Friday, 7 September 2012

Hastings Labour Council and the Cuts

By James Ellis, Hastings Socialist Party



The May 2012 local elections saw Labour retaining control of Hastings council, gaining 5 seats from the Conservatives in the process. The Liberal democrats lost all of their seats. When viewed in the context of events nationally, this result is a rejection of the Con-Dems policies of austerity. It is also plea to the Labour party to defend the interests of ordinary people and protect them from this governments savage cutbacks. Council leader Jeremy Birch claimed that with this result the people of Hastings had “sent a message to central government that they are not happy with the policies of the two coalition parties." So then, it is the task of the Labour party to stand up for the people of Hastings in opposition to these brutal austerity measures. However, thus far, they have been doing quite the opposite.

Since its election in 2010 the Con-Dem government have been adamant that in order to solve the economic crisis public services must cut at an alarming rate. The working people of this country are facing attacks on multiple fronts. Pensions are being slashed, unemployment is spiralling, the NHS is being sold off, public services are being gutted, charities are going bust, and young people are being forced out of education. This list of attacks goes on and on. What this essentially means is that even though this was a crisis caused by big business and the banks, it is the working people of this country that are being made to pay. Hastings has been one of the hardest hit by the cuts. 

Over the 3 year period from 2011/12 to 2013/14 Hastings Borough Council will see its government grant slashed in half from £12.7m to £6.6m, a loss of £70 for every person in the borough. On top of that it is likely there will be the loss of all the government capital funding for housing renewal which has been worth £1.5million per year to Hastings.  Jobs have been lost in housing, waste, street wardens and regeneration, with more losses expected to follow. Funding to help homeless people stay in B&B’s has been cut, and youth services, like Connexions, have been forced to close. Hastings council, after seeing the East Sussex county budget for children’s services reduced by £20 million, decided to make the greatest cuts to open-access early years services and youth centres. This will see many parents unable to get care for their children and reduce support for young families. This is only a selection of the many cuts facing the people of Hastings. What this essentially means is that Hastings faces a toxic mix of rising unemployment, reduced prospects for young people, and the removal of vital support systems. All this is on top of the attacks on benefits and healthcare! Hastings needs its council to defend it against these cruel cut-backs.

However, both nationally and locally, the Labour party has not been standing up to these cuts. Infact, it has been supporting them and implementing them. The leadership of the Labour party has declared it believes these cuts are necessary. It claims it would cut back slower, but essentially still endorses the idea that the way out of this crisis is to make working people pay for it. Recent reports show that these cuts are not working; in fact they are making the situation worse! Government borrowing is on the increase and the deficit has risen by 3.4 billion in the past year. So why exactly are the cuts necessary when all we have achieved is a reduction of the quality of life for the majority of working people and an increased level of national debt?

The government is pursuing these cuts because of its links with the finance sector; it can see no way to achieve profits in the British economy other than backing those who demand low taxes for big business and the rich, and significant cuts in public spending in order to improve the prospects of their colossal financial investments.

It is true that while there are those in Labour that fully support the idea of the cuts, there are also those who do not like them but think there is no other option. Labour councils claim they have no choice but to pass on these governments cuts. However, a look back at recent history shows that there is indeed another option.

In 1984 the Liverpool city council was being led by members of the Militant (an organisation that worked within Labour, and has since left to form the Socialist Party), and all 47 Labour members in the council agreed to follow Militants lead and oppose Thatcher’s planned cuts to the Liverpool budget. The government's policies meant that in order to balance the books a local authority would either have to increase the rates, sometimes massively, to compensate for Tory cuts, or savagely cut back on jobs and services. Liverpool council refused to implement these cuts, and instead demanded extra funding for the creation of houses and jobs. As well as actively defying Thatcher by not making cuts, the Labour council, led by the policies of Militant, also arranged a demonstration on budget day in March 1984, when a one-day strike took place supported by 30,000 local authority workers. 50,000 marched through the city in support of the council's proposed deficit budget. In the end Thatcher gave up and Militant achieved a victory that secured extra funding which enabled the council to carry out its electoral programme. This included the building of 5,000 houses, opening six new sports centres, creating 2,000 jobs and refusing to carry out £10 million-worth of cuts.

This stand was unfortunately not repeated across the country, and the then leadership of the Labour party concentrated on attacking those like the Liverpool councillors who stood up to Thatcher, eventually helping to get them removed from office.

Hastings Labour council needs to follow the lead of the 47 Labour councillors from Liverpool. Their example shows that every council does have a choice when it comes to the cuts. The Labour council has not been forced to implement the cuts, it has chosen to. The choice is clear. Either attack the working people of Hastings while apologising and declaring not to have any other option, or take a stand and defend the interest of the people that this council claims to represent. Hastings council should refuse to make any further cuts, and demand that the government gives them increased funding to embark on a programme of house building and job creation that is so desperately needed in Hastings. Standing alone the council would be unable to do this, but if they organised the working people of Hastings and created a mass campaign to back them up, involving demonstrations and strikes, then they could win. If this strategy was taken up by multiple councils across the UK then the cuts could be stopped. There is huge anger locally about the cuts, and Labour should channel this anger into action against these savage austerity measures. 

Some Labour councillors have already taken an admirable stand and voted against the cuts in their council. Two councillors from Southampton, Don Thomas and Keith Morrell, refused to follow the party line claiming “we didn't become Labour councillors to make cuts and we won't”. Other Labour councillors have resigned over the cuts, such as Lynn Jeffries from York who attacked the party for not listening to local residents and deciding to make cuts to care services before any consultation had taken place. However, these councillors are in the minority within Labour, and most councillors are not willing to follow their lead.

Whilst it is clear what all Labour councils should be doing, are they likely to do so? The answer, unfortunately, is no. The leadership of the Labour party has come out time and time again in favour of cuts and has consistently refused to back strike action to defend workers rights. Whilst there are still those within the party who are committed to fighting for the working class, they unfortunately do not and cannot take over the leadership of the party due to an undemocratic internal life and a lack of numbers to push for such a change. It is an often said these days that there is little difference between the main three parties, and this is clearly the case. All the parties would rather see the working class pay for the economic crisis, than lay the blame where it belongs, at the door of big business, the banks, in short: capitalism. For this reason, there needs to be a new mass party of the working class who would be willing to stand up for workers rights and fight the cuts, and also have a clear programme of how to get out of this economic crisis. 

There is the beginning of such a party in the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC). While still a small coalition, it has the backing of several unions including the RMT and PCS, and is the only political party who oppose all cuts. There are many alternatives to the cuts that are being ignored. For a start simply taxing the super-rich at a higher rate would bring in a lot of revenue. Closing the tax loop holes and stopping tax evasion by big businesses and the rich could bring in up to £120 billion a year, which alone is nearly the entire deficit! It is estimated there is about £700 billion in wealth in the accounts of large private businesses and the banks that they are refusing to invest in the economy as there is nowhere profitable for them to do so. These businesses should be forced to invest this money into the economy and if they refuse their wealth should be nationalised. What is more important, the profit of the 1% or the living standards of the 99%? 

We need a party who is willing to make these arguments and stand up for the hard working people of this country. If Labour councils are willing to oppose cuts and defend ordinary people, then they should have the full backing of unions, activists, and the working people in their district. However it is not enough to sit around and wait for the Labour party to take action. If Hastings Labour council are not willing to oppose cuts then the working people of Hastings need to organise, protest, and build a political alternative to Labour who will be willing to make a stand against this cruel coalition. TUSC can be that alternative.

It is clear that such an alternative is needed, and establishing one will be a significant step forward for the working class. It is the opinion of the Socialist Party that while a new workers party would be a big step forward – allowing debates to take place nationally on how to oppose austerity and how to build working class organisation – it is the capitalist system itself which needs replacing with a socialist society. The wealth and potential of society could be run democratically in the interest of the majority, not a tiny minority whose only criteria of success is their own profits. In our opinion, a new workers party would need to have socialist policies aimed at the establishment of a socialist society.

Thursday, 9 August 2012

Reject the Local Government Pension Offer


Over a million workers are to be balloted on whether to accept the new Local Government pension deal or not to start in 2014. This is a deal that will affect some 4.6million workers.

The Pension scheme is NOT in trouble

The scheme is not in financial difficulty it currently has assets of £150billion. It currently takes in £4billion a year more than it pays out. Four years ago £1billion was stolen off us as many were forced to pay more and to get less supposedly “in order to protect the scheme for a generation”. Now just four years on and the employers are already coming back for more.
The Government's Real Agenda

The real drive for the change is the government stated attempt to save £900m. When we started the pension fight, it was to stop us having to work longer, pay more and/or get less. These should be the key tests on accepting or rejecting the deal.
Will I have to work longer?

Effectively, for those under the age of 55 your new normal retirement age will now rise in line with the new state pension age which is due to increase to 67 then 68 and possibly on to 70. This means that most of us will have to work 1,2, 3, and even 5 years longer than now. If you have to work longer you will of course be paying your pension contributions for longer.

Many will rightly shiver at the idea of having to work on and on. You have to wonder if the employers/government agenda is for us to work till we drop dead, that way they won’t have to pay out any pension at all!
Many simply be able to work on (currently the average age of retirement in the LGPS is 62). If you retire before your Normal age of retirement then you will lose approx 5% of your pension for each year you go “early”. (Leave 5 years early you lose at least 25%) what is this if it is not making us work longer or get less?

What will I get in pension when I retire?

For workers already retired and those of us to follow we will now get less than before (15% according to the TUC). This is because our pensions will only be up rated in Line with the lower Consumer price index inflation rate rather than the Retail Price Index rate. The TUC has estimated that this measure alone has stolen £15 billion off the current pensioners and those yet to retire.
THESE MEASURES ALONE ARE ENOUGH TO REJECT THE DEAL
What is the new scheme?

The final salary scheme is to be replaced with a career average scheme. Your current pension is based on your final salary when you retire. You earn 1/60th of your salary in pension each year (accrual rate) i.e. 1/60th of final salary x length of service = pension. In 2006 we fought to keep this scheme and opposed the career average scheme.
The unions are now claiming that the career average scheme is better, because it has a better Accrual rate of 1/49th and will be up rated by the CPI inflation rate. Given that most workers end up earning more in their last years of working than when they first started, they will be rightly suspicious that taking their average salary over their whole career can be better than using their final salary. Even on the information we have been given once you have worked for 20 years or more they accept that you will be worse off with a career average scheme.
No increase in contribution rates for workers earning less than £43k

This is good for those of us earning less than £43k. We know in other schemes workers are being asked to pay more. However we’ve being paying more for the last four years and had no pay rise for three of those years.

In light of the other attacks on our pension is this more of a case of being told “don’t worry we won't rob out of your front pocket, but we will take it from your back pocket instead”, either way its still robbery!
Part-time staff will now pay based on their actual earnings not the full-time equivalent.

This is an improvement as it was always unfair for part-time staff to have to pay a contribution rate based on the full time equivalent earnings.
Staff transferring to the private sector can remain in the pension scheme as a right from April 2014

This is an improvement as at the moment private companies are only required to come up with a “broadly comparable scheme”. It’s not clear who will pay for this the councils or the profit making companies?
There will now be a 50/50 option 

Effectively you can pay half the monthly contribution rate and get half the benefits for a period of time! This is supposed to be a help to workers struggling to be able to make some short term monthly savings as long as they accept giving up half the pension for the years they opt out, in other words: save now lose later! The reason why we are struggling is because we’ve had no pay rise for three years, if the employers are concerned for our monthly pay packets why not just give us a rise!!
Future costs of the scheme yet to be resolved

There is to be in place an automatic mechanism of who pays if the costs of the scheme go up in the future. However how much and who pays what is to be left until after this scheme is accepted. This is a recipe for “vote now, pay more later”! In the health service they ended up with a deal where the employers were protected from increases and all the increased costs now fall on the shoulders of the workers.
Conclusion

There is no need for us to work longer, get less or pay more as the local government scheme is perfectly healthy. This is just another attempt by the government to steal money from the pockets of public sector workers and must be resisted. Some may think this offer is not as bad as they were threatening, however that’s like being asked to be grateful to a burglar who threatened to take your wallet, telly and computer and now says he’ll only take your wallet!
We should make our position clear: not a penny more off our pensions and not a day longer to be worked!
If the union leaders think this is what a good deal can be achieved through negotiation, imagine what could be won if we fight alongside all the others still fighting to protect their pensions.

Join The National Shop Stewards Network Lobby of the TUC on Sunday 9th September On Brighton Seafront (Meet at The Level 1pm) - Calling For a 24 Hour National Strike Against Cuts, Privatisation and Austerity

Sunday, 15 July 2012

Public Meeting - The Politics of the Olympics


24th July - 6:30pm - The Pig in Paradise (side room)

As we celebrate the Olympic torch passing through town, Hastings Socialist Party are holding a meeting on the politics of the Olympic Games under Capitalism.

We may well enjoy watching the sportsmen and women’s skill, strength and stamina and likely we will see records broken, but behind the entertainment, promises are being broken. Promises that hosting the games here will bring about affordable housing, decent jobs, increased participation in sport, and economic advantages lie in tatters, as the greatest sporting show on earth has been dragged down by crass commercialization and increased state repression.

The bill (paid by taxpayers) for the Olympics continues to rise astronomically, yet we are told that we have to face rising costs of living, soaring rents, slave labour Workfare schemes and huge unemployment, because there isn’t enough money to invest in jobs, housing and education.

The real winners are the big businesses and capitalist class who are making huge profits at our expense and are buying parts of the facilities built for the Olympics rather than being used to provide genuinely affordable housing and used to benefit local communities, as was promised, for the long-term future. The Capitalist system, however, only has eyes for short-term profit. For the multi-national corporations, the Games are just an immense merchandising opportunity.

So come along and give us your opinion, as we consider the alternative to these expensive and corporate Olympic Games.