#TUC13 Congress - Address by Ed Miliband

Ed started by comparing David Cameron - who considers unions a "threat to our economy" to a previous one nation Tory Prime Minister, the Earl of Derby, who first gave trade unions legal rights in 1867.

He called Cameron's attitude "nasty, small minded and divisive" and reminded Cameron what happened to Mitt Romney and his remarks about why 47% of voters will not support him.

He then championed his proposals for all trade union affiliates make an active choice to be part of the link with Labour. He then attacked the Tory economic policies and the prospect of a one sided unfair recovery. One which benefits the rich only. Followed by a raft of proposed Labour policies which are "union friendly". Such as action on zero hour contracts, living wage, public sector procurement apprenticeships, taxing bankers bonuses, British and regional investment banks, affordable child care, dignity at work, build more homes, regulate private sector landlords and letting agents, clampdown on payday loans with a cap on interest rates.

Finally a Q&A with firstly young delegates on the stage then with other delegates from the floor. He left to a respectable applause but no standing ovation (nor no jeers). 

So what do I think of it?

When you consider the recent blood on the carpet between the unions and the Party he was in my view remarkably self confident and upbeat. I wondered why? The Tory press however will be disappointed that there was no heckling or booing. 

While I still think that the proposals to change the way unions affiliate their members to the Party are unnecessary and potentially damaging, I thought it was clever of him to point out that unions have been complaining about their lack of influence over the Party for many years.  Increasing the number of union members joining the Party could change this.  This will depend on how much power you think ordinary members have over the Party.

He fudged a question on privatisation of public services (Railways) by saying he doesn't believe in "private sector good, public bad".

There was no mention of the NHS which surprised me a bit? I would have thought that it this would have  been a tub thumping issue that he could have "make hay" with.

I suspect that the personal attacks on Cameron and comparisons with him were there to remind delegates that it is less than 2 years before the next General election and that whether they all like him or not (and most are supportive) - it will be a straight choice between him or Cameron - on who will be the next Prime Minister.

So who will they prefer?

There is of course no choice and I think he knows this.

(personal impressions as always)

Fidelity - the Tory "Fund" managers

Hat tip to Labour and Capital blogger Tom P for highlighting how fund managers Fidelity are one of the biggest corporate donors to the Conservative Party. I wonder how many Fidelity policy holders or members of the local government pension scheme (Fidelity Worldwide Investment runs £3 billion of LGPS money) realise that profits from managing their pensions is going to fund David Cameron and George Osbourne?

Check out Tom here at "Another £25,000 donated in April" and "On the trail of a big Tory donor"  (see below)

"Readers of long standing may know that I've blogged a fair bit in the past about the financial and political relationship between asset manager Fidelity and the Conservative Party. On the Peter Cruddas scale, Fidelity are a "Premier League" donor. For example, they gave the Tories £300,000 in the year running up to the 2010 general election. Last year they gave them £100,000. They also employ the MP Srir John Stanley as a consultant. (They also chucked £50,000 at the No2AV campaign in 2011).

Oddly, over the years the way that Fidelity donates to the Tories seems to have changed. So up to 2008 they were listed as "Fidelity Investment Management" with the company reg number 2349713 or sometimes 02349713.

But from 2008 to the start of 2012 they started appearing as "FIL Investment Management", again using the same company reg number. Then, for the remainder of 2012 (three donations of £25,000), they appeared as "FIL Holdings", using the company registration number 6737476.

Since the start of 2013, however, there have been no donations have been reported using any of the previously used names or company registration numbers. Maybe they've stopped, or maybe they are reporting under a different name and company registration number? Or maybe they just didn't donate in Q1? Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on it".

Keep up the good work Tom. Of course, you do wonder why the very highly paid directors of Fidelity choose to give all this money to the "tax cuts for millionaires" Party? 

Poll Tax 1990: Bedroom Tax 2013

I remember it well. Will history repeat itself? Hat tip Ferric Streets

Tell David Cameron to drop the Bedroom Tax...

"From April 13,000 millionaires are getting a tax cut worth £100,000 a year on average while over 600,000 households - including armed forces families, disabled people and foster carers - have to find £728 a year to pay a new bedroom tax.

This isn’t about tough choices, it’s about the wrong choices.

Join our campaign and tell David Cameron to stop the Bedroom Tax".

Save Lewisham A&E March (26 Jan 13)

Conroy Lawrence, Lewisham Hospital UNISON Assistant Branch Secretary (and Hospital electrician) seen in picture top left with UNISON Assistant General Secretary Bronwyn McKenna. Conroy said.

"This has been a historic demonstration with of over 25,000, representing a total cross section of our community, surely this cannot be ignored by this Government, a Government who stated in their manifesto they would ensure "no forced closure of A&E Departments"

 "On behalf of Lewisham Hospital staff we would like to thank those that turnout to support us from the bottom of our hearts and we pledge ourselves to continue to fight this undemocratic and dangerous attempt to close Lewisham A&E Department for as long as it should take"

UNISON Lewisham Hospital nurse and branch secretary Mike Davy stated "If they can get away with closing Lewisham Hospital A&E, not because it is "failing", not on "clinical grounds" but to bail out a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deal in another hospital, they can effectively close any A&E department in the country"

 "David Cameron once threatened a bare knuckle fight over Hospital A&E closures, but where is he now ?".

Cameron's Speech on Europe "in or out"

I think Prime Minster David Cameron is playing with fire since he clearly does not want to leave EU. In fact nearly all his arguments in favour of the EU I would agree with, while I would disagree with nearly all his reasons for leaving.

It is not statesmanship but it is clever politics. I think this will put Labour in a difficult place for the next election.

The real trouble is that it is too easy to knock the EU, because it is dysfunctional in so many ways and does need radical reform (wasteful Common Agriculture Policy, the shameful ongoing failure to have audited accounts, the 2 separate parliamentary sites etc). Pro-Europeans need to face up to this.

So it needs desperately to reform but if the UK does leave, is this a cut to your nose to spite all our faces?

Cameron should be in a strong position to get his way within the EU since the Euro countries also need drastic political change to save their currency and UK could make things difficult (or rather make things even more difficult) unless they play ball.

So this is not a good day for Europe or democracy.

The public can vote on Europe in 2015, at the next British General Election. Let the batty UKIP stand on its own merits and and see if they win a majority of MPs mandated to leave. That should be our way of deciding such things.

Why is this government destroying Pensions, Charities and Jobs?

This morning I read about the Charity "People Can" being forced into administration and 300 jobs being put at risk.

I don't know all the reasons why this has happened but we are told it was due to its "pension liabilities". Whatever that actually means?

But I do know that the charity and its workforce protects victims of domestic violence, stops ex-offenders reoffending and gets the homeless into secure and safe accommodation.

The  Administrators, PriceWaterhouseCoppers (PWC), is not of course an evil organisation, however is not that well known for its concerns about battered women, ex-cons wanting to go straight or homeless kids desperate to get off winter streets.

It is known that "People Can" has a history of financial insecurity.  But I wonder what is the real reason for the "pension liabilities" (or deficits) in the first place that are supposed to have led to the potential sackings and loss of vital services? Was it due to inadequate financial planning or that its defined benefit pension scheme was in some way unsustainable?

No one has mentioned either about whether the pensions of the charity staff are truly safe or are they being subject to the tender mercies of the "Pension Protection Fund"? The PPF is a "good thing" but do not think for a moment if the PPF steps in that you have nothing to worry about your retirement. You do.  If you haven't already retired you may find your future pension significantly reduced.

My biggest gripe is that this closure and threat to peoples pensions in "People Can" and elsewhere could be based on complete and utter stuff and nonsense.

Due to outdated and deficient accountancy rules called "Mark to Market", perfectly good defined benefit pensions schemes are going to the wall. Sometimes bringing their organisations down with them. For no good reason. Perhaps we ought to shout out the emperor has no clothes – these so-called pension deficits are not real! They do not reflect the true future costs and liabilities facing pension schemes.

Schemes usually have to price these costs according to the return on Government loans called gilts. Due to our abnormal economic conditions these gilts currently have negative prices. This means scheme deficits have increased massively and have nothing to do their underlying strengths or weaknesses.  Quantitative Easing (QE) by the Bank of England is making things even worse. This has resulted in gilts yields being in even more La La land. They are at a 200 year financial low.

Everyone knows this but why is it allowed to happen and destroy perfectly good pension schemes and then make its members live and die in poverty? Even worse, relying on the tax payer to subsidise poverty employers who pay their pension pittances. Is this the sort of society that we really want?

The government has committed to act on this but has just  failed to do so! The Pension minister Steve Webb promised in June to do something about what he called this "nightmare" which is "killing" perfectly good pension schemes and that he would "not idly stand bye" and let this happen.

I'm not holding my breath Steve. Many more jobs, services and decent pensions schemes will not last, unless you, Clegg and Cameron get their fingers out and do something.

Stuff David Cameron Forgot To Say...

Labour is turning the spotlight on David Cameron as his shambles of a Government reaches its halfway point today.

The campaign includes a mock Tory manifesto document – as it could have been if David Cameron had promised what he was really going to deliver by this point in the parliament. This highlights how, despite David Cameron's promises of change, things have got worse, not better.

TUC 2012: Ed Balls speaks to Congress

Shadow Labour Chancellor Ed Balls addressed Congress followed by a Q&A.

He was introduced as the man according to David Cameron who is "the most annoying person in British Politics".

Ed started off well by taking the mick out of himself over that title. He then talked about how there is an economic alternative to the Coalition policies, there always has been.

He spelt out the Labour Party 5 point plan. While is all good stuff, I don't think you can really call it an alternative policy to getting us out of recession. He admitted that he understood that the unions cannot just wait for the return of a Labour Government but warned that the Tories are desperate for the unions to go on strike because they will then have someone to blame for the stalled recovery.

"Unlike Nick Clegg we will not make spending promises that we don't know we can deliver. We need credibility with the public". He argued that protecting jobs is more important than pay rises.  

"We need radical Banking reform. It was not too many teachers and health workers that caused Lehman Brothers to bust in New York" He finished by saying that the unions should never stop offering "strong advice" to him and the shadow cabinet (no chance of that) and that "the Labour Party must win back the trust of working people".

During the speech he had a little bit of heckling but was given some more stick during the Q&A. He agreed with Vince Cable that lack of demand was the biggest problem facing the economy but the government does nothing about it. Picture is of Liz Cameron from UNISON asking him the question (to loud cheers) why when she as a public sector worker has had a pay freeze for 3 years at then same time that inflation has increased by 12 % - he won't support a pay rise?

London Paralympics Boos for Osborne & Cameron : Cheers for Brown & Robbins!

I got a message last night from a UNISON colleague who was at the Paralympic Games yesterday and witnessed Tory Chancellor George Osborne being booed by the crowd at the stadium.

It was also reported that Prime Minster Cameron was also booed while former PM Gordon Brown was cheered and clapped when he appeared.

Picture is of the stadium clapping Labour Leader of London Paralympic Borough Waltham Forest, Chris Robbins.