It would seem that Downing St isn't the only place where the Spring cleaning bug has caught on.
The best caption will be forwarded on to enter a prize draw.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Out with the old....
It would seem that Downing St isn't the only place where the Spring cleaning bug has caught on.
The best caption will be forwarded on to enter a prize draw.
Friday, June 22, 2007
You know it's a sad day when....
The supposedly 'Labour'-led Lambeth Council tries to ram through an ALMO ballot, despite all the indications that there might be shift in the Government's position on the '4th option'.
Neither the local Tenants Council or Leasehold Councils were given a chance to see the 'questions' that are to be put to tenants.
This is also despite the fact that the ALMO has never been endorsed by the CLP members.
In fact at a Vauxhall GC meeting members 'welcomed' Labour conference's support for the 4th option, and whilst in a separate motion called for a ballot, did not actually endorse the ALMO, nor any ALMO campaign.
What will be galling to residents and Labour members is that the Cabinet member responsible for Housing acknowledged that before the Council elections last year they agreed that the ALMO was their 'preferred option'.
However the campaign effectively lied to tenants, with the 'Labour' manifesto promising to deliver “Every home safe, warm and dry with rents kept down as low as possible” - hardly the basis for an ALMO proposal.
As has been raised with Councilors; if before the election they knew they wanted an ALMO, and it is such a good option, why not go to tenants and leaseholders when they had the chance?
Perhaps the answer is because it wasn't electorally palatable; which is no wonder they haven't even taken the ALMO policy to a meeting of the local CLP members for their support.
Instead there are reports that Lambeth Housing staff are being paid to spread the ALMO word on behalf of the Council; if this is true it's a scandalous waste of tax-payer's money.
However if they didn't make up their minds until after seeing the Lambeth Council 'books', then why haven't they subsequently sought to engage with local Labour members and trade unions on the issue?
So if anyone who lives in South London or elsewhere would like to help campaign against the ALMO this weekend (late notice I know) please contact Stephen Hack from Lambeth DCH on 07944293854.
Neither the local Tenants Council or Leasehold Councils were given a chance to see the 'questions' that are to be put to tenants.
This is also despite the fact that the ALMO has never been endorsed by the CLP members.
In fact at a Vauxhall GC meeting members 'welcomed' Labour conference's support for the 4th option, and whilst in a separate motion called for a ballot, did not actually endorse the ALMO, nor any ALMO campaign.
What will be galling to residents and Labour members is that the Cabinet member responsible for Housing acknowledged that before the Council elections last year they agreed that the ALMO was their 'preferred option'.
However the campaign effectively lied to tenants, with the 'Labour' manifesto promising to deliver “Every home safe, warm and dry with rents kept down as low as possible” - hardly the basis for an ALMO proposal.
As has been raised with Councilors; if before the election they knew they wanted an ALMO, and it is such a good option, why not go to tenants and leaseholders when they had the chance?
Perhaps the answer is because it wasn't electorally palatable; which is no wonder they haven't even taken the ALMO policy to a meeting of the local CLP members for their support.
Instead there are reports that Lambeth Housing staff are being paid to spread the ALMO word on behalf of the Council; if this is true it's a scandalous waste of tax-payer's money.
However if they didn't make up their minds until after seeing the Lambeth Council 'books', then why haven't they subsequently sought to engage with local Labour members and trade unions on the issue?
So if anyone who lives in South London or elsewhere would like to help campaign against the ALMO this weekend (late notice I know) please contact Stephen Hack from Lambeth DCH on 07944293854.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Poverty; Still an issue
Very disturbing to see the results of the IFS report into poverty that has indicated a rise in relative poverty and an increase in income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient.
These results provide an interesting backdrop to the debate surrounding the last budget.
Brown and Labour have made great strides towards addressing issues of poverty and equality, but the issues that remain must be acknowledged openly and debated frankly.
Clearly there are structural issues contributing to poverty that have not been sufficiently addressed and which can't be rectified by tax credits alone.
Interestingly a flat tax system is one that is more commonly proposed by right-wing economists because it is 'equitable' to all, irregardless of the circumstances that people face.
So Brown's decision to flatten the tax system by removing the 10% band is strange conceptually, but in reality it also doesn't necessarily contribute to progressive outcomes; for those moving from welfare to work it often creates bigger disincentives through higher marginal tax rates.
As per the earlier post a Labour Government should be trying to empower working people and to assist them achieve their aspirations, not put unnecessary barriers in their way.
These results provide an interesting backdrop to the debate surrounding the last budget.
Brown and Labour have made great strides towards addressing issues of poverty and equality, but the issues that remain must be acknowledged openly and debated frankly.
Clearly there are structural issues contributing to poverty that have not been sufficiently addressed and which can't be rectified by tax credits alone.
Interestingly a flat tax system is one that is more commonly proposed by right-wing economists because it is 'equitable' to all, irregardless of the circumstances that people face.
So Brown's decision to flatten the tax system by removing the 10% band is strange conceptually, but in reality it also doesn't necessarily contribute to progressive outcomes; for those moving from welfare to work it often creates bigger disincentives through higher marginal tax rates.
As per the earlier post a Labour Government should be trying to empower working people and to assist them achieve their aspirations, not put unnecessary barriers in their way.
Lambeth ALMO Update
At the Vauxhall GC meeting held last Thursday, Labour members were addressed by the Lambeth Cabinet member for Council Housing, Clr John Kazantzis.
He must be congratulated for being frank about the Council and Labour Group's position on the proposed ALMO.
Briefly he mentioned:
This CLP welcomes the decision taken at the Labour Party Conference to support direct investment in council housing.
AND
This CLP notes the following:
So as you can see there is some appetite for democracy, the next step is to maintain pressure on the Council to ensure that they continue to consult local tenants, leaseholders and Labour members, over the details of this proposal.
In support of this the Larkhall Labour branch is looking to hold an open community meeting on the proposed ALMO with Clr Steve Reed - Leader of the Council, Vauxhall MP Kate Hoey (TBC), Peter Redmond and a local tenant speaking on the issue.
The date set down is for the 26th April 2007 from 7.30-9.30 at the St John Parish hall, 386 Clapham Rd, Clapham North SW9 9AR.
Hope to see you all there and spread the news.
He must be congratulated for being frank about the Council and Labour Group's position on the proposed ALMO.
Briefly he mentioned:
- That the Consultation process was going to cost 1 Million GBP;
- That prior to the 2006 elections housing was discussed and it was decided that the ALMO was the preferred option;
- However while the election manifesto didn't mention an ALMO it didn't rule anything in or anything out either;
- That the Council, and himself, were committed to a 100% consultation with tenants and leaseholders;
- That the Council hadn't decided what the "Test of Opinion" would be yet;
- That the Council was still waiting for a decision from the Government on their ALMO submission.
This CLP welcomes the decision taken at the Labour Party Conference to support direct investment in council housing.
AND
This CLP notes the following:
- The Lambeth Labour election manifesto commitment to decent homes and living;
- The seriousness of the housing issue for both Tenants and Councillors;
- That current Labour Party policy supports the '4th option' for housing;
- The right of all Tenants to be balloted on any ALMO proposal.
The Vauxhall GC adopts this motion requiring a Labour Group meeting to be held prior to any Council vote on an ALMO proposal.
This CLP believes that the Council should thoroughly and constructively consult with, and conduct a formal ballot on the necessary questions of, all Tenants to determine their views on the ALMO proposal.
This CLP believes that this process will achieve two key things:
- It will provide all Tenants with a chance to democratically participate in an issue that directly affects them;
- Whatever the Tenants decision the Councillors can legitimately claim they have facilitated the will of Tenants.
So as you can see there is some appetite for democracy, the next step is to maintain pressure on the Council to ensure that they continue to consult local tenants, leaseholders and Labour members, over the details of this proposal.
In support of this the Larkhall Labour branch is looking to hold an open community meeting on the proposed ALMO with Clr Steve Reed - Leader of the Council, Vauxhall MP Kate Hoey (TBC), Peter Redmond and a local tenant speaking on the issue.
The date set down is for the 26th April 2007 from 7.30-9.30 at the St John Parish hall, 386 Clapham Rd, Clapham North SW9 9AR.
Hope to see you all there and spread the news.
Monday, March 26, 2007
What is a Labour budget anyway?
Much has been made of Brown's recent budget, with some promoting its virtues whilst others have been more mixed in their reaction.
Instead of a sweeping change that reduces inequality across the board, something that Brown could have chosen to do by making changes at any point of the taxation scale, he has merely fiddled within the margins.
Many are talking of working tax credits and family tax credits as an offset for the changes to income tax however it seems to miss the point, because the problem with tax credits as offsets is that they are a short term response to structural flaws in the income taxation system.
For example if the system was inherently sound and structurally progressive, then tax credits would not be necessary, unless they were being used as a mechanism to accelerate the reduction in the existing income inequality.
However because recent changes have resulted in lower income earners being worse off, they are being used as offsets to fix flaws in the system, but in reality they are ensuring that low income earners aren't going backwards.
In addition these changes act as a massive disincentive to work by creating high marginal tax rates for many low income earners, not something that is very sensible given the Government to shift more people into work and off benefits.
But what is the most disturbing aspect is that many people seem to be comfortable with the notion that it's ok for some low income earners to be worse off under a Labour budget.
To me a Labour Government should be encouraging working class people to achieve their aspirations, not forcing them to rely on handouts because of changes introduced by the state.
Instead of a sweeping change that reduces inequality across the board, something that Brown could have chosen to do by making changes at any point of the taxation scale, he has merely fiddled within the margins.
Many are talking of working tax credits and family tax credits as an offset for the changes to income tax however it seems to miss the point, because the problem with tax credits as offsets is that they are a short term response to structural flaws in the income taxation system.
For example if the system was inherently sound and structurally progressive, then tax credits would not be necessary, unless they were being used as a mechanism to accelerate the reduction in the existing income inequality.
However because recent changes have resulted in lower income earners being worse off, they are being used as offsets to fix flaws in the system, but in reality they are ensuring that low income earners aren't going backwards.
In addition these changes act as a massive disincentive to work by creating high marginal tax rates for many low income earners, not something that is very sensible given the Government to shift more people into work and off benefits.
But what is the most disturbing aspect is that many people seem to be comfortable with the notion that it's ok for some low income earners to be worse off under a Labour budget.
To me a Labour Government should be encouraging working class people to achieve their aspirations, not forcing them to rely on handouts because of changes introduced by the state.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Lambeth residents and ALMO fight
Local residents recently held a council meeting regarding the ALMO proposal for Lambeth council housing.
The following is a very good piece covering the meeting on Lambeth Unison news blogspot.
As a Lambeth resident - and former council tenant, albeit as a private renter - I support the right of Lambeth tenants to have a full say in any decision to change the ownership structure of their housing stock.
A motion supporting this position was passed recently by the Lark Hall branch of the Labour party:
This Branch notes the following:
The seriousness of the housing issue for both Tenants and Councillors;
That current Labour Party policy supports the '4th option' for housing;
The right of all Tenants to be balloted on any ALMO proposal.
This Branch requests that the Vauxhall GC adopts our motion requiring a Labour Group meeting to be held prior to any Council vote on an ALMO proposal.
This Branch believes that the Council should thoroughly and constructively consult with, and conduct a formal ballot of, all Tenants to determine their views on the ALMO proposal.
This Branch believes that this process will achieve two key things:
It will provide all Tenants with a chance to democratically participate in an issue that directly affects them;
Whatever the Tenants decision the Councillors can legitimately claim they have facilitated the will of Tenants.
For the purposes of this motion 'Tenants' also includes Leaseholders.
Howard to invade the US
Forget the 'drop-bears' and instead read all the latest about wombats on the warpath. It's funny because it could be true!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Howard - The musings of a little man...
Much has been made of the wee man's intervention in domestic US politics, though unlike some, I don't have an issue with his right to express his opinion, after all they're like arseholes - everybody has one.
However just because you are free to express yourself doesn't mean what you say will make any sense.
Attacking Obama's position is misguided given Howard hasn't got a clue about solving the problems in Iraq, nor does he seem to care too much.
Why so harsh?
Well Howard has elevated partisan politics above sensible public policy, evidence of this is his blind support for the Bush administration's policies and relative silence on Bush's rejection of the recommendations in the Baker Group report, itself the only bipartisan analysis of the options facing the 'coalition'.
But Obama hit the nail on the head when he questioned our contribution, something Labor has failed to do so far during the course of the war.
I mean if we are such great Allies of the State's that Howard claims we are why do we only ever have about 1000 troops in Iraq at any one time?
What's worse, making no effort or a half-arsed one?
At least making no effort takes honesty to say why we wouldn't want to be there....
On a related note two weeks after Senator Biden mistakenly called Obama 'African-American', Michael Gawenda - The Age's US Correspondent no less - seems to have done a Jayson Blair (at least with respect to his reporting accuracy).
Writing in today's Age Gawenda also describes Obama as African-American, prompting the question where has he been for the last two weeks??
Good to see that the standards of Australian journalism have improved, now where is my copy of the Guardian....
However just because you are free to express yourself doesn't mean what you say will make any sense.
Attacking Obama's position is misguided given Howard hasn't got a clue about solving the problems in Iraq, nor does he seem to care too much.
Why so harsh?
Well Howard has elevated partisan politics above sensible public policy, evidence of this is his blind support for the Bush administration's policies and relative silence on Bush's rejection of the recommendations in the Baker Group report, itself the only bipartisan analysis of the options facing the 'coalition'.
But Obama hit the nail on the head when he questioned our contribution, something Labor has failed to do so far during the course of the war.
I mean if we are such great Allies of the State's that Howard claims we are why do we only ever have about 1000 troops in Iraq at any one time?
What's worse, making no effort or a half-arsed one?
At least making no effort takes honesty to say why we wouldn't want to be there....
On a related note two weeks after Senator Biden mistakenly called Obama 'African-American', Michael Gawenda - The Age's US Correspondent no less - seems to have done a Jayson Blair (at least with respect to his reporting accuracy).
Writing in today's Age Gawenda also describes Obama as African-American, prompting the question where has he been for the last two weeks??
Good to see that the standards of Australian journalism have improved, now where is my copy of the Guardian....
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Trade Union Freedom Bill: Dare to Struggle - Dare to Win
Today I attended the Institute of Employment Rights conference launching the campaign to secure the passage of the Trade Union Rights and Freedom bill.
Whilst I won't repeat any of the arguments as I wouldn't do them any justice I will make an observation on some of the comments.
It was noted by one speaker that frequent reference is made in the media and by commentators to British trade unions representing only 6 million members, which actually puts the movement at the top of heap in terms of membership based organisations.
John McDonnell then commented that the campaign is now at the point whereby the movement could begin to look towards the wider civil society to generate even broader support for the Bill.
This brings me to one of my observations.
Whether the reference to 6 million members is framed positively or negatively I believe it fails to accurately describe the impact trade union members have on society.
For example if every trade union member has at least one dependent family member then 6 million translates into 12 million people on whom the labour movement has an immediate impact.
When we also consider that according to findings in Inside the Workplace (2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey) 35% of all British employees have their wages set through collective bargaining, and that the present workkforce is 29 million, then this translates into just over 10 million workers who have their pay set through collective bargaining.
Now some might question whether all those agreements are negotiated with unions, but I suspect any deviation would be minor, so we could safely estimate that at least 3 million workers are benefiting from the collective strength of 6 million trade union members, a figure similar to other estimates.
Again if these 3 million have at least one dependent then it doubles to 6 million people affected by the collective strength of trade union members.
So when we assess the real impact of trade union members, especially on pay and wages, arguably it actually numbers anywhere from 15 to 18 million people, which is a much more realistic perspective on the impact of trade union members on society.
I suspect that some people may tend to disagree, so perhaps it will be a useful starting point for the broader debate in the community and wider civil society.
Whilst I won't repeat any of the arguments as I wouldn't do them any justice I will make an observation on some of the comments.
It was noted by one speaker that frequent reference is made in the media and by commentators to British trade unions representing only 6 million members, which actually puts the movement at the top of heap in terms of membership based organisations.
John McDonnell then commented that the campaign is now at the point whereby the movement could begin to look towards the wider civil society to generate even broader support for the Bill.
This brings me to one of my observations.
Whether the reference to 6 million members is framed positively or negatively I believe it fails to accurately describe the impact trade union members have on society.
For example if every trade union member has at least one dependent family member then 6 million translates into 12 million people on whom the labour movement has an immediate impact.
When we also consider that according to findings in Inside the Workplace (2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey) 35% of all British employees have their wages set through collective bargaining, and that the present workkforce is 29 million, then this translates into just over 10 million workers who have their pay set through collective bargaining.
Now some might question whether all those agreements are negotiated with unions, but I suspect any deviation would be minor, so we could safely estimate that at least 3 million workers are benefiting from the collective strength of 6 million trade union members, a figure similar to other estimates.
Again if these 3 million have at least one dependent then it doubles to 6 million people affected by the collective strength of trade union members.
So when we assess the real impact of trade union members, especially on pay and wages, arguably it actually numbers anywhere from 15 to 18 million people, which is a much more realistic perspective on the impact of trade union members on society.
I suspect that some people may tend to disagree, so perhaps it will be a useful starting point for the broader debate in the community and wider civil society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
