we give way without a fight we can ensure further attacks will swiftly follow and our ability to resist will be weakened.

Summary

Bill Jeffrey finishes his letter by stating our action will be “against a package which is fundamentally fair and reasonable.” Well, that may be his opinion but it is hardly shared by anyone else.

Over 150 MPs have publicly stated their opposition by signing early day motion 251 ‘Civil Service Compensation Scheme’ that describes changes to the scheme as “disappointing and unfair proposals”.

63.4% of PCS members voted for strike action over the proposals with 81.4% voted in favour of industrial action short of a strike. This is a clear mandate from a democratic ballot of the union’s members.

The Cabinet Office has described these changes as bringing the civil service into line with the rest of the public sector. Yet according to the government’s own figures, civil servants earn nearly £5,000 less per year than the public sector average. If the government were serious about bringing the civil service into line with the rest of the public sector then it would address the issue of chronic low pay in the civil service.

In reality these cuts are an attack on low paid civil servants to make it easier for the next government to make job cuts on the cheap. It has nothing to do with fairness or parity, and instead is a crude cost-cutting exercise.

If these proposals go through, it will leave all PCS members in the Ministry of Defence in a much weaker position. After a democratic ballot, our union has now called national industrial action to save your entitlements. It has never been more important to support our union and to fight for our entitlements.

If the above information does not convince you that this is probably the most important dispute that PCS members will ever face, ask yourselves what term or condition of employment any future Government will need to arbitrarily cut before you join together with colleagues to protect what you currently have.

ALL OUT ON 8^TH AND 9^TH MARCH – NO JOB CUTS ON THE CHEAP

Bob Rollings Chris Dando KC Jones

No pay freeze for MPs... no surprise there then!

Despite millions of public workers facing pay freezes, redundancy and outsourcing as a result of the economic crisis, a new deal will see the earnings of members of the Commons rise from £64,766 to £65,737 from 1 April.

Read more here.

Cartoon for the day

Lord Ashcroft may have avoided more than £2 million in tax on his donations to the Conservative Party, official documents have indicated. Read more.


The worst thing about the Ashcroft saga is that his behaviour is legal






Copyright The Times

This from a Tory party whose slogan is 'We're all in it together'

Mark Steel gives his personal take on the Lord Ashcroft - Tory party debacle in the following article re-printed from The Independent.

"I'm not an expert on electoral law, but as Lord Ashcroft has been avoiding tax and funding the Tories instead, that means the Tory electoral campaign is being paid for with our money. So surely we should have the right to decide what's in the campaign.

We could put up posters of Ashcroft in the House of Lords with a target over him, while a menacing voice said "Non-domicile tax cheats – it's time to close in." Or get Douglas Hogg to look forlornly by his castle, muttering "Since I've had to stop claiming expenses my moat's got absolutely filthy – We can't go on like this."

Or we could just entertain the kids with a party political broadcast in which Michael Howard gets chased through the woods by a puma.

Leading Tories dismiss Ashcroft's tax dodge as a minor issue. But in the year 2000, when this first came up, William Hague, then leader of the party, said unequivocally that Ashcroft had made assurances that would be worth, "Tens of millions to the Treasury". To be fair, Hague was telling the truth, he just forgot to mention he meant the Treasury of Belize.

So despite a letter from Ashcroft promising to move his finances to Britain, in return for a seat in the House of Lords, he kept them where they were. Now he's had to admit this, as it was about to revealed anyway as a result of the Freedom of Information Act, but Tory leader David Cameron's response to the revelation on Monday was "I'm glad it's now cleared up."

And this is the party of Law and Order. So presumably under the Tories, if you're in court and the trial's going badly, you'll be able to say: "To tell you the truth your honour, the reason my alibi appears to be falling apart is I did actually do the murder." And the judge will say: "Ah well, thank goodness that's cleared up, hee hee. Now then, let's all retire to my club for some light refreshments."

But for the leading Tories it can't have even needed clearing up. It's nine years since Ashcroft made this promise. Seeing as he's a major donor and the deputy chairman, someone during that time must have asked him whether he'd got round to keeping it.

It's as if a party had been funded by Pete Doherty for the last nine years, and the leader said: "I've not really thought to ask him whether he's been involved with drugs in any way. It's not a subject that ever cropped up."

According to Cameron, a person's tax status, "Is between him and the Inland Revenue". As if it's some sort of civil liberty issue. Maybe he'll make an iconic, inspiring speech that goes "Brothers and sisters, PAYE, self-employed and exiles, I have a dream. It is a dream of a day when a man may compile a billion pounds and hoist it out of the country to avoid paying tax while sitting in an unelected position in parliament, then promise to bring it back but not do so while funding a party that supports tax cuts, and NOT be faced with having to explain themselves, which is a violation of their basic human rights. Brothers and sisters, are you with me in this struggle?"

How does Ashcroft explain his decision to set up an off-shore account in the first place as anything other than act of naked greed? Maybe he'd say it was nothing to do with tax and he put it in Belize because it was nearer the shops. And how do the Tories, a party that's obsessively patriotic, justify having a deputy chairman who goes to such vast lengths to keep so much of his earnings away from our taxman? I bet that even if he does put his account here, he'll say that as his money's had to move to Britain it's got to claim on expenses for a second home.

The only consolation for the Tories is that Labour can't gain as much as they'd like from this, partly because they've appointed Peter Mandelson to attack them on it. How typically Labour, to use as their spokesman the one person in the world you'd trust even less with a billion pounds than Ashcroft himself.

And all of this comes from the party that rallies behind the slogan "We're all in it together." Because who amongst us, in these belt-tightening times, hasn't been forced to slip a billion quid across to Central America to avoid tax?

Just this morning my neighbour, a retired cleaner depending on her pension, said, "Dear oh dear, I've got to go all the way up to the Post Office again to transfer ten million quid to Belize, otherwise I'll have to pay tax on it. Honestly, at my age you'd think they'd get a home help to do it for me. Still, we've all got to pull together."

Spin Cycle

We are seeing attempts to undermine support for industrial action by the senior civil service. Please be careful with what they are putting out. It is meant to mislead you.

The facts are clear. We are facing massive cuts and the changes to the CSCS are designed to make the cutting cheaper. This branch is aware that SPVA management are right now actively considering how to make 30% cuts! Cuts that could see over 300 job losses.

Key Messages

· The government is looking to save £500 million through cutting redundancy pay, based on the number of civil and public servants it has axed over the last three years. The union fears that the cuts to the scheme could lead to the government cutting up to 100,000 jobs on the cheap which will damage public services we all rely on.

· The changes are politically motivated, with the Prime Minister announcing the arbitrary figure of £500 million worth of savings out of the blue. The government want to appear to be penalising loyal civil and public servants and have refused to accept our suggestions which would allow the savings to be made whilst protecting the rights of existing members.

· The changes will see some staff robbed of up to a third of their entitlements if they are forced out of their jobs. Almost half of our members would not be protected by the proposals.

· The government have presented the changes as a ‘reform’ to end fat cat pay-offs for senior managers. In reality, the proposals threaten to strip many lower paid civil servants of their current entitlements to compensation in the event of redundancy.

· The government is guilty of double standards. They say they can do nothing about the multi-million payouts to fat cats in the city because contracts have to be honoured. Yet when it comes to their own workforce they are willing to tear up the rights of civil and public servants and change the law to do so.

· Civil and public servants work across the UK delivering services we all rely on, from the cradle to the grave. This includes Jobcentre staff, tax workers, coastguards, border agency officials, passport workers, court staff, driving test examiners, and museum and gallery staff working in national galleries.

· We believe MoD is now awaiting changes to the CSCS rather than working with us to manage the people consequences of its programme of arbitrary cuts. Incredibly, MoD is presently adopting a position of denying what is obvious to all staff in the department. It continues to pretend it is not in a pre redundancy situation – and it continues to refuse to sit down with PCS to plan how to manage surplus staff and to avoid redundancies.

· We have the ‘independent’ review of civil servants being carried out by Thatcher’s privatisation guru – the Grimstone reaper - who is looking for 10,000 immediate job cuts along with further opportunities to transfer MoD work and staff to the private sector and we have the forthcoming strategic defence review after the next election which promises even further reductions.

Read more here.

Don't believe the hype.

PCS hits back at Cabinet Office

1 March 2010

PCS hit back today over Cabinet Office claims that changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS) are fair for staff and will bring the civil service into line with the rest of the public sector.

Far from being fair, the union argued that loyal public servants faced cuts of up to a third in redundancy pay as the government sought to tear up their contractual rights in front of their eyes.

Countering claims that the low paid won’t be affected, the union warned that they faced being stripped of their enhanced pension rights when they reach 50 and that the cuts were about making it easier for the next government to sack people on the cheap.

On turnout, the union pointed to the fact the government had denied MPs a vote on the changes and instead relied on an arcane parliamentary procedure to avoid any debate, discussion or vote. The union also pointed out that the government was elected in 2005 by just 22% of the electorate.

Commenting, Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said: "The Cabinet Office has described these changes as bringing the civil service into line with the rest of the public sector. Yet according to the government’s own figures, civil servants earn nearly £5,000 less per year than the public sector average.

"If the government were serious about bringing the civil service into line with the rest of the public sector then it would address the issue of chronic low pay in the civil service.
In reality these cuts are an attack on low paid civil servants to make it easier for the next government to make job cuts on the cheap. It has nothing to do with fairness or parity, and instead is a crude cost-cutting exercise.

"In reality these cuts are an attack on low paid civil servants to make it easier for the next government to make job cuts on the cheap. It has nothing to do with fairness or parity, and instead is a crude cost-cutting exercise.

"The government and the Cabinet Office will be able to see the real strength of feeling among PCS members on 8 and 9 March, when we expect strong support for strike action. Over 35,000 members attended meetings on this issue and 18,000 lobbied the Cabinet Office during the consultation.

"The government and the Cabinet Office can avoid the disruption of industrial action by negotiating an agreement that protects existing members’ rights.”

Read the letter from PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka to Cabinet Office minister Tessa Jowell

View our rebuttal to recent Cabinet office myths

FOI Request Reveals Ten Years of Tory Lies

For the last 10 years, despite his promise after being made a Tory peer to "take up permanent residence in the UK again", toff after tory toff has dissembled, obfuscated, veiled, hidden, evaded and downright lied about the tax status of their major donor, Lord Ashcroft.

Only revealed today is the truth about his status, and only then because a Freedom Of Information request was due to reveal his true tax status.

The FOI reveals that his promise was made to William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, raising questions about his responsibility to confirm in the past decade details of Ashcroft's tax status.

He has consistently refused to answer questions about Ashcroft. Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, accused the Conservative party of being "evasive and obfuscatory" on the issue when he ruled that the Cabinet Office should reveal the details of the promise Ashcroft was known to have made at the time of his ennoblement.

Ashcroft has funded and masterminded a £5m campaign in marginal seats, which is widely expected to strongly influence the outcome of the election.

Gordon Prentice, who put the FOI request into the Cabinet Office, said: "This is absolutely explosive. He says that he has been declaring all his UK income to HM revenue, he's not declaring his worldwide income, he's worth £850m. He should resign from House of Lords immediately."

It will be remembered that the 'Boy' George Osborne recently was questioned on this very matter... and his answers were at best evasive, obfuscatory and dissembling and at worst, probably downright lies.

Read more here.