The following has been supplied by PCS HQ:
Mehdi Hasan is a prolific tweeter, blogger and writer, and the senior political editor of the New Statesman. His latest the book is entitled The Debt Delusion.
This short book takes aim at 10 myths perpetuated by the coalition about the debt and the deficit – and what remedies are most effective to reduce the debt, close the deficit and get the economy growing again.
One of the most alluring arguments deployed by the prime minister and the chancellor has been their equating of the national debt with a credit card, accusing Labour of “maxing out the nation's credit card”. But, as Hasan points out: “Governments can increase their revenues by raising taxes; households cannot. Governments can print money and issue currency; households cannot.”
The book also puts its case with some indisputable facts and statistics: like how there are only two cases out of 15 studied by the International Monetary Fund when cuts preceded economic growth.
There is also an interesting international comparison demonstrating that in 2009 the UK took less as a proportion in tax than Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Germany – and yet George Osborne’s first move as chancellor was to cut business taxes but raise VAT.
The conclusion is straightforward: the government’s economic policy “is part of a political and ideological project to roll back the frontiers of the state”. As Hasan says: “The debt is just a distraction.”
18.10.11
Cameron makes safety his whipping boy again
The following information has been supplied by the TUC:
The prime minister's inclination to blame safety for the ills of the economy and society has surfaced yet again.
After first blaming health and safety for August's riots, David Cameron has now decided 'the shadow of health and safety' is holding back Britain. In his keynote address to this week's Conservative Party conference in Manchester, he said 'one of the biggest things holding people back is the shadow of health and safety.' This was followed by one of his more widely reported soundbites. 'This isn't how a great nation was built. Britannia didn't rule the waves with arm-bands on,' he said.
Safety professionals' organisation IOSH reacted with disappointment to the speech. IOSH head of policy and public affairs Richard Jones commented: 'We think it's a shame that the prime minister's speech mistakenly cites health and safety as 'holding people back' - the opposite is true! Good health and safety enables enterprise and volunteering to happen successfully and so helps ensure sustainability and growth. It's all about good sense and proportionality and we simply don't recognise the negative picture being painted here - it isn't real health and safety.'
The TUC found the whole tenor of David Cameron's speech and the Tory conference 'disappointing'. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'If the prime minister really felt the nation's pain, he would change course.' He added: 'If we judge people by what they do, rather than what they say, ministers believe that unemployment will be solved by getting tougher with the jobless and that they will restore economic growth by increasing the number of unfair dismissals."
The prime minister's inclination to blame safety for the ills of the economy and society has surfaced yet again.
After first blaming health and safety for August's riots, David Cameron has now decided 'the shadow of health and safety' is holding back Britain. In his keynote address to this week's Conservative Party conference in Manchester, he said 'one of the biggest things holding people back is the shadow of health and safety.' This was followed by one of his more widely reported soundbites. 'This isn't how a great nation was built. Britannia didn't rule the waves with arm-bands on,' he said.
Safety professionals' organisation IOSH reacted with disappointment to the speech. IOSH head of policy and public affairs Richard Jones commented: 'We think it's a shame that the prime minister's speech mistakenly cites health and safety as 'holding people back' - the opposite is true! Good health and safety enables enterprise and volunteering to happen successfully and so helps ensure sustainability and growth. It's all about good sense and proportionality and we simply don't recognise the negative picture being painted here - it isn't real health and safety.'
The TUC found the whole tenor of David Cameron's speech and the Tory conference 'disappointing'. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'If the prime minister really felt the nation's pain, he would change course.' He added: 'If we judge people by what they do, rather than what they say, ministers believe that unemployment will be solved by getting tougher with the jobless and that they will restore economic growth by increasing the number of unfair dismissals."
Challenge the TaxPayers’ Alliance
The following information comes from one of the creators of the false economy website:
Clifford Singer helped create the False Economy website that will challenge the government’s case for cuts. Here he explains the need to challenge the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s media dominance.
During the summer of 2010, the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) released a report on speed cameras which appeared to show the introduction of cameras in the early 1990s had made roads more dangerous than they would have been otherwise. Leaving aside the mystery of why speed cameras have joined the TPA’s pantheon of villains, along with the more predictable ‘benefit scroungers’ and trade unionists, the report had several characteristics typical of a TPA publication. It came with a serious-looking appendix that explained its seemingly impartial methodology, it gained lots of media coverage and it had political influence – one month later many councils began switching off their speed cameras following road safety budget cuts.
It was typical in one other way too: it was complete nonsense. While the mainstream media was content to accept the report at face value, some less credulous bloggers pointed out that according to the TPA’s projections, in the absence of speed cameras accident deaths would have fallen to zero by 2013, and then continued into negative numbers after that. If it wasn’t for those automated yellow boxes of evil, we would be enjoying the spectacle of the dead being resurrected within the next three years.
On its website, the TPA states: “We’re not a think-tank. We’re a do-tank”.
Pseudo-analysis such as its speed camera report certainly bears out the first part of that statement. But that didn’t stop readers of the influential ConservativeHome website naming the TPA as their favourite think-tank. The TPA has also boasted – through ConservativeHome – of the large number of its policies now adopted by the coalition.
Softening up electorate for cuts
Before the 2010 General Election, the TPA played an important role in softening up public antipathy towards public spending cuts. In September 2009 the TPA drew up, with the Institute of Directors, plans for an annual £50 billion a year of public spending cuts.
The alliance, which launched seven years ago, describes itself as a ‘grassroots alliance’ of ‘ordinary taxpayers’ despite an academic advisory council of Thatcherite acolytes like Patrick Minford and Ruth Lea.
The most enthusiastic coverage comes from Tory tabloids such as the Daily Mail and Express. But it also gets airtime from the BBC and other broadcasters – who should know better.
It is important to challenge the TPA’s media dominance. The alliance is particularly successful at packaging stories for cash-strapped local and regional media. Of course it helps to have £1 million a year behind you – but the point is that we need to make the case for public services.
Need for transparency in all sectors
The TPA has successfully argued for transparency and accountability in the public sector. Rather than arguing against this, we should be arguing for the same rules to apply to the private sector.
The TPA’s concern with transparency deserts it when it comes to its own finances. Its last full accounts, for 2006, record an income of £130,000 – hardly enough to sustain its current 10 full-time staff and offices in London and Birmingham. Since then, it has published ‘abbreviated’ accounts, meaning income and expenditure are withheld, although the Guardian reported its income in 2009 was £1 million. Donors are kept secret.
One source of TPA funding has been the shadowy Midlands Industrial Council. The MIC was founded in 1946 as a pressure group to fight the Attlee government’s nationalisation plans and to champion free enterprise. It has donated about £3 million to the Conservative Party since 2001, much of it targeted at marginal parliamentary seats in the Midlands.
Why won’t the TPA open its books? As it told MPs who tried to prevent their expenses being published: “If you have nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to fear.”
Clifford Singer helped create the False Economy website that will challenge the government’s case for cuts. Here he explains the need to challenge the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s media dominance.
During the summer of 2010, the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) released a report on speed cameras which appeared to show the introduction of cameras in the early 1990s had made roads more dangerous than they would have been otherwise. Leaving aside the mystery of why speed cameras have joined the TPA’s pantheon of villains, along with the more predictable ‘benefit scroungers’ and trade unionists, the report had several characteristics typical of a TPA publication. It came with a serious-looking appendix that explained its seemingly impartial methodology, it gained lots of media coverage and it had political influence – one month later many councils began switching off their speed cameras following road safety budget cuts.
It was typical in one other way too: it was complete nonsense. While the mainstream media was content to accept the report at face value, some less credulous bloggers pointed out that according to the TPA’s projections, in the absence of speed cameras accident deaths would have fallen to zero by 2013, and then continued into negative numbers after that. If it wasn’t for those automated yellow boxes of evil, we would be enjoying the spectacle of the dead being resurrected within the next three years.
On its website, the TPA states: “We’re not a think-tank. We’re a do-tank”.
Pseudo-analysis such as its speed camera report certainly bears out the first part of that statement. But that didn’t stop readers of the influential ConservativeHome website naming the TPA as their favourite think-tank. The TPA has also boasted – through ConservativeHome – of the large number of its policies now adopted by the coalition.
Softening up electorate for cuts
Before the 2010 General Election, the TPA played an important role in softening up public antipathy towards public spending cuts. In September 2009 the TPA drew up, with the Institute of Directors, plans for an annual £50 billion a year of public spending cuts.
The alliance, which launched seven years ago, describes itself as a ‘grassroots alliance’ of ‘ordinary taxpayers’ despite an academic advisory council of Thatcherite acolytes like Patrick Minford and Ruth Lea.
The most enthusiastic coverage comes from Tory tabloids such as the Daily Mail and Express. But it also gets airtime from the BBC and other broadcasters – who should know better.
It is important to challenge the TPA’s media dominance. The alliance is particularly successful at packaging stories for cash-strapped local and regional media. Of course it helps to have £1 million a year behind you – but the point is that we need to make the case for public services.
Need for transparency in all sectors
The TPA has successfully argued for transparency and accountability in the public sector. Rather than arguing against this, we should be arguing for the same rules to apply to the private sector.
The TPA’s concern with transparency deserts it when it comes to its own finances. Its last full accounts, for 2006, record an income of £130,000 – hardly enough to sustain its current 10 full-time staff and offices in London and Birmingham. Since then, it has published ‘abbreviated’ accounts, meaning income and expenditure are withheld, although the Guardian reported its income in 2009 was £1 million. Donors are kept secret.
One source of TPA funding has been the shadowy Midlands Industrial Council. The MIC was founded in 1946 as a pressure group to fight the Attlee government’s nationalisation plans and to champion free enterprise. It has donated about £3 million to the Conservative Party since 2001, much of it targeted at marginal parliamentary seats in the Midlands.
Why won’t the TPA open its books? As it told MPs who tried to prevent their expenses being published: “If you have nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to fear.”
Women and Pension Reform
The following has been provided by the Equality, Health and Safety Department at PCS HQ:
There are around half a million civil servants in the UK. Just over half of all civil servants are women (53%). Almost a quarter of civil servants (21%) work part-time.
Increased cost – Everyone will be hit by higher contributions, particularly when there is a pay freeze and rising prices. However, with a gender pay gap in the civil service that shows men earning 15% more than women on average, this will hit women harder.
Work Longer - The pension proposals from the government talk about people working up to 48 years for a full pension, The actual length will be linked to state pension age that will keep increasing if life expectancy figures increase so people will never be sure when they can retire. This will make it difficult for people to plan. Women have short service now on average around 11 years when they leave, men tend to have longer service (14 years but weakens the gender argument). Women tend to have shorter service for a variety of reasons often domestic. They often take unpaid maternity leave and career breaks. Part-time service can drastically impact on service, 85% of part-timers are women. For a forty year career, 10 years of maternity leave (unpaid)/career break and part time working for a few years could easily halve the service and pension.
Older women hit by pension age increase - Many women now in their 50s have been already given longer pension ages, 3 changes for those 54 now. It is in this age group many women have to give up work. Just when they are been told by the government to work longer. Whilst we do not have exact figures PCS get a number of calls on a regular basis from women who are forced by caring responsibilities into taking their pension and lump sum early (reduced) to look after elderly relatives or partners with health problems. This can only increase as Tory cuts mean less help for carers in the community.
Young women hit by cuts in childcare - forcing them to reduce hours to enable them to fit in with drastically cut childcare services in the community.
Live longer in retirement - Women live longer than men they are reliant on pension longer often leading them into a poverty stricken old age.
Get less - Your new civil service pension will be based on an ‘adequacy level’ a technical term that means your occupational pension plus state pension only has to reach 60% of what your final pay is. This for many will mean a lower pension for paying more
There are around half a million civil servants in the UK. Just over half of all civil servants are women (53%). Almost a quarter of civil servants (21%) work part-time.
Increased cost – Everyone will be hit by higher contributions, particularly when there is a pay freeze and rising prices. However, with a gender pay gap in the civil service that shows men earning 15% more than women on average, this will hit women harder.
Work Longer - The pension proposals from the government talk about people working up to 48 years for a full pension, The actual length will be linked to state pension age that will keep increasing if life expectancy figures increase so people will never be sure when they can retire. This will make it difficult for people to plan. Women have short service now on average around 11 years when they leave, men tend to have longer service (14 years but weakens the gender argument). Women tend to have shorter service for a variety of reasons often domestic. They often take unpaid maternity leave and career breaks. Part-time service can drastically impact on service, 85% of part-timers are women. For a forty year career, 10 years of maternity leave (unpaid)/career break and part time working for a few years could easily halve the service and pension.
Older women hit by pension age increase - Many women now in their 50s have been already given longer pension ages, 3 changes for those 54 now. It is in this age group many women have to give up work. Just when they are been told by the government to work longer. Whilst we do not have exact figures PCS get a number of calls on a regular basis from women who are forced by caring responsibilities into taking their pension and lump sum early (reduced) to look after elderly relatives or partners with health problems. This can only increase as Tory cuts mean less help for carers in the community.
Young women hit by cuts in childcare - forcing them to reduce hours to enable them to fit in with drastically cut childcare services in the community.
Live longer in retirement - Women live longer than men they are reliant on pension longer often leading them into a poverty stricken old age.
Get less - Your new civil service pension will be based on an ‘adequacy level’ a technical term that means your occupational pension plus state pension only has to reach 60% of what your final pay is. This for many will mean a lower pension for paying more
Cuts hit mental health services
The following information has been supplied by the TUC:
The TUC has warned that the government's spending cuts risk reversing vital progress made in the recognition and treatment of mental health issues in the UK. Work-related mental health issues are responsible for around a third of all work-related sickness absence and many victims of stress or bullying need support to help them recover.
Earlier this month a Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) survey found stress is now the number one cause of long-term absence in both manual and non-manual workers and confirmed a link between job insecurity and a marked increase in mental health problems. The website False Economy found that 17 NHS mental health trusts were facing significant staff redundancies, and many people who are off sick with mental health related issues are finding it more difficult to access support.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'The TUC fears that the government's spending cuts are undermining the increasing recognition of the extent of mental ill health problems we have seen in the workplace and beyond in recent years, and the measures that have been taken in response. Across the UK, local authority and NHS mental health services are falling victim to budget cuts, and people are losing vital support mechanisms which were helping them stay in or get back into work. On top of this, the stress arising for many workers from the massive job cuts in the public sector, and the uncertainty hanging over those who remain, is not conducive to healthy workplaces.'
The TUC has warned that the government's spending cuts risk reversing vital progress made in the recognition and treatment of mental health issues in the UK. Work-related mental health issues are responsible for around a third of all work-related sickness absence and many victims of stress or bullying need support to help them recover.
Earlier this month a Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) survey found stress is now the number one cause of long-term absence in both manual and non-manual workers and confirmed a link between job insecurity and a marked increase in mental health problems. The website False Economy found that 17 NHS mental health trusts were facing significant staff redundancies, and many people who are off sick with mental health related issues are finding it more difficult to access support.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'The TUC fears that the government's spending cuts are undermining the increasing recognition of the extent of mental ill health problems we have seen in the workplace and beyond in recent years, and the measures that have been taken in response. Across the UK, local authority and NHS mental health services are falling victim to budget cuts, and people are losing vital support mechanisms which were helping them stay in or get back into work. On top of this, the stress arising for many workers from the massive job cuts in the public sector, and the uncertainty hanging over those who remain, is not conducive to healthy workplaces.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)