Are we falling through the cracks?

The Labour Party Conference Leader's Speech today makes fascinating reading or listening, depending on how you access it, but one thing jumped out at me as being a significant change from the Labour Party. Labour has long been the party of workers, of employed people, springing as it did from the loins of the early trade union movement. Keeping those roots and that connection is important, but so is moving with the times, and recognising that the era of thousands of workers in massive plants in the UK has gone, and that many people in work are now employed in the service industries or in small businesses, or are self-employed people - who now make up around 14% of all people in work!

Whilst some people are self-employed out of choice, some are so of necessity. Some, like me, live in a rural area where there is not much work and where public transport costs are exorbitant. Some can work limited hours due to childcare issues, some cannot go out to work due to being a carer, or having a disability, or other health issues. That people are self-employed and therefore earning something has many benefits, not all of which are purely financial! Feeling that you can earn your keep, or a part of it, is good for your mental health too. Being able to structure your working hours round caring for your children, your elderly relatives, a disabled partner, all help ease the pressure on families under strain.

Over the past decade or so there has been a lot of encouragement for individuals to start their own businesses. For example, we have been told that the digital economy is growing. More and more shopping is being done online. A whole raft of public services are online. We have been encouraged to get online and do all sorts of stuff, and as a country we have done just that, with 89.90% of us with internet access. Figures from the Office of National Statistics (.pdf, 482kb) state that there are 4.6 million self-employed and sole traders in the UK. That's an awful lot of people who fall outside of the scope of the current welfare state!
Jeremy Corbyn's Leader Speech had this to say about self-employed people:

In my leadership campaign I set out some ideas for how we should support small businesses and the self-employed.  

That’s because one in seven of the labour force now work for themselves.  Some of them have been driven into it as their only response to keep an income coming in, insecure though it is.  But many people like the independence and flexibility self-employment brings to their lives, the sense of being your own boss.  And that’s a good thing.

But with that independence comes insecurity and risk especially for those on the lowest and most volatile incomes.  There’s no Statutory Sick Pay if they have an accident at work.  There’s no Statutory Maternity Pay for women when they become pregnant. They have to spend time chasing bigger firms to pay their invoices on time, so they don’t slip further into debt. 

They earn less than other workers.  On average just £11,000 a year.  And their incomes have been hit hardest by five years of Tory economic failure.

So what are the Tories doing to help the self-employed, the entrepreneurs they claim to represent?  They’re clobbering them with the tax credit cuts.  And they are going to clobber them again harder as they bring in Universal Credit.  So I want our policy review to tackle this in a really serious way. And be reflective of what modern Britain is actually like.

Labour created the welfare state as an expression of a caring society – but all too often that safety net has holes in it, people fall through it, and it is not there for the self-employed.  It must be. That is the function of a universal welfare state. Consider opening up Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay to the self-employed so all new born children can get the same level of care from their parents.

I’ve asked Angela Eagle, our Shadow Business Secretary, and Owen Smith, our Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, to look at all the ways we can we support self-employed people and help them to grow their businesses.

This is such a significant statement for self-employed people like me. Although we pay our National Insurance contributions and our Income Tax like every other worker, we currently have no support  by way of sickness or maternity benefits. All we have is the red tape of being self-employed under a system designed for big businesses or employed people.  It's time for a change to iron out those discrepancies and to recognise, as Jeremy Corbyn clearly does, that self-employment is an important area that needs to be looked at in depth and some serious answers provided.

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

This might come as a bit of a shock to some, but things have changed! It seems that some  of the media are having a problem understanding that. It really upsets the press when change happens, as it upsets all their preconceptions and renders their pre-set texts obsolete, so reporters cannot just churn out the same old garbage - they actually have to investigate, to do research, to find out about the changes. What a shame it is that so much of the mainstream media appear to be incapable of doing that.

Not only are they incapable of doing it, but they also appear incapable of understanding information given, or answers to questions they ask. How many times have we heard a reporter state as fact the a politician said "this", when if you go back and check the source of the story the politician said "that" instead.
Reporters seem to feel that this is acceptable, that twisting someone's words, or putting a spin on it, is what reporters should do. Guess what? They are wrong!

So, if you really want to know what a politician such as Jeremy Corbyn, MP, or John McDonnell, MP, has said, why not read their own words instead of the media's spin or twisted versions of them?  Why not watch them on YouTube and actually hear what they say, rather than accept a reporter's interpretation of what they say?  You might be surprised. You might also find that you agree with Jeremy and John. Now that would make a change!

Jeremy Corbyn's priorities: http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/priorities/
Jeremy Corbyn's articles: http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/

YouTube interview on C4 by Jon Snow, 16 Sep 2015:

John McDonnell's blog: http://www.john-mcdonnell.net/

YouTube interview on C4 by Jon Snow, 14 Sep 2015: 

Why do women need a separate voice?

Following coverage of the current Labour Party conference has reminded me of my own years attending party and trades union conferences, especially as yesterday was the Labour Women's Conference before the main Labour Party Conference starting today.

Across social media I have seen questions asking why this happens, when there is no equivalent Labour Men's Conference. That's a good question. Perhaps some of my memories are worth sharing to show where attitudes have (or have not) changed in the intervening years and why the Labour and Trades Union movement has long had women-only meetings and shortlists.

Here's one of those memories to begin with...

Many years ago, as a young delegate to the USDAW annual conference, I wanted to speak on the debate about abortion that took place there.

The conference Chair was male, and he called male delegates to speak on the motion. I was sat right on the front row opposite the Chair and every time I could I stood and raised my hand to speak, every time he ignored me and called another male speaker. This despite USDAW being (certainly at that time) a Union of more women than men (something like a 70% to 30% ratio).

Eventually conference delegates decided that I had been ignored long enough and a chant began in the hall, "Call the woman, call the woman, call the woman" and so the Chair reluctantly had to call me to speak. By that time I was hopping mad, and the speech came out in a much more fiery manner than I had originally planned!

The point of the story is that women faced, and possibly still do face, discrimination even within the Labour and trades union movement, so using the women-only meetings and conferences is sometimes their only way to get their message through. That is actually an indictment of the attitude of some of the men in the movement, and until all men and all women regard each other as equals things will not change.

Housing rental costs - how they have changed!

There is an interesting graphic doing the rounds on social media, in the form of a London Underground (tube) map, showing housing rental costs for each station area.  For me it's a real eye opener,  as I lived in London between 1981-1986, and so it's interesting to see how London area rents have rocketed since then.

My flat in Stoke Newington, rented from the London Co-operative Society's property division, cost me all of £12 per week when I moved into it in 1981. Compare that to the one I had left in Kendal which cost me £8 per week, so even then a 50% increase on rentals. Now the difference in rents between here and London is even-more marked.

Stoke Newington isn't served by the tube, but a quick check of estate agents reveals that a one bedroom flat there will cost around £400-£500 per week, whereas you would be paying that per month for the same sort of space in Kendal. So instead of it being a 50% increase of cost, current London v. Kendal rents equate to a 400% increase.

How on earth do young people especially afford that? How does anyone afford those levels of rent? How does that impact on people wanting or needing to move south for work opportunities like I did in 1981?

It brings home to me just how much of an issue is (a) housing costs and (b) the North-South divide in housing issues.  This is why new Labour Party leader,  Jeremy Corbyn, has long been making the point about private rent controls being needed and why housing has long been one of his priorities.

Petitions that get results...

Following on from yesterday's post about the use of petitions, I was pleased to receive a response from my local authority, South Lakeland District Council, in respect of a petition on care2.com that I signed back in June of this year.  The petition "Stop housing discrimination against homeless people with pets" called for a rethink in the way that homeless people with pets are dealt with, and a copy of the petition was sent to each local authority.

The response from Cllr Graham Vincent, the council's Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, thanked me for raising the issue and explained the council's position,  insofar as housing homeless persons meant they often had to share accommodation (I presume this means hostels) and that having pets in such places was not appropriate so the pet was kennelled overnight (presumably at the council's expense.) He also referred to families escaping domestic abuse and that having pets housed with children is not always appropriate.

Cllr Vincent went on to explain that the council was currently revising their housing strategy and that this issue would be looked at as a part of that review, and that he will raise the matter at the regional Homelessness Forum to see if there are other options which may be better.

I have to say that I am delighted to have the reply from Cllr Vincent, and his assurance that he will look at this again.  I shall respond to him and make some comments and suggestions which I hope he may find of use.

Whilst I understand the reasoning behind the council's stance, I do feel very strongly that where a homeless person has been sleeping on the street and their only companion has been a dog, that it is wrong to separate person and dog as part of the rehousing issue. The dog is a vital part of the well-being of that person, possibly their only friend or companion, and once parted both will suffer.

The same can apply to families - if children are forcibly separated from their pets due to homelessness / rehousing, it can simply add to their trauma. Maintaining the continuity and stability of the good things in a child's life is essential when they are faced with domestic violence or abuse issues, as it will help them to cope with the huge changes they are going through.

If the current method of housing homeless persons does not allow for them to keep their pets then we really need to be rethinking how and where we rehouse people.  It's difficult enough being homeless without the distress of losing a loyal and trusted companion also.  I look forward to hearing how my local authority will progress this issue and hope they will be brave enough to consider some alternatives to the status quo.

What use are petitions really?

One of the things I often used to hear was, "petitions are no use, no-one takes any notice of them."  That may have been the case once, but how things have changed. Petitions have become a powerful tool for people concerned about a particular issue. The proliferation of petition sites online, such as change.org, 38degrees.org.uk, avaaz.org, sumofus.org, care2.com has enabled groups and individuals to make a difference by harnessing the power of people worldwide. Organisations which existed before the internet, such as Greenpeace.org, Amnesty.org.uk and Shelter.org.uk, have used online petitions to great effect also.

So, why do they work so well? Basically it's all about publicity. With an online community the news about an issue can go global in minutes, and as fast as the news spreads, so the petitions signatories can respond equally quickly.  The use of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter make it easy for a petition to be shared with a huge number of people - very much a ripple effect as each person sharing it casts the ripples further from the source. The power of petitions has been recognised by charities and pressure groups, but is also widely used by individuals raising an issue that they feel strongly about.  

In the UK there is a government petition scheme which any UK citizen can initiate. Once the petition has 10,000 signatories it will be reviewed by the government Petitions Committee and a response issued. If the petition has more than 100,000 signatories it will be debated in Parliament. The biggest problem with the UK gov't scheme is that its petitions can only be signed by UK citizens, so it is of no practical use against global issues or multi-nation corporations.

That petitions do work has been seen by some spectacular climb downs over recent years. That they don't work every time is also true - some politicians seem to make an art form of ignoring them! But it is the case that without them we would have a lot less of a voice, and many injustices would not be corrected. Shaming LEGO into announcing it will not renew its links with oil company SHELL is just one of the many issues which petitioners have influenced vis the internet, another is the ban on the sale of Monsanto's Round Up in the Netherlands.  Petitions for the protection of whales, tuna, rain forests and palm oil, and many other issues have had partial or total success.

One of the most useful aspects of petitions is that they raise awareness among people who would not normally have heard of an issue. The manipulation of news stories via the mainstream media means that often the stories which raise the most public support are never read in the newspapers. Why? Perhaps vested interests. Perhaps not thought to be of sufficient interest. Perhaps media owners oppose that viewpoint. Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that petitions give a voice and a strength to ordinary people everywhere in the world. Long may that continue!

Crossing the floor

If you have, like me, become fed up of the endless #piggate  stories flooding the press and social media, you will be glad to know that today's story has nothing in it about quadrupeds of any type!

Instead, I've been watching the steady climb of  membership figures since the announcement of Jeremy Corbyn as the new Leader of the Labour Party on Saturday 12th September.

An article dated 25 September last year (2014) on opendemocracy.net gace the following figures as having just been published in a House of Commons Library Report:

“Latest estimates suggest that the Conservative Party claimed 134,000 members, the Labour party 190,000 and the Liberal Democrat Party 44,000.*” They also say that, in June, UKIP had 39,000 members.

So how does that compare with the figures now, 12 months down the line?  It's hard to be exact as the latest "official" figures published by the House of Commons Library are dated August 2015, and show as follows: 

According to the latest party press releases and media estimates (at 11 August 2015):
- The Conservative Party has around 149,800 members, as of December 2013.
- The Labour Party has around 270,000 members, as of August 2015.
- The Scottish National Party has around 110,000 members, as of June 2015.
- The Liberal Democrat Party has 61,000 members, as of May 2015.
- UKIP has around 42,000 members, as of January 2015.
- The Green Party (England and Wales) has 61,000 members, as of June 2015.

However, what is clear is that whatever the figure was on 12th September, the Labour Party membership has climbed by more than 62,000 since the leadership election result - that's more than the total number of members that UKIP has, crowed the Independent.

Many of the new members are assumed to be from the 105,598 registered supporters (the £3 voters) signing up as full members, although there is evidence that some new members were not previously registered supporters whilst others have crossed the floor from other parties to join the Labour Party.  The total membership of the Labour Party is now reported in the Independent as approx. 360,000, which is probably more than the Conservative, the LibDem and UKIP totals combined!

So, apart from feeling smug, what should we as a party be asking all the new members to do?   We need action, we need people to spread the word about Labour Party policies, we need people to volunteer to deliver leaflets, attend meetings, organise awareness and fund-raising events, talk to anyone and everyone how a Labour government would result in a better, more socially just and caring society in the UK. How a Labour government would protect and improve the NHS; scrap student fees; bring essential services like the railways back into common ownership (not the same old nationalisation which was top heavy and didn't work);  build affordable social housing so that everyone who needs one can afford a home; by providing protection and support via the welfare system or otherwsie to the old, the sick and to people with disabilities of any kind;  to support small businesses and sole traders who have long-been ignored and neglected by all political parties;  by making our communities safer and giving our young people better opportunities for their futures. These are the policies that we need to explain to our friends, our neighbours and the wider society in which we live. Our vision is for a better future for us all in the UK, rather than the most wealthy 1% being OK and everyone else just getting by or suffering.

If you want to join us you would be very welcome:  https://join.labour.org.uk/ and if you are in the Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency we will probably see you at a local South Lakes Labour event very soon!

Mutual humiliation and shared secrets

I have just read a really interesting blog-article which outlines not only why the public are finding this week's revelations about the disreputable past of the current PM, David Cameron, so amusing, but also why such groups as the Piers Gaveston and Bullingdon clubs exist at all and what benefits they bring to their members. It is a real eye-opener.

The article also puts forward suggestions about why former PM, the late Margaret Thatcher, took no action when she allegedly knew about paedophile activity amongst people in the public eye, media, politics and the judiciary.

If what this article claims is true, it would appear to me that most of the electors who voted for the Conservatives have been victims of a huge con-trick.

http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/

Another story in the Mirror tells of a woman who apparently attended one of the drug-fuelled Piers Gaveston parties and one hosted by the "Assassins" - a group described as, "another of these elite Oxford drinking societies."

Sleaze, sleaze and yet more sleaze... or is it a smokescreen?

After all of the garbage thrown at Jeremy Corbyn since his election as Leader of the Labour Party last weekend, you might think that I'd be taking great delight in the story in the Daily Mail today, giving details of sleazy goings on in the past of David Cameron as revealed in the book to be published next month by his erstwhile friend and financial supporter Lord Ashcroft.  In fact I am sickened by it, as it really shows the depravity which appears to be endemic in many parts of British politics and highlights the utter callousness of those in Government.

One thing that strikes me whenever I read this sort of "story" in the media is to wonder if it is a decoy. You know the sort of thing - a big scandal involving a famous name and whilst we are all laughing, the Govt. slips in another bit of legislation that takes away another freedom we have, or adds another tax, or sells off another state asset.  

Whilst social media has gone into paroxysms of laughter and satire about the so-called #piggate issue, are we being distracted from the big issues such as the deaths of those deemed fit to work by the DWP, the ongoing refugee crisis, or the outrageous rise in the cost of an anti-AIDS drug from $13.50 to $750 per tablet after the company which made it was bought out by a hedge fund?

Or is it that the Tories are simply fed up with David Cameron as their leader, and have decided it's time for him to go - as happened to Margaret Thatcher in 1990. Whatever the reason, the media seem to be having a feeding frenzy about #piggate, so it will be interesting to see if Cameron will emerge with his position intact!

In or out? The EU I mean...

Last night saw us forsaking the BBC's new series of Dr Who and heading northward to the Marchesi Centre in Windermere where Julie Ward, MEP, was to address a public meeting organised by the Westmorland and Lonsdale Constituency Labour Party.

It was perhaps optimistic to expect a large turnout on a Saturday night but, although few in number, we made up for that in interest and enthusiasm, and were joined by four visitors from the Fylde who had travelled some 45 miles to attend the meeting.

Julie, who is a fairly new member of the European Parliament - elected in May 2014, is one of eight MEPs that represent the North West Region - three of whom are members of the European Parliamentary Labour Party. Her particular interests include culture, education, children, and gender equality and she is an active campaigner for equal rights and social justice.

A broad-brush explanation of how the EU works set the scene for us, with lots of detail about the political groups which operate in the EU (instead of along party lines as in the UK parliament), and how much of their work is carried out in the 20 committees that each cover a specific area of interest or policy making. She gave examples of how her own work on Committees has affected and improved the lives of individuals and groups, and described the impressive translation system which can service members from the 28 different nations in the EU simultaneously.

A lively question and answer session followed, covering issues such as the Greek financial crisis, the planned TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) deal, and this year's changes to the way VAT is collected on digital cross-border sales and its impact on low turnover businesses and sole traders.

One of the things I came away with was a much better understanding of how the UK benefits from its membership of the EU, and how much we stand to lose if we leave it.  From legal protections to jobs, much will be undermined or removed if we opt out of Europe in the Government's planned referendum.

When will the media realise that repeating lies will never make them truths?

In Jan 1987 The Times ran with a story about Jeremy Corbyn giving money to an on-the-run terrorist, which was subsequently acknowledged by The Times to have been wrong. The Times issued an apology. Time passed. Today those other bastions of news, The Sun and The Mail reported the same story as was carried in the 1987 issue of The Times, despite it being proved to be wrong in 1987!

Checking the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice it seems this is a clear breach of Clause 1 Accuracy 

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.

So why did The Mail and The Sun print a story which The Times (owned by News UK as is The Sun) knew was factually incorrect? There is only one reason: it is yet another disgraceful attempt by the media to discredit the new leader of the Labour Party.

I would expect a correction with due prominence to be published along with an apology by both The Sun and The Mail!  My feeling is that won't happen, but shame on them both if it does not!

Out of context comment reporting shows media bias: How surprising!

All social media has been alive with activity since the Labour leadership election campaign began, but since the result last Saturday there has been an increasing focus on the lies, spin, and disinformation appearing in the media.

One Facebook member was so incensed at the video which appeared on the Conservative Party's Facebook page that used the out of context claim that Jeremy Corbyn said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy, he issued his own video (embedded below) showing the actual context in which the words Osama Bin Laden and death and tragedy appeared. Another member created the image on the right to rebut the claims appearing in the press.

It is, as you will see, not what the subsequent media hype claimed it was! Meanwhile, the original Press TV broadcast video can be seen in full here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=056_1441034465

It just goes to show how biased and unreliable the press are and how we can be misled by reading it.

From the horse's mouth: John McDonnell talks to Jon Snow...

If you have heard in the media that having John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor will be a disaster for the country, will you please watch this interview with Jon Snow. It is well worth investing a wee bit of your time in (16 minutes) just to see what the truth really is. 

Jon Snow is a veteran broadcaster and he asked some very sharp questions which were answered clearly and fully by John McDonnell. How refreshing to see a politician who does that. That means we now have 2 of them (the other being Jeremy Corbyn, of course.) 

Integrity or hypocrisy: the fuss about the National Anthem

Today's media is full of the story that (shock horror) the new Labour Party leader did not sing the National Anthem during yesterday's commemorative service at St Paul's Cathedral. 

Guess what?  Neither would I if I had been there!   My reason would be that singing "God save our Gracious Queen..." when I am neither a monarchist nor a Christian would be hypocritical.  But as he is the Leader of the Labour Party, and thus the Official Opposition, he is expected to compromise his principles and lie by singing about something with which he fundamentally disagrees.

Why should that be? It is such a rare thing to find a politician who has principles and who sticks to them regardless, that the media, and sadly some of the public, apparently  cannot handle it!  Have we really been so brainwashed that we cannot recognise respect and integrity when we see it?

Jeremy Corbyn's behaviour at the service was exemplary, he stood in respectful silence during the anthem, and clearly was not the only person not singing as the photo in the Daily Telegraph shows! 

Later he paid tribute to those who died during the Battle of Britain by saying, 

"My mum served as an air raid warden and my dad in the Home Guard.

Like that whole generation, they showed tremendous courage and determination to defeat fascism.
"The heroism of the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain is something to which we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude.
"The loss of life - both civilian and military - should be commemorated so that we both honour their lives and do all that we can to ensure future generations are spared the horrors of war."

It is interesting to compare Jeremy Corbyn's stance at the service to that of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of Defence, as reported by an  eye-witness,

"I would like to mention that during the service at St Paul's today, Jeremy Corbyn stood in dignified silence during the National Anthem, unlike the Secretary of Defence who was busy looking round and trying to catch the cameras. Thank you Jeremy for coming and paying your respects and not show boating and glad handing as Mr Cameron did. A man standing in dignified silence shows greater respect for the fallen than a noisy peacock and the PM and Defence secretary were not dignified."

The furore brings to mind an earlier occasion when the media reported inappropriate behaviour at a serious event. Do you remember the service for Nelson Mandela, at which David Cameron, Barack Obama (US President) and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Denmark PM) were caught enjoying a selfie?  I do!

Surely Jeremy Corbyn's behaviour at the St Paul's service was far more appropriate than that displayed by David Cameron at both events?

Meanwhile, whilst everyone was being distracted by the media hype about the National Anthem, the Tory govt. voted in favour of swingeing cuts to tax credits that will cause untold hardship to those who earn the least. Perhaps the media should focus on this instead?! 

The fight starts here... Trades Union Bill 2nd Reading

Last night the Govt (which really means the Tories) won the vote after the second reading of the Trades Union Bill with a majority of 33.  The Bill as presented is a significant attack on the rights of working people in respect of industrial action and really has little justification in today's workplace.

Introducing the 2nd Reading, The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade, Sajid Javid began by saying,
"Since the industrial revolution, Britain’s trade unions have done much to help to deliver that fairer society that I was describing. They have helped to secure higher wages, safer workplaces and stronger employee rights. They have fought for social justice and campaigned for freedom and democracy, and they have supplied the House with some of its most eloquent and influential Members, including Leaders of the Opposition."

Anyone hearing that would assume that what was to follow would be fair and reasonable, but no, it is not. The Bill will seek to inflict devere restrictions of how strikes may be called, especially in certain industries, and even more severe penalties for non-compliance, making a striker into a criminal in a way we have not seen since the days of the Tolpuddle Martyrs!

The Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Angela Eagle,  said in her response,

"... it saddens me beyond words that we are here today dealing with the most significant sustained and partisan attack on 6 million trade union members and their workplace organisations that we have seen in this country in the past 30 years. With the number of days lost to strike action down 90% in the past 20 years, there is no need whatsoever to employ the law in this draconian way."

It saddens me too. This planned legislation is so badly thought out, it will cause untold damage to the relationship between employers and employees, and will have a knock on effect on the productivity and profitability of those employers who invoke it. There needs to be a mutual respect and understanding between both sides, a proper contract based on trust, which cannot exist if employers are permitted to use temporary workers or agency staff to break strikes.

Employers need to understand (and although some do, sadly many still do not) that no worker will go on strike until they are pushed too far. A strike is always the action of last resort and should be seen as a failure by the employer when it happens, as they have not managed to reach an understanding with their workforce.

Emily Thornberry MP asked,  

"Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that 77% of the public believe that trade unions defend important aspects of workers’ rights and that we need them?"

To which Angela Eagle responded, 

" It is wise to remember that trade unions defend not only their own members. Over the years, trade unions have created a process that has given us holidays, weekends and reasonable working hours. It is right that the benefits that trade unions bring to our society are recognised and extended to those who are not members of trade unions but happen to be at work. Any attack on those rights that weakens those powers threatens the progress made over many years in democracy at work."

That the legislation will weaken trades unions is also irresponsible, as the support of the TU movement has also helped to bring in much needed safety and equality laws which benefit all workers and the businesses in which they work, and help to prevent the sort of horrendous accidents we see reported in countries where workers do not have such protection.

Ms Eagle also stated that,   

"The Bill is draconian, vindictive and counterproductive. It is:  'very provocative, highly ideological and has no evidence base at all'.  Those are not my words; they are the words of  Vince Cable, the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as Business Secretary in the previous Government."

We are a modern civilised nation and our legislation needs to treat employees and employers equally, not maintain a hierarchy or return to the days when employers could hire and fire at will and families could be made destitute at an employer's whim. That is not civilisation, it is feudalism and has no place in the 21st century!

Media bias: fact or fiction?

Well who would have thought it? Less than 24 hours after the announcement of the new Leader of the Labour Party the UK's media seems to have lost its collective marbles!  Reading through some of the myriad of stories, which become ever more fanciful as time goes on, I wonder if those who write them really do believe the tripe they are spouting, or are they being (a) forced by the media owners to write it or (b) have they really been brainwashed into believing what they write?

Years ago, when I worked for a major trades union in London, I attended a good many seminars, conferences and meetings which those who worked in the media also attended as members of their own unions. Journalists, sub-editors, print workers, compositors:  they all had a good understanding of what were the real dangers to working people, and to those unable to work for whatever reason.  So what has happened in the intervening years that now journalists write the most right-wing, biased rhetoric as if it was gospel?

Have they lost their ability to think for themselves? Have they been brainwashed into believing that the interests of big businesses and arms manufacturers and banks are also their interests?  If that isn't the case then why are they doing it? I do not understand why there is such a witch hunt from working journalists against a man who stands to protect the rights and freedoms of all working and non-working people. It simply does not make sense!

Journalists you are not sheep, so please stop behaving like you are! Journalism was once a profession to be proud of. Now it is regarded by many as one to be ashamed of. Why? Because we have cottoned on to the huge bias in what you write, present and broadcast. We can see through the attacks on decent politicians, on the disabled, on welfare claimants, on refugees and asylum seekers.  You are doing the dirty work of the Tory government and their big business chums for them, but remember, you are only useful to those groups whilst you toe the line. Have an accident, fall ill, lose your job and you will become one of those vilified by the media by which you are now employed. Can you live with that? Can you ask your family to live with that?  Is there not a better way?

How about reporting the news objectively and fairly and allowing the readership to make up their own minds?   How about ceasing the intrusive and often scurrilous and unwarranted attacks on those in the public eye and their families and friends?  How about behaving like decent human beings and showing compassion to those in reduced circumstances? How about telling the truth rather than writing an article just because it will make a good story and sell papers, and make more money for the media barons?

You do not have to be a sheep. Be objective not objectionable. Why not give it a try? 

Why has homelessness become such a big problem?

When I moved to London in 1981 I was staggered at seeing people sleeping on the streets, living in cardboard boxes on street corners, sleeping in subways and on park benches.

I had moved from Kendal in Cumbria, where there were two people who slept rough, both of whom apparently refused to live in proper housing for their own reasons. 

That people had to sleep rough was such a revelation to me...  now almost 35 years on and there are even more people sleeping on the streets or being dumped in unsuitable temporary accommodation.

People with mental health issues, young people, homeless families, or ex service-people who have nowhere else to live and who are suffering the awful after-effects of their involvement in any of the more recent conflicts.

How can this be? Why and how have we got it so wrong as a society?  How do we solve the problem?  And how quickly can we solve it?  We need social housing, we need affordable housing, we need a variety of housing suitable for the different needs of people. Not just family homes, but flats or houses for single people, for elderly people, for disabled people, for everyone to be able to have a place they can call their own.  It should not be too much to ask in 2015 that we all have somewhere to live!

*Jeremy Corbyn's housing manifesto proposes a radical rebooting of home construction permitting councils to be house builders and providers in order to meet the demand for affordable housing in their own areas:  PDF LINK

*  The new Leader of the Labour Party, just in case you missed it!

The winds of change are a blowin'...

The winds of change are blowing across this country. For too long the politics of greed and apathy and self have been dominant. With today's Labour Party leadership election result this will change. It must change for the sakes of the country, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, for those who - for whatever reason - cannot work, for those who are disabled, sick, incapacitated in any way - physically or mentally, for the old and infirm, for the disadvantaged, for those in work struggling to cope on low wages, for our students faced with a lifetime of crippling fee debt, for refugees and asylum seekers who are fleeing from such devastating effects of war or terrorism, for sole traders and small bsuinesses struggling to stay afloat, for the sake of every single human in this country!

The Labour Party leadership had over recent years lost touch with its members, so much so that many - like me - had left, disillusioned by seeing changes to the party we had joined, in my case as a teenager. Despite all our hopes we saw the party's actions and our aspirations move further apart, and had begun to think the paths would never reconverge. The May 2015 General Election result confirmed our fears - all but one seat lost in Scotland whilst in England and Wales we suffered a net loss of 26 seats. The Labour vote was 9,347,304  out of a total electorate of  46,420,413, on a 66.1% turnout (30,683,892). Labour was clearly not seen as a credible alternative to the Tory govt!

Then a feint light glowed, a tiny flame of hope ignited when the Labour leadership candidates were announced. One stood apart from the rest - one man who had defied his party whip on issues that mattered to him and his constituents, one that had served on the back benches for more than 30 years but who had never held a ministerial post or a seat in the Cabinet, one that the media clearly regarded as the comic relief of the campaign. And how they mocked him. Personal slurs, half-truths and even downright lies were published in newspapers, even the BBC allowed the broadcast of what clearly appeared to be a biased anti-Corbyn Panorama programme just days before the end of voting.  The personal attacks became more outrageous and more frenzied, even party grandees (who really should have known better) got in on the act, in what was perceived by many as a desperate attempt to derail the Corbyn campaign and maintain the status quo of New Labour.  The more attacks there were the stronger his campaign became. In just 100 days he attended 99 events, and spoke to around 50,000 people about his vision for the future. About how as a party we can take back control of our destiny, that together we can fight austerity, that together we can have hope for a better life now and in the future. That tiny flame had became an inferno!

Through it all Jeremy Corbyn remained his calm, polite, unshakeable self. Quietly courteous to everyone, refusing to fall to the level of those who made such bitter attacks on him and his family. "We don't do personal, we do policies" was his mantra. Many of his supporters were reminded of the words of an earlier leader (Mahatma Ghandi) who said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." That thought kept us going through the long weeks of the campaign. It kept us going in the face of the media onslaught. It kept us going during the attacks by party members too.  And it was finally proved correct.

Today, the Labour Party has a new Leader and a new Deputy Leader. As Leader Jeremy Corbyn will no doubt seek more cohesion between members, more compassion in society, more accountability from politicians. Tom Watson, as his Deputy, is well-placed to offer support, build bridges, and bring the Party back together. Between them the future of the Labour Party can be one of progression and strength, of success in Opposition and in the 2020 General Election, but it needs all party members to put aside their differences and work together for the greater good of  all people in the country.  Jeremy Corbyn has the biggest political mandate for any political leader in UK political history and if that is not an indicator of the winds of change, I do not know what is!

I do know that together we are strong. Together we can put Jeremy Corbyn in No. 10 and the Labour Party into Government in 2020. A new era of politics, together!

Are you fed up of being told there is no alternative to austerity? Are you fed up of politicians behaving like overgrown schoolboys in debates? Are you fed up seeing the 1% grow richer whilst everyone else tightens their belts?  Are you fed up of seeing cuts to public services, welfare benefits, the NHS and more? If so, why not join the Labour Party today and be a part of the new era?  Together we can do it. https://join.labour.org.uk/