Labour Party Conference 2013 #Lab13

I'm inside the Brighton Centre for the Labour Party Conference which started today at 11am. This year I am part of the UNISON delegation as the representive of Greater London Regional Labour Link. Last night there was various Labour and Union regional receptions.  I saw Labour Leader, Ed Miliband give 4 slightly different versions of the same speech.

The conference day started for me at 8.30 this morning with a 90 minute delegation meeting going through issues and conference business.

I'll try and post on as many conference speeches and fringes as possible. Firstly, some personal thoughts on the role of the affiliated trade unions in the Labour Party.  This has of course been very much in the news lately. While there is the theory, "no publicity is bad publicity". I doubt this applies to the recent rows which I am sure have contributed to the recent decline in support for Labour nationally.  Voters don't like in fighting and what they perceive to be divided political parties.

I would rather we were talking about issues and problems that actually matter to people in the run up to the General election such as pay and jobs.  No one has ever mentioned to me on the doorstep that they won't support Labour because of the influence of the trade unions - and they have at times told me in great detail about a wide number of other reasons!

While there is still (just) time to carry out a consultation on the union link before the General Election it has to be real and meaningful.

As I have to keep reminding employers, consultation is not about rubber stamping a proposal. Consultation should be a 2 way street with nothing decided until the consultation is complete. Ed when campaigning for the Party leadership promised us that it would be "different" from recent leaders if he  was elected. He would listen to the Party.

I hold him to these views. Now, I don't expect the leader of what must be an effective political machine dedicated to battle and defeat the most successful electioneering party in Western Europe (tories) not to have a view on how to shape this machine.  I do expect Ed to listen and take into account what we say. Even Party members who are not that well disposed to the unions are asking what is the point of putting at risk affiliation when we will need every penny we can get to try and over come the vast tory war chest.

I heard this morning that there is less than 600 days to defeat David Cameron. Everything we do between now and the next General Election must be judged by one simple test. Does it make it more or less likely to defeat the Tories?

Too poor to retire? Work until you drop under the Tories

Great video from TUC Touchstone showing Senior policy officer Richard Excell  explaining the state we are in - "September’s employment figures showed the number of people in employment rising. However, I’ve recorded this video to show that this increase is entirely due to rising numbers of people over retirement age in employment, many of whom cannot afford to retire. At the same time, average wages are falling in real terms, and living standards are falling".

Michael Gove on foodbanks and how they are unnecessary if you are wealthy

aka the ultra Tory Boy

nuff said.

#TUC13 Congress Fringe "Whole person care - a future for health & social care?

This fringe took place on Monday evening. TUC Assistant General Secretary Paul Nowak chaired. 

Andy Burham MP was running a little late, so UNISON AGS (and former nurse) Karen Jenning started the event.

She said that the problems between Health and Social Care has been going on for decades. She used as an example the age old dispute of who pays for a health or a social services bath for a client.

If the NHS recommend this then it is free, if  it is social services, then this same bath could be means tested!

While she is explaining this, Andy Burnham comes into the meeting. Karen apologies for starting without him and he says "just carry on". Karen says that is okay since, I have just been very horrible about you! (joke)

Andy spoke about the 2009-2012 - 66% rise in the very elderly A&E admittance via ambulance. Hospitals are becoming warehouses for old people. We need instead to invest in preventive care to also save money.  

The Tories are running down the NHS. According to them "GPs are to blame for A&E waits" while all nurses are "uncaring" and hospitals are just "coasting".

The press and Tories criticised the last Labour Government proposal on this issue as the "death tax".  Yet we now have already the dementia tax,  Which is surely worse? Andy also reaffirmed his pledge to abolish the Tory Health and Social Care Bill and that the NHS will be the preferred provider in any future Labour NHS reforms.

Andy made it clear that markets are not the answer in health and social care. The UK is one of the few countries to spend under 10% of GDP on health care because it has such an efficient national service. 

Justin Bowen from the GMB  (another former Tower Hamlets bod) said that Andy's comments was music to his ears. The problem however is money. Health and social care reforms will not be totally cost neutral. It will cost more. The crisis in social care now is all about money.

Andy countered by saying that there will be huge savings by bring together health and social care but also provided people knew what they would get, they would be willing to pay more for quality services.  

My question to Andy and the panel was about the present decimation of wages in the social care sector (I mentioned the disgrace at the "charity" Future Directions which he was well aware of)  and what are we going to do about future pay in the voluntary care sector?  Much of which is minimum wage.

I think it is fair to say that Andy was very supportive about the need to have decent pay in our sector but he and Labour are not yet in power.  So, roll on 2015.  

#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)

The NHS in 2010 Compared to Franch, Germany and the US

So why have the Tories decided to wreck arguably the most successful and cost effective health service in the world? ‪#‎nhs299‬ Hat tip Our NHS Our Future.

Never forget: The Banks Caused this Recession...Counter "the vast lie"

"There's a few things Labour should be doing in my view. They have to get a coherent line on the economy,"
Mullin told the BBC's World at One. "Firstly they've got to counter – and my goodness they should have been doing this for a long time – the vast lie which has been allowed to become embedded in the public consciousness that our economic problems were primarily caused by the last government.

"To paraphrase Bill Clinton: it was the bankers, stupid. The only thing Labour needs to apologise for is not regulating the banks sufficiently, and the Tories are not entitled to take advantage of that because throughout they were in favour of less regulation, not more."

A Minimum Wage, A Living Wage or Fair Pay for All?

The introduction of the National Minimum Wage was one of the great successes of the last Labour Government and trade unions such as UNISON who had pushed long and hard for it.

So successful that we now take it a little for granted and forget the huge opposition from the Tories who claimed that it would lead to business failures and mass unemployment.

While a national minimum wage of £6.19 per hour is far, far better than no minimum, it is simply not enough to live on. It is poverty pay. The vast majority of workers on minimum wage will also need to have their wages topped up by the State in housing benefit or family tax credit.  

The idea of a "Living wage" is the amount needed to "let workers lead a decent life". It is currently £7.45ph (and £8.55 ph in London).  Accountancy firm KPMG recently estimated that 20% of workers (5 million) are paid less than a Living wage.

Labour Leader Ed Miliband is in favour of making the Living wage compulsory in the public sector and in their procurement practices. He also believes in naming and shaming other companies that don't pay a living wage.

If this happened it would be a fantastic news for the low paid and also the British tax payers since we will not have to subsidise many poverty pay employers. It would also result in a welcome boast in demand for the British economy.

Yet, at the risk of being churlish, is even a "Living Wage" - not enough?

If you are on a Living wage but become sick and have no income protection you will immediately fall back into poverty. If you retire and have no company pension you will also fall back into poverty in old age. If you are on a Living wage but are on a Zero hour (or Bank) contract and have no employment protection, how can you live a "decent life" with no security? Ed Miliband is also  in favour of restricting Zero Hour Contracts. It has been estimated that there could be as many as one million workers on such contracts. 

What about those traditional low pay sectors which can actually afford to pay more than just a living wage and also pay decent sick pay and a pension?

So what about the concept of "Fair Pay". This is a recognised goal of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Your pay should not be just about your wage but also about sick pay, holidays, overtime, pensions and employment protection.   There are some private companies competing for public sector contracts who would quite happily pay £7.45 per hour if they did not have to pay for decent sickness protection and pensions.

On the other hand today I met up with my lovely niece, her partner and their young family.  She works as a care assistant in a privately run mental health project. She loves her job but is on the minimum wage and on a zero hour contract. She does not receive holiday pay (which I need to check) and also cannot get family tax credit because she is on a zero hours contract.  She only gets statutory sickness benefits and no pension. Due to her income she is likely not to be eligible to be auto-enrolled into a pension. 

If she was to get a Living wage and an extra £1.26 per hour it would transform her family finances but since she does not know from day to day what hours she will work and has no security of employment, it would still be practically impossible for her to make plans for her future. 

The answer to such poverty pay and conditions is that the next Labour Government must be as brave and as radical on this and other issues as its predecessor in 1945.  While in the long run the best protector of decent pay and conditions are the trade unions. Post 2015 Labour should impose Fair Pay for All.  A living wage, living sickness benefits, living pension and employment security for all. While at the same time introduce binding sectoral bargaining agreements between unions and employers for those sectors which can afford to pay more than a Living wage.

While this will save the Government money by reducing the state subsidy on poverty employers and increasing demand in the economy, it will lets not fool ourselves, cost more, especially in the public sector. This is a price worth paying and will need to be paid for by increases in progressive tax rates on those who can afford to pay more. 

I think to win the next General Election and get rid of the Tories we need to be honest with the public and also offer a genuine alternative. I asked my niece today if she voted in the last General Election. She admitted she didn't. I also asked if she thought the next Labour Government would ensure she would get a Living wage and security in employment would she vote for them? She said Yes. Her current MP is a Tory with a majority of just over 3000.

Hat tip picture to Pay Up Sainsburys.

Why there is a rural housing crisis

This article was published in Country Standard Summer 2013 page 9. "By John Gray UNISON Housing Association Branch Secretary and National Executive Council Member

Why is it that there is a massive shortage of rural housing when all Councillors support affordable housing yet not enough is built ? Is this because the government is not funding housing associations or Councils to build?

Despite the crocodile tears of Government ministers and many rural councils about the massive shortage of affordable homes in the countryside for local people, the reasons are actually pretty straight forward and can be solved.

Firstly, the Nimby’s (Not In My Back Yard) Brigade. Often you find that those who are adequately housed in attractive countryside don’t want more homes to be built that they think may spoil their view out of the garden conservatory. Especially if these homes are thought to house possible “working class people”!

Changes to planning law means that Councils are not obliged to insist on the building of affordable homes if they don’t want to - and many don’t, they simply don’t care, regardless of the need.

We also seem to think that converting large chunks of the so called “green belt” into huge, ugly exploitative factory farms, often set up solely to take advantage of generous EU and UK government subsidies is preferable to building some new homes.

The countryside has in too many areas been colonised by a blight of retirement bungalows and weekend second homes for our wealthy urban middle class elites. As well as wreaking village communities by destroying local schools, shops and pubs. This results also in the double whammy of a lack of supply of homes and a very high demand - which pushes up prices completely out of reach for those who do not have access to a wealthy Bank of Mum and Dad.

There is also far less existing social housing in rural areas than urban (13% compared to 22%) as well as low wages and lack of jobs. The disastrous government policy of the so called “affordable rents” regime for new properties (and in many cases the new lettings of existing stock) costing up to 80% of market rents compared to the traditional social rent of 50% of market rates is another death nail. The barking mad destruction of the Agricultural Wages Board which will even lower pay is yet another.

The Bankers crisis and the huge cuts in housing investment by this Tory Government have of course just made the problem far, far worse.

There is some hope for the future since it seems that there is antidotal evidence at least that Tory MPs are being button holed in their Conservative Association Clubs by angry members who are fed up with their kids living at home until in their thirties, since even their offspring cannot afford their own place.

There is also concern expressed that there is no “help” available anymore to clean their homes, do their gardens or serve their food and drink at the local posh restaurant.

There are signs that the Countryside is turning and there is a feeling that enough is enough. Labour Councillors are now being returned in Shire and district Council elections up and down the country. This month in rural Dorset we will celebrate the Tolpuddle Martyrs and remember a time when the countryside was at the forefront of radical politics.

Maybe, just maybe, our contemporary rural poverty and homelessness may spark something a little similar.

Ed Miliband & How to overcome distrust in British Politics

Yesterday evening I went to the Coin Street Community Centre in South London with fellow UNISON Labour Link activists to take part in a Q&A with the Labour Leader.

The room was packed with affiliated trade unionists and Labour Party activists with some media also present. It was stiflingly hot due to the current heatwave.

Ed came in and explained to the audience that he is not going to speak long since he wants to have a conversation.

He wants to start a conversion with trade union members and activists that will lead to a Special Conference in the spring next year to agree changes (only allow affiliations from union members who actively choose to support the Labour Party rather than block affiliations - see my initial thoughts here on subject). 

Politics should be powered by ordinary people. He has 4 points to make: Politics is dominated by the wealthy and powerful. You can see Big Tobacco at Downing Street. Is this about a break with the links with the unions? No, the unions founded the Labour Party.  The unions are the voice of  working people.  This is not about removing this voice but how that voice is exercised.  

The problem is that many people think that the Tories write them off and Labour takes them for granted? We need to persuade people to join the Party. Not just Trade unionists but small business people as well. The excellent experience of the French socialists in their recent Presidential election is what he hopes for the London Mayor Primary with registered Labour supporters.  If we want to change we need to hear the voices of the people.  Leadership of the Party is essential but we need a genuine movement rooted in every community.

There then followed quite a far reaching debate. Ed repeatedly said it was "open house". He was asked questions on whether the purpose of a primary is to stop "left" candidates in London? (answer "No"). The lack of Labour Parliamentary candidates who are women, BME or working class (answer "agreed" and he will do something about this).  "Jack" a 92 Year trade unionist in the audience took Ed to task for the failure of the Party to recruit more union members to the Party. Ed asked him how long he had been in the Party. Jack replied he first voted for Labour in 1945 while in the Army in Egypt. He joined the Party later after he left the Communist Party. 

There was some support for Ed's proposals about trade unions from activists but most contributions on this subject were more cautious or frankly sceptical. Ed made it clear that he could not understand why a trade union member who did not support Labour could be affiliated to the Party. He thought that things had changed in recent years and that sense of collectivism amongst working people was not as strong as it use to be.

I got the opportunity to ask him a question. I introduced myself and pointed I am an activist in  UNISON and we have always allowed members to opt in to pay the Labour Levy but I respect the rights of other unions who have gone through internal democratic processes to affiliate all or part of their membership. I didn't think that things had changed that much since there had always been significant numbers of working class Tories in the union movement.

My main point was why are we doing this less than 2 years before a general election when the Tories will out spend us as usual and we will need every penny we can get to defeat them? Why not allow all affiliates to become full Party members, lets then have 3,200,000 members and if a Tory gets a membership card in the post he doesn't like - he can resign.

Ed responded by saying he understood the risks to funding and as Leader was taking responsibility for this decision.

After probably 25 or so questions (including a 12 and 14 year old from Tower Hamlets) Ed called the meeting to a close since it was so hot. No one made the obvious joke about the cause being all that "hot air"!

A very competent performance by Ed but I do hope first and foremost if the changes go ahead that he is right and that we will have enough money in 2015 to defeat the Tories and overcome their extremely "wealthy and powerful" donors.

Secondly, while I suspect UNISON influence in the Party will probably be strengthened by his proposals, the Party itself needs to change as well as any changes to union affiliation. Unless you give individual members more meaningful influence in the running of the Party then you are simply not going to get a new mass "movement rooted in every community". 

Afterwards we went off to a local pub to continue to put the world to rights and rehydrate (medicinal reasons only).

(Hat tip picture of me asking Ed question to James Beckles)

Is Miliband following UNISON or Stanley Baldwin over Union funding?

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis sent out an email yesterday to the union explaining that our funding of the Labour Party has been on the basis of individual members choosing whether to pay an affiliate fee or not (they can "opt in" or "opt out").  UNISON has also never paid the Party membership fees for new members.

He also questioned whether in the face of the Tory onslaught on working people in this country this is the right time for the Party and the unions to be having such a public row on funding?

When UNISON was formed in 1993 the predecessor unions NUPE and COHSE were affiliated to the Labour Party while NALGO was not. It was agreed that there would be two political funds in UNISON and members can choose to opt into a fund supporting the Labour Party (now called "Labour Link") or a General Political fund not linked to any Party (or they can opt out of any political fund).

This to me has always seemed a pretty sensible and pragmatic compromise for UNISON and I think due to our history - for us it works .

While other trade unions affiliate all or part of their membership to the Party.  I think it is important to remember that this decision to affiliate is taken via the internal democratic processes of that Union. So there is accountability. In the same way that my UNISON branch may vote to affiliate to organisations at our AGM that I did not support but I accept that this affiliation had been democratically decided upon and part of my subs is being used to fund it.  Of course members can simply choose to opt out of paying any political affiliation if they so choose.

The real immediate risk is that if the Party goes ahead and decides to introduce "opting in" only - is that a year or so before a General Election there may be a drastic reduction of union money when we will need every penny we can get to defeat the Tories. We should be doing nothing that gets in that way. UNISONActive reminds us that in 1927 Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin introduced a similar measure which resulted in a 50% drop in affiliation fees for the Labour Party.

The real solution in my view is not about whether trade union members opt "in" or "out" it is about getting ordinary rank and file members actively involved in the Party. To do this there is a shared responsibility. The Party has got to make it attractive for people to attend local Ward and CLP meetings. This is not only just about making them less boring and more inclusive (please) but giving them more power and a greater say in the Party.

The Unions have also got to raise their game and realise that they cannot exercise influence in the Party by simply waving cheques. This just doesn't work - the only way to make the Party more accountable to the needs and wishes of ordinary working people is to encourage and support our members to join and become active.

The only alternative to the Labour Party in this country is the Tories. The Labour Movement family need to get their act together and remember first and foremost our enemy is the Tories and not the unions and not even Progress.  We must get as many members actively involved and raise as much money as possible in order to defeat them in 2015. Everything else comes a very poor second to this.

Housing workers face more violence due to welfare cuts

Well done to Inside Housing magazine (again) for their recent survey of housing workers. 83% believe that they face more risk of violence at work due to welfare cuts and 41% feel less safe than they did 12 Months ago.

I had been interviewed by their reporter and was quoted "Housing officers are going to be expected to evict model tenants who have never caused any problems, who due to austerity and welfare reforms [are unable to pay their rent]. It is expected that tenants and their relatives are going to get angry.’

In a second article looking at a rise in verbal and physical assaults during the past 12 months there was a number of horrendous quotes from different housing staff who are shouted and sworn at on a weekly basis; kicked; punched; shot at with a air rifle; had a bowling ball thrown at them from a high rise; threats to kill; threats to burn down their homes and kidnap their children.

What is also worrying is that 75% of staff believe that their employer is not doing enough to protect them and 25% think it is pointless reporting such incidents to their boss since it would be a "waste of time". They also believe cuts in staffing levels have made the risk worse.

Until we can get rid of this Tory led coalition government unions and employers must work together to try and keep housing staff safe. We need more union safety reps who must be given sufficient time off to be trained, attend joint safety committees, properly inspect workplaces and constantly review updated risk assessments.

Employers need to put their hands in their pockets and fully resource their health and safety advisers, buy decent and up to date protective equipment for staff and most importantly - stop threatening to evict those tenants who cannot pay bedroom tax. There are other ways to collect debt and in many places there is no suitable smaller alternative accommodation to offer them.

NHS is safe under the Tories?

No its not.

To try and get justice at work you will need lots & lots of money (or join a trade union)

XpertHR confirm here that this Tory led government has published an implementation date of 29 July 2013 on fees for employment tribunals and appeals.

If this is agreed by Parliament (hopefully it won't) on this day you will be expected to pay :-

"For level 1 claims, the issue fee will be £160 and the hearing fee will be £230. For level 2 claims, the issue fee will be £250 and the hearing fee will be £950. Different fee levels will apply to claims involving multiple claimants.  For lodging an appeal with the EAT, the appellant will pay an issue fee of £400 and a hearing fee of £1,200."

I believe that most cases heard will be level 2. So if you are unfairly dismissed at work you will have to fork out £1200 for a hearing and another £1600 for any appeal.

This is despicable and will deny justice for millions and millions of working people. Bad bosses will treat people with contempt since they know they will not be able to afford these fees. Most trade unions I am aware of will pay these fees for cases that have a reasonable chance of success. Another reason for joining a union.

Better still join an union because you are far, far more likely to have a decent employer in the first place if you have an union in the workplace and avoid needing to go to law! 

The recent small but welcome increase in union membership may mean that workers are beginning to understand (again) that they cannot rely on their employer for justice at work, nor can they rely on the law.

The only people who can really protect them are their fellow workers and their trade union!

What have the unions ever done for us?

Hat tip "I support public services don't let the Con Dems destroy them"

"Rising unemployement and recession is a price we had to pay to keep inflation down but that is a price well worth paying"

Tories: Norman Lamont in 1991 explaining that rising unemployment and recession is a price well worth paying to keep down inflation.

Did the unemployed agree? No doubt the wealthy did....

Can everyone remember this is what the Tories are really, really like and vote Labour on Thursday?

Hat tip Captain Swing

It’s criminal what this Government is doing to the victims of violent crime

Picture is from UNISON Greater London Health & Safety network meeting last week with guest speaker(4th from right back) Gerard Stilliard from Thompsons Solicitors. 

Every 3 months, following the meeting of our regional committee on safety, all London UNISON branch H&S officers are invited to attend a briefing by Thompsons on various safety related issues.

Gerard had been asked to speak about changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in 2012.

Now, I knew that this Tory led government, with the active support of the Liberal Democrats, had made changes to the scheme, but what I didn’t realise is just how bad these changes were, especially for those at work who are attacked and badly assaulted.

Gerard explained that under the new scheme, eligibility and awards have been slashed. Any tariff awards less than £2500 have been removed entirely. While compensation for the rest of claims have been reduced on average by 50%.

Which means that in the past if you were for example a healthcare assistant and you had been badly beaten up by a patient, which took up to 3 months to recover, you would have received under the old rules £1750 in compensation. Now you would get nothing.

In the past if you had been a teaching assistant and been assaulted and punched so hard in the eye by a pupil that it resulted in permanent blurred or double vision, you would have received £4,400 to £8,200.  Now you would only get 1/2 to 2/3rds of that amount. Remember this is for permanent injuries! Was £4,400 under the old system too much?

Even worse, it use to be the case that loss of earnings awards due to injury were related to what you actually use to earn before the assault. Now it is only at statutory sick pay levels.

So if a Park warden had been so badly beaten up by drunken yobs that he or she could never return to paid work. Under the 2008 rules if the warden was aged 50, earned £15,000 per year and expected to retire at 65 then they could have expected to have received £225,000. Under 2012 rules they would only get £67,000. A loss of £158,000.

The government has also made it far difficult to claim, reducing time limits, not allowing managers to report cases to Police and slashing time limits for appeals.

Of course it is not only employees who are suffering from these cuts but all victims of violent crime.

In a civilised society the State has an absolute duty to protect all its citizens from criminals and deal responsibly with the consequences of this criminality for those who have suffered from it. The only citizens this Government gives a damn about are the 13,000 millionaires who will be given £100k plus tax cuts in 4 days time.

Tory Millionaires Day 6 April 2013

Are we really all in this together?

FACT This Tory/LibDem government is planing to cut the top rate tax band on April 6th.

It is estimated that 13,000 millionaires in this country will be £100,000 better off (I can't verify this but believe it to be accurate).

FACT This will happen at the same time that many millions of ordinary workers are facing yet another year of pay cuts?

FACT One rule for the rich and powerful in this country and another for everyone else?

Chuka Umunna MP at Joint London & Eastern Region UNISON Labour Link Forum

Picture of the joint meeting with UNISON Labour Link Greater London and Eastern Regions.

At first each region had held their separate annual meetings then we met up to hear the first guest speaker Richard Howitt MEP. Next was Chuka Umunna MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Chuka gave his usual very polished and competent speech ripping into this Tory led government.

As a former employment law solicitor he pointed out how the Tories are rolling back basic protection for all of us at work. They have already raised the limit for claiming unfair dismissal from one year to two years; introduced fees to take out an employment tribunal claim; got rid of independent lay judges; capped compensation awards and attacked TUPE as well as 3rd party harassment claims.

In the Q&A he dismissed a question from the miserablist who was rabbiting on about some silly nonsense that Chuka was supposed to have said (and had clearly not).

I asked Chuka about a recent interview with Ed Miliband during a visit to Denmark when he was reported to have been asked does he support the high public spending and taxes they have in Denmark being replicated in the UK? (obviously a trap question). Ed was quoted as saying that no he doesn't, but he is interested in copying their high skill base and training. My question was how can you have a high skill base and training without high public spending paid for by higher progressive taxation?

Chuka replied by saying he wants people to have more skills and training and a more equal society but he thinks that people in his constituency simply don't have the money to pay more taxes at the this moment. They are struggling to survive.

Help Mums not Millionaires

"Happy Mothers Day!

This morning a group of mums went to Downing Street with a simple message: This Mothers Day David Cameron should help Mums not Millionaires.

In April David Cameron is handing a £100,000 tax cut to millionaires, while imposing a £180 “Mummy Tax” with real term cuts in maternity pay, taking money out of the pockets of mums, at a time when family budgets are already being squeezed.

This is another example of David Cameron failing in his pledge to lead “the most family friendly government ever”. He would rather cut taxes for millionaires than for families.

You can still support our campaign to help mums, not millionaires: http://bit.ly/Zu3B7m "

 Ed Miliband

(hat tip great Picture of Sarah and Millie-Rose, Tameside)