North Staffs Trade Union Council Launches Anti-Cuts Campaign

Posted on by

I’m writing this as a blog rather than a news item because I want to select aspects of interest to me and interleave my own opinions. The NSTUC held a public meeting about the cuts on 18th August 2010 at the “ËœHope Centre’ in Garth Street, Hanley. I attended primarily as a worker and a union member but also out of general interest about people’s reactions to the cuts and planned cuts and as an occasional blogger.

Jason Hill, president of NSTUC, chaired the meeting and introduced a panel of speakers who it was stressed were expressing personal views not necessarily those of the TUC. Jason estimated that ~100 people attended but hadn’t counted, I estimated ~70 and didn’t count either. So let’s say ~85. He thought attendance was high, I thought it was not nearly enough given that thousands of jobs are likely to go.

I found, although I agreed with many points raised, that the message was largely a bit simplistic, along the lines of cuts are bad so we need to have protest demonstrations, although there were a few higher quality contributions from some.

Chris Bambury of right to work campaign said we have a nasty but weak government, he opposes increases in the pension age and VAT and wants to save money by stopping the Afghan war and trident. I agree with his preferred cuts, but I think the previous government was a bit more nasty and a lot more dishonest.

Andy Bentley of the universities and colleges union criticised Stoke-on-Trent council for agreeing to make 32% cuts and focussing on playing off much needed services against eachother in deciding these cuts. He wants to defend services and jobs and recommends a one day general strike of public sector workers. I would agree that action beyond just a protest would be good.

Mike Barnes, community voice councillor, said the council’s consultant led “Ëœlean thinking’ policy means mass redundancies and service cuts, communities and trade unions should campaign against this. Agreed.

Liat Norris of youth fight for jobs said university students having to live on very little have to juggle work and studies. He thinks EMA is needed at a higher level but will be cut out, apprenticeships should be at least at minimum wage and have a job at the end. Cuts will lead to youth unemployment and temporary contracts. I agree with him about the adverse effect of the cuts would go further, I think university students in a climate of high unemployment will struggle to find those jobs to supplement the loan plus any grant. I can’t agree on the EMA though. To me that has only ever been a temporary bribe to keep people off the unemployment figures while 16-18 education is made compulsory. I don’t agree with raising the age of compulsory education as it doesn’t suit everyone. Also, as child benefit goes up to age 19 if in education/training, why have EMA as well? I agree on apprenticeships, without having a job at the end they are nothing different to YTS.

Neil Singh of the communication workers union wants nationalised industries and thinks there is no point talking to the likes of David Cameron and Vince Cable. I agree some services are best nationalised but disagree about refusing talks just for silly party political reasons.

Tony Conway of the public and commercial services union rattled on about all sorts of bodies that would be cut, many of which I had never heard of and sounded a bit like unnecessary labour quangos introduced to give jobs to their mates. He actually began to convince me the tories are right about some of the cuts anyway. He said “Phillip Green is a tax dodger who has a personal wealth of billions”. I do agree that bringing in such a person to inflict cuts on the poor is “Ëœa bit rich’.

Kassem Al-Khatib, labour councillor, said it would be crazy for labour councillors to vote against the budget. He did not go down well, largely we thought he was the one who was crazy if he would vote for cuts against the wishes of the electorate. I did agree with him that there should be no redundancies for any business in profit though.

Jenny Harvey from unison in the health service made an excellent point I thought, that the biggest threat was not the cuts, but under the guise of choice and freedom the door being opened for global companies to get control of NHS money. Public services should be accountable to us, not shareholders. Bank taxes would be an alternative to cuts. I liked the comments she made the best of all of them.

The general discussion was along the lines that everyone should work together to campaign against cuts to services and facilities that we want, but at the same time some took the chance to have a go at each other.

I will pick just some comments from the general discussion that I thought particularly stood out, most people did not state their names.

Someone from the probation service union said labour, tory and libdems are all to blame and reminded us how rich Blair has become.

Someone else suggested anti-cuts alliances should involve both private and public services. There can be successes. DHL workers had campaigned successfully when redundancies had been targeted specifically at union members.

Paul Sutton said he was terrified to lose his job as who will employ him, over 50, there shouldn’t be age discrimination but it happens. He specifically had a go at Tristram Hunt, who was there, for the previous labour government having got us into debt and started the cuts and asked him if he would now support a campaign against cuts in pay and jobs in the civil service. Tristram Hunt said nothing.

Someone said we need to establish whether our elected representatives are with us or against us, a broad union of left winged and nationalist parties is needed.

Someone else said our councillors should vote against cuts as we need a voice in the council chamber. At the next election we should vote out councillors who support the cuts and vote in those who vote against the cuts. An answer is needed from MPs and councillors. The MP and councillors there not on the panel said nothing in response.

Arthur criticised the trade unions themselves and said left to union leaders the campaign would focus on the public sector, but a wider campaign is needed. The state is also the enemy. Instead of striking a good idea is to occupy facilities planned for closure.

Someone from the department for work and pensions who is losing his job and can’t find another said we should go back to the workplace and encourage involvement in campaigning. He talked about action and hope, but I also award him the prize for the emotive quote of the evening, referring to David Cameron’s policies, “he wants his big society shoving up his arse”.

The panel made some final comments, the best from Chris about approaching young workers to rebuild the trade union movement, grass roots activity and a general strike. There are closures and privatisations now, we can’t wait for the TUC or it will be all over. I award him the prize for the best summing up comment of the evening “the TUC has done nothing over the last 30 years”.

Have Your Say

  • Tideswellman

    This is one of the major problems with the unions at the moment. They seem to be infested with communist ideology.

    Who the hell cares that Blair has gotten rich? the reality of the situation is that Blair has to live with his conscience, any money he makes is down to his own hard work and ingenuity. If people are prepared to pay him silly money just to speak..then that’s their problem and more power to his elbow.

    I recently had an argument about “single status” with a chap who worked at Newcastle council. He thought it was a good thing whereas I think it’s a terrible thing. Raising the pay of of workers who haven’t made the effort to better themselves is counter productive.

    Workers who have time served and undergo professional development, have degrees and other qualifications deserve to be significantly higher paid than those who don’t make the effort.

    With regards to cuts. it’s worthwhile remembering that we have seen all this nonsense before. The names of the pots of money are changing and being moved around. they will still exist. The smart people will watch closely and benefit. It will be like a giant game of “which cup is the ball under”.

    The real issue will be protecting Pensions and old people’s winter fuel payments.

  • Gary Elsby

    In May of this year, I had successfully put out 42,500 leaflets to every home in Stoke Central which said:

    ‘This City is a regenerating City and should therefore not be subjected to cuts or job losses. I will never vote for either’.

    I also committed to The Mitchell High (and meant it), along with the call for 1M Council House Build, Free care for the elderly via a NI ring fenced rise,no evictions upon home-owners, no VAT rise etc….

    My opinions are still the same.

  • Simple Stokie Simon

    …And completely irrelevant!

  • Gary Elsby

    The relevance is that only 70 people turned up.

    I don’t expect you to understand.

  • sirrontail

    It’s Liat Norris and Youth Fight for Jobs. Just if someone would like to make an edit ;)

    Firstly I’d agree that the age of compulsory education shouldn’t be raised, and that EMA being introduced as a bribe is wrong. But it was a good thing done for bad reasons. The logic applies to college students as it does for uni students – we shouldn’t have to try and juggle both education and work. Which is why all students, be they FE or HE, deserve a living grant so they don’t have to work and can focus on studying.

  • tonyjohnt

    I fear the unions are falling into a trap here. Did they learn nowt from the sham that was “the winter of discontent”? That was designed by the bosses to deliver power to Thatcher (spit). Arbitration needs both sides to be pliant and reasonable – an economic / industrial coalition.

    Cameron and Co would love some old fashioned class war. The lines would be drawn, the enemy within would be resurrected by Murdoch… hey presto! Ditch Clegg (spit) and rule with the right wing fist you always meant to.

    We have to be wiser this time comrades. How annoyed would the Tories be, if Big Society actually had legs?

  • Kenneth

    There may well be truth in what you say here, Tonyjohnt, class war, like all war, needs master tacticians, and it is quite feasible that our working people will have little defense against further indebtedness and poverty, thereby allowing the ruling class to further fragment and divide our people. What is essential here is that the “masses” of our people understand that these attacks are class based, and are designed to destroy the “social wage” that has been fought for and won over many generations of struggle.
    The pittance that is paid as “wages” to our young people is quite inadequate to allow them to have normal human hopes and aspirations, and it is the indebtedness thereby caused, the last mad fling of the capitalist “system”, that is reducing our once vigourous and hopeful working people to abjection and dejection. The borrowed time and borrowed money is a certain recipe for the capitalist “system” to dig its own grave, so we should be developing alternative tactics whereby our people can develop means of providing their own sustenance of life, and we won’t do that if we allow ourselves to indulge in sectarian skirmishes. Trade Unions still have a powerful hand to play, but we must fight the coming battles on our own terms, and those terms should always be designed to carry along our troops in unity and enthusiasm.

  • Nicky Davis

    “Liat Norris and Youth Fight for Jobs” – thanks for the info, edited. Still don’t see the point of having a complication of child benefit from 16-19 and EMA from 16-19 both applying to a student of that age. Why not have one or the other, depending on whether you’re means testing it or not and whether you’re paying it to the parent or young person. What is I think very confused is the whole parent/child/young adult definition, including means testing and parental rights and responsibilities and offspring’s level of independence. Means testing of loans/grants on parental income for example goes beyond age 18, when really a young person is supposed to have become an adult in their own right.

  • sirrontail

    We should have one or the other, and the one we should have is EMA at a higher liveable rate.
    Nor should it be means tested, for the reasons you raise. People over 18 who either go to uni or get other benefits, are usually independent from parents; and even those over 16 are in a lot of cases. Means testing either causes young people to suffer with not enough money, or to keep going to parents needing the benefits to be “topped up” (which is what the government advises them to do). Neither are preferable.

  • Nicky Davis

    What you say is very sensible sirrontail. The tricky bit being that means testing normally applies to a household. So if a 16-18 year old is living with a parent, should EMA be means tested as some other benefits are? On the other hand child benefit isn’t means tested. Means testing has exactly the effect you say. And that is exactly what I do as a parent, I pay my son the equivalent of the EMA, otherwise he would be at a disadvantage compared to other students who qualify for it. So I essentially have to put up with government dictating to me what I should pay my son to provide for his sixth form study, I put up with it to make it as fair as possible to him. No idea what the student loan/grant situation will be in a year’s time, but if it’s as it is now, then the same situation would apply even though he’ll no longer live in the same household. The means testing would apply so I’d have to top up otherwise he’ll end up worse off than other students who get a grant and a bigger loan. It’s not good. But the trouble is, if means testing were removed, where does government get the extra money needed to give the same to all students? In my view these things should come from income tax, but tories don’t like too much income tax.

  • sirrontail

    I don’t think it should be means tested for those at home. We should be encouraging a certain level of independence for young people, and part of that should include helping with rent, bills w/e; and that can only happen when it’s a proper grant given to all at college.
    But no it isn’t good at all. When I hear people talking about having to get jobs in order to continue to pay rent or to buy food it makes me angry, because we shouldn’t be forcing students to do this when we should be focusing on getting a degree.
    There are so many places we can get the extra money from, I believe the Lib Dems calculated it would cost £2 billion a year to fund free education with proper grants. That’s less than the money we are “officially” spending fighting in Afghanistan. The money is there, but no government really wants to give it us because we are seen as less likely to fight for it. Which is a shame.

  • Bill Cawley

    I went to the chainmakers event at the Black Country Museum yesterday. It is an event that commemorates the strike largely led bu women 100 years ago. Tony Benn gave the principle speech. I saw Dianne Abbott there as well. Many of the speakers attacked the coalition. There was a march mainly comprising of trade unions from the public sector.

    There was a little vignette I witnessed in the cafe where hard pressed staff- there were three young women- tried to deal with the demand. The till had broken down adding to their woes. The queue was lengthy. I could see that the women were finding it dificult to cope and when it was my turn I said a few words of encouragement. Behind me were people wearing Che tee shirts and from an over heard comment a member of the University Teachers Union who was grumbling at the slowness of service obvilious to the plight of thr three women. To me it encapsulated the hypocrisy of the middle class left- jellabyism it called in Dicken’s novel Bleak House- who make the right noises, but are unfeeling when it comes to their own dealings with the working class.

  • Bill Cawley

    I saw the stall in Hanley yesterday had a brief chat with Jason Hill and signed the petition. However I have problems with the campaign in two areas.( I have been unable to make any of the meetings becaause I tend to work on a Tuesady night)

    Firstly is it sensible to say no cuts. As I have said before I actually do not have a problem if there is a cut to ID cards or elements of the surveilance state.

    Secondly the TU movement should be a little imaginative in its campaigns, petitions, demonstrations and strikes are not going to get us very far. Why not take a leaf out of the late Jimmy Reid’s book and have a work in or a donation of one hour’s pay to a local charity to build a hearts and mind campaign

  • Bill Cawley

    I have been watching Newsnight on the PSR and the implications for people on low incomes. It looks very grim with proportionally the heaviest cuts falling on the poorest. It looks like the people of the area who will suffer badly as this is a low wage area.

    Will the strategy work and where will the growth in jobs and the economy come? The private sector? I cannot see it in the short term and anyway if it is retail parks then for them to work is for people to have money to spend in shops. Jobs have to be developed in making things.

  • tonyjohnt

    It’s a disgrace Bill.

    Firstly, they use one of the oldest (and most cynical) tricks in politics. Propaganda and “leaks” condition us to expect 10 tons of shit to fall on us from a great height… we’re all relieved when only 8 tons do.

    Then they chant “we are all in this together”, clawing £7billion plus £11billion announced earlier from welfare and just £2billion from the banks.

    They slash quangos that champion citizen/consumer rights but retain those protecting corporations. Cut defense when we are at war and expect well meaning volunteers to do the work of parole officers. It is their intention of course to destroy the public sector, selling the profitable parts to their friends and leaving charities to cope with the rest.

    Lately Gideon has used “waste and welfare” in the same breath incessantly.

    “Those who can work should work”? Those who can swim should swim – pretty difficult when you live in a desert. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, on the Lib Dems!