http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ Weblog of a union leader en http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/images/billyhayes.gif http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ Billy Hayes, weblog of the general secretary of the British Communication Workers Union (CWU). Billy Hayes Copyright 2010 2010-02-01T14:52:03-00:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1138 SATURDAY, 30th JANUARY 2010 BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT AMAL BRANCH Office: 46-48 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3TH Time: 1040-1100 1138@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT AMAL BRANCH
Office: 46-48 Summer Lane
Birmingham
B19 3TH
Time: 1040-1100

Chair, Conference – many thanks for inviting me to make a contribution to this our 5th annual youth conference.

It’s a great pleasure to be here and I am encouraged and grateful that so many of you have given up large parts of your weekend to attend as well.


_______________________________

Make no bones about it, this is not some kind of cosy chat or a group hug.

The Rule Book of our union is quite clear –

this gathering is the one which determines the policy and overall direction for the union’s 27,000 members aged 30 and under for the year ahead.

_______________________________

And I am pleased to see that the agenda that you will be working through today reflects the range of issues and the tensions that face our organisation as a whole.

If anyone believes that young people are not interested in politics, or do not appreciate that unions are political as well as industrial organisations, they are clearly talking to the wrong people.

_______________________________
It is great to see the width and breadth of interest, not just in terms the subjects, but also in the branches and regions that have submitted motions.

I believe that how we make decisions in the CWU is as important as those decisions themselves.

This conference is at a crucial time for our youth work, it is at a crucial time for the CWU as a whole and it’s at a crucial time for the UK.
_______________________________
And part of the quality of how we make decisions is to do with how many people are involved in the debate, how many views are being put into the melting pot so we can come up with the best outcome.

So I have a particular concern and a request.

To those delegates who are here from Scotland, from Northern Ireland, and from Wales –
_______________________________

I ask you to go back to your branches and regions and make sure that next year the agenda for the youth conference is even more broadly based than it is at the moment.


Because it’s great that we have contributions on the pad from 15 different branches and from 4 regional bodies.

_______________________________

But unless we capture all the voices and all the input from those parts of our organisation that are missing, we lose out on vital experience and points of view.

As you’ve heard me say before, the ending of government funding for part of our work, in the form of the Union Modernisation Fund, is a big moment for youth work in the CWU.

_______________________________
In fact, it is the end of the biggest injection of cash that youth work in the CWU has ever had.

So we are now not so much at a turning point as a fork in the road.

We have to decide what the size and shape of our youth work is going to be.

I think there are 2 parts to whatever we do in the future, for members both young and not-so-young.
_______________________________

The first part is that we have to be smart and innovative about what we do.

We need to make sure that the members’ money that we spend on their behalf is spent to best effect.

I am pleased to say that the Youth Committee has already taken this on board.

_______________________________

This event last year was held at perfectly decent accommodation owned by the University of London Students’ Union.


But we have halved the cost by using accommodation that already exists within the CWU and moving the conference away from London to here in Birmingham.

_______________________________
Another way of working smarter is to make sure you, as youth activists, have the right sort of relationship with your branches.


I talked a little bit about this at the National Youth Education Event back in October and I am pleased to see in the agenda the discussion document that the Youth Committee has produced and which we need your views on.

_______________________________
Is this the right way forward? Because we cannot afford the put all this effort into building up a youth network only to see it frustrated at the branch level.

Another thing that I think is particularly notable, is the progress that we have made on the CWU youth website.

I would like to pay tribute to Steve Ratcliffe and Jo Thair for their work in getting this up and running.
_______________________________

I know it has been a long haul, but I think it is now working effectively and is becoming the main forum for us to publish information, encourage debate and act as a forum to debate of issues of concern to our young members.

If you haven’t seen the site or you haven’t registered on it, I understand facilities are available for you to do so during the lunch break.

_______________________________

A development that I think is particularly worthwhile is the way in which we are using podcasts in terms of reaching our members and raising our profile and encouraging serious debate in a way that is accessible.

I think these have been a great success and I am sure that a review of this conference will be available for download, either from CWU website or on iTunes in the coming days.
_______________________________
One thing that is very important about the way in which the Youth Committee conducts its work and that runs right through initiatives like the website and podcasts is mutual support and inclusivity.

It is crucially important for the youth network to operate in a way that gives support to young activists in developing their role in their branch and their role as a rep in their workplace.

_______________________________
That is why the union diary of Jade Jones which is on the website is so important – that is why the “This is Me” feature in the CWU Youth newsletter is so important.

Because it is about confidence; in a world where employers are becoming more aggressive -

Where a key task of the union is to give confidence and support to young activists -
_______________________________
I know the Youth Committee and certainly I as General Secretary would never claim that we are doing all we can in this area.

We need your ideas and feedback to keep us on the right track and to ensure that we never stop looking for ways to improve.

All those things are part of us working, not just harder, but smarter.

_______________________________

But I said there were 2 parts to how we were going to move forward.

The other part of what I wanted to say was about the future of the union as a whole.

We can’t get away from the fact that when we constructed the CWU in the mid 1990s, we created an organisation to service 300,000 members.

_______________________________

However, changes in technology, changes in the political climate and a fall in membership mean that the way we were cannot be the way we will be in the future. –

Our current membership is 220,000 and despite recruiting more and more members each year, we know that in the 2 biggest employers, Royal Mail and BT, the employer plans to cut more jobs.
_______________________________

So the time is right for us to focus as never before on whether our organisation is fit-for-purpose and to understand the pressures that we are going to face.


So I very much welcome the initiative shown by the Youth Committee in pulling together the document CWU Future.

_______________________________
Let me say right away that I do not necessarily agree with all the conclusions, but I do think it is vital that we have a debate around these issues.

Because the role that you as young members can play in helping to transform the union is vital.

We need not just cost effectiveness but to be a more responsive, relevant, modern organisation.
_______________________________

Young members are at the heart of creating a team of trade union local representatives in every employer and business unit to help us reverse declining membership so the option remains to stay an independent trade union responsible for all communication workers.

Most of all though, as young activists, you should robustly challenge the old way of doing things –
_______________________________

stand for elections at local and national level – make contributions at branch meetings and national conferences - be heard and be seen and change the boring old CWU landscape.

You should do this not because I think you should, but because you are the union’s next generation of leaders.

And if you don’t come forward, no-one else will.
________________________________________


A large part of how we face the future is to do with our organisation at grassroots or workplace level


I am delighted that Dougie Rafferty and colleagues from the Organising Department are here today and I know they are very keen to talk to you about organising work in your area.

_______________________________

There is nothing magical or mysterious about organisation, although I know it is a concept that a lot of people feel uncomfortable about.


It is simply about making sure we know where members are, we know where the non-members area and we try and drive up our density in any given workplace.

_______________________________

Dougie and his colleagues have the tools and the experience to help you do that; but unless we all learn to recruit and we all learn to organise the hill we climb gets steeper.


One of the first things to say anyone you encounter in your workplace doing the sort of work that you, yourself, do is “are you a member?”

_______________________________
And I would also ask that if they say no – you make a membership application form gets to them as soon as possible – preferably by giving them the one you have got in your bag or pocket!

Conference, I realise I have dwelt a lot on the challenges we face in the future and I would not want to close without looking at the very many positives that we collectively have achieved at the CWU and that you as youth activists have made a major contribution to.
_______________________________

Just this week, the statutory instrument to introduce the Agency Workers Directive has been laid.


It’s has been a long time coming and it does not have everything we wanted, but it would not have happened at all without the absolute focussed, imaginative and effective work from this trade union.

_______________________________

Negotiations about the future of Royal Mail and about postal services in our country continue and are making cautiously good progress.


But there would not be a publicly-owned Royal Mail and there would not be a debate about the universal service obligation were it not for this union – the CWU.

_______________________________


We are in the middle of crucial restructuring talks within BT where I know the largest employer of young members on the technical side is Openreach.


The Service Delivery Transformation project is a huge challenge and is enormously controversial -

_______________________________

but we have a deal that at least protects jobs and retains our influence and it is a deal that was approved in a fantastically high turn-out in a members’ ballot and that can only be good for our democracy.


I wish you well in your deliberations today, but the motions on your order paper are not ends in themselves.

_______________________________

They are a means to a revitalised CWU and a better future for all of its members whatever their age.

Thank you.

~~**~~



]]> 2010-01-30T11:00:27-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1139 Friday 29th January 5.00 – 10.00 pm (GS Speaking at 8.35 pm) University of London Union Malet Street London WC1E 7HY 1139@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ (GS Speaking at 8.35 pm)
University of London Union
Malet Street
London WC1E 7HY

I want to start by thanking you for the privilege of addressing the Westminster Unison AGM.

I have to say that I don’t think I have ever seen such an impressive line up of speakers to a branch AGM. Clearly, your branch is very outward looking – as the strongest union branches must be.

I have been asked to concentrate on developments in the British labour movement. Obviously the general election is the key to the coming year.

There can be no ambiguity about this. The best option for us is the return of the Labour Government. And this does make a difference – whatever our criticisms of the Labour Government.

For those who need it – the difference can be crudely established.

The Tory Government would continue, and worsen, everything you dislike about the Labour Government. But would not introduce the measures like the minimum wage, devolution, the Irish Peace Process, dozens of pieces of equality legislation, the increase in statutory holidays, rights for agency workers and so on.

Perhaps this is as obvious to you as it is to me. If not, I’ll return to it in questions.

For me, the decisive issue is what do we fight for in anticipation of a fourth term for Labour. Most important here is our stance on the economy.

Last summer, we saw an amazing change. Up until then, it was generally accepted that neo-liberalism had failed.

The markets hadn’t delivered, resulting in a terrible recession. The finance sector especially, was regarded as having acted completely irresponsibly, leading to a huge failure.

Yet in the course of a month, the Tories and the media, launch a successful offensive around public sector debt.

The new wisdom then became that the major economic problem was not the recession, but excessive public sector spending.

Now the facts go against this. There are two reasons why public finances have deteriorated.

Firstly, because bailing out the share holders of banks is going to cost 10% of GDP, this financial year.

Secondly because tax revenue’s are falling in the recession by about 4% of GDP.

The increase in state benefits due to recession are nothing compared to this.

Now, of course the Government has been spending much more – an element of policy that is completely correct.


If you look at the components of demand in the economy there were three of these – private consumption, Government investment and private investment.

Private consumption has fallen by 3%.

Government investment has increased by 25%.

Private investment has fallen by 19%.

Parts of the private sector had done even worse – such as housing where investment has fallen by 25%.

In the face of the collapse of private investment, it is only public spending that has prevented a 1930’s type slump. So we have to argue against cuts in public spending.

Unfortunately, the Labour Government is buckling on this.

From April 2010 new investment by the Government is due to rise by only 1%, with sharp falls planned for 2011 and 2012.

This is not acceptable and we must argue against such a policy. Such cuts will be made much deeper should a Tory Government be elected.

And a Tory minority Government supported by the Lib Dem’s would deliver the ‘savage’ cuts that Nick Clegg calls for.

Of course there are items of Government expediture which should be abolished.



Let’s start with scrapping a nuclear replacement for Trident – that saves around £97 billion pounds over its lifetime. We should also abandon the commissioning of two large aircraft carriers with US made aircraft. That comes in at around £33 billion pounds over its lifetime.

Scrapping ID cards would be small ticket in comparison a mere 5.6 million pounds.

Maintaining public investment, and expanding the economy reduces the public sector deficit.


The treasure’s own figures show that a 1% increase in output reduces on past budget, the ratio of public sector net borrowing by just under 3 quarters of a percent.

But it also increases the surplus on current budget to GDP by just under 3 quarters of a percent.

So for every 1% invested, overall the deficit can receive a 1.5% reduction.

This is what economist’s call the ‘multipler effect’. Investment adds to the national product, and to taxation revenues.
Now, there are other issues which we need to campaign on which have a pay off even if that’s not the main point.

Most noteable here is the occupation of Afghanistan. This is an unwinable war. It is merely prolonging the 30 years of war that the people of Afghanistan have endured.

It is also incredible expensive. UK defence spending is now 10% higher in real terms that in 1997.

3.5 billion pounds has been spent on Afghanistan this financial year. £390, 000 is being spent per soldier, compared to £180,000 in 2006.


This is a never ending escalation which is failing.

Unfortunately there is a “tri-partisan” policy in parliament on this. All three major parties support this useless and doomed intervention.

They have learnt nothing from the fiasco of Iraq.

It is then crucial that local branches and activists become more involved in anti war work.

Now there are things we need to do, more usually associated with unions.


We need to keep defending workers against pay cuts and job losses.

We need to address the terrible rise in youth unemployment.

On many of these questions the CWU has similar policies to Unison.

Working together is very important – and we need to ensure a very strong progressive axis inside the TUC and Labour Party.

But I think we have not yet reformed the union’s sufficiently to represent the change in work force.


Although the majority of women work, and women make up the majority of trade union members, women are still under-represented at all levels of our unions.

I know Unison has established better practice on this then any other union. Having 1 million women members means you do somethings very radically.


Your union is exceptional. And certainly the Unison experience has not been fully understood or generalised inside the TUC.



This is not to speak of many unresolved problems of the gender gap in pensions and wages.

Similar problems hold true of the position of workers from black and ethic minorities.

We still face the problem of achieving some level of proportionality in our representative structures.

Unless we seriously address these structural problems we cannot envisage a large scale growth of the unions.


We must find the avenues to organise the unorganised workers – especially young workers.

All the statistics show unions as ageing organisations. It is by drawing in young workers that we will be drawing in unorganised workers.

Between 1979 and 1997 the unions lost around half their membership.

Since 1997, and with a more favourable legal frame work, we have managed to stagnate – rather than further decline.



But if we are to grow again, then we have to work out new ways to address the changing face of the work force.

Needless to say, I remain confident that we can grow. But I am open to all good ideas that you may have on how we will grow.

Thanks for listening.




]]> 2010-01-29T20:46:10-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1137 SESSION: ‘RECLAIM THE PEACE – NO TO TRIDENT AND ITS REPLACEMENT SATURDAY, 23 JANUARY 2010 CONWAY HALL, LONDON WC1 1137@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ NO TO TRIDENT AND ITS REPLACEMENT
SATURDAY, 23 JANUARY 2010
CONWAY HALL, LONDON WC1


It is a privilege to address Labour CND activists on the issue of Trident.

Through our Party, this is a crucial question which bears upon our ability to get re-elected.

By this I mean that unless Labour gets its electoral promise on Trident right it may not be elected.

The most recent You-Gov poll in September reported that 63% did not support a nuclear replacement for Trident.

That is a big constituency to ignore in a hard-fought contest. At this point in time, Labour needs some completely distinctive policies if it is to defeat the Tories offensive.

This past year has seen a very public campaign by sections of the Army brass over some issues of Government policy.

Perhaps Afghanistan is the most notable – where we have seen Generals’ Dannett, Richards and others challenging troop provisioning, troop numbers and the length of the occupation.

Doubtless these Generals would be horrified if politicians wanted to direct military operations. But having a brass-neck is a qualification in these circles.

Interestingly, the fights taking place around cuts in MOD expenditure are also beginning to be fought out in public. Earlier this week General Dannett on radio 5 Live suggested that in the long term the UK may not need to find a replacement for Trident.

By focussing on the long-term he was suggesting that the Government does not need to take a decision yet on Trident. He supports keeping Trident for 5 to 15 years.

Clearly he wants current funds spent on his troops – not on commissioning a Trident replacement yet.

In his way the General is offering the Labour Government a way out – even though he may think he is just offering advice to his pals in the Tory Party.

For Labour there is no need to support a nuclear replacement which, I am sure you all know, according to Greenpeace runs out at around £97b over its lifetime.

Perhaps the Labour leadership could learn a little from its own history. At the end of the 1945 Labour Government, Bevan resigned from the Government in opposition to planned military spending. In Bevan’s view, the proposed increases were entirely wrong and would limit the social programmes of the Government.

Scared of appearing weak on military issues, the Labour Government committed itself to inflated and unnecessary military expenditures.

When the Tories came to power they reduced those expenditures to a level much closer to Bevan’s suggestion. Winston Churchill even acknowledged this. Yet, too late, for Labour had been defeated.

It is clear that the Tories may make such future adjustments on a replacement for Trident. Probably not cancel, may be just delay or even reduce the numbers further than Brown suggested.

But in this instance Labour should use Dannett’s case and say this system is not necessary.

Instead of being nostalgic for our lost days of World domination, it is better to be a force for peace in the World.

I think also the expenditure issue bears upon how effective the Labour Government would govern if committed to Trident’s replacement.

We know that any system would require US technology and permission to be utilised.

Rather, I mean that if Labour opts for a new system then it is prioritising public sector spending on weapons over welfare.

I do not accept the basis of the current debate on public expenditure. There is no justification for the cuts being suggested.

The crisis in the economy is above all a collapse of private investment. Government spending is preventing a slump. If the Government’s reflationary measures are withdrawn, then the economy will go back into recession.

Certainly it is not public sector services, or supposedly greedy public sector workers, that are responsible for the recession.

However, one thing is certain, if you direct large amounts of public spending to replacing Trident then there will a loss of public services elsewhere.

Investment in nuclear weapons provides very few jobs, and no general service to the public.

This is not to speak of the grave dangers posed to the people or the world’s environment.

All this is – in Labour CND circles – un-contentious. But we have to fight inside the Party to ensure that the reality of strategic choices includes a clear decision against the commissioning of Trident’s replacement.

This would make a difference whether we govern – and how we govern.

Now, in 1984 Gordon Brown – then just an MP, said that the Trident programme was “unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound”.

Perhaps he should revive such prudence today. After all, the Trdent replacement programme will be no more effective in economic terms than its predecessor.

At the peak of its production in the late 80s and early 90s, Barrow Shipyards employed fourteen thousand workers. Today this figure is three thousand four hundred.

If the facilities at Barrow, Aldermaston and elsewhere were converted for civilian purposes then there is a huge pay off.

These would include:

• Products not being tied to limited one off projects – giving greater continuous employment.
• A wider range of products – less susceptible to policy changes.

Without going into details – there are many options.

Steven Schofield, and others, have provided work for CND which suggests that civil research and development, and production on offshore wind and wave power would also provide twenty five thousand to thirty thousand jobs for redeployed workers.

So, I believe that we still have an important and urgent task in campaigning through Trident’s replacement.

For the Labour Government this is late in the day. But it is not too late.

Thanks for listening.


WH/SB/JM
21/01/10
]]> 2010-01-23T11:54:20-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1135 I wrote this for the latest issue of the DRUM (CWU's Race Advisory Committee's Booklet). 1135@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/
"As I write, Haitians are dying, waiting for aid. Many countries and individuals are rushing to help. Wonderful, but now is the time to ensure that all those who want to rebuild Haiti can do so. The exclusion of former President Aristide, and his followers must end. It is the poor who have suffered the most in this catastrophe, and it is amongst these people that Aristide has the most support. Those governments which want to help Haiti, but want to continue to exclude Aristide and his party, are wrong.

John Denham has suggested that racism has to be rationalised against issues of class inequality. In his view some sections of the black community are not disadvantaged because of superior living standards. This ignores the fact that racists act upon skin colour, not the size of your bank balance. However he intended it, Denham is making a concession to racist lobbies. Racism is a general problem in our society, and no amount of material wealth can protect black people from it. Only a committed anti-racist movement offers a solution, a view which surely MacPherson established.

In this light, I salute this years CWU Black Workers Conference. Your work is far from done and remains crucial for our common future."]]> 2010-01-18T13:46:34-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1134 General Secretary notes for Eastern Regional Committee held at the NUT Headquarters today. 1134@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/
General Secretary notes for Eastern Regional Committee



1. Most important event in coming year will be General Election. Will shape whole context within which CWU has to work.

2. In the run up to the General Election the CWU¡¦s position is more uncomfortable than usual. Unless we get a resolution in Royal Mail, including on the pensions deficit, it will be impossible to turn the union behind Labour¡¦s campaign.

3. Our stance is understood by other TULO unions. They are supportive of our position.



4. There will not be an NPF before the election. Instead there are direct negotiations between the government and the unions on the manifesto.

5. Our two key policies on the manifesto are ¡V holding the line on Royal Mail; and ¡V promoting our position on Digital Britain.



Royal Mail dispute and pensions


1. Negotiations appear to be making good progress. Nominal date for final agreement is January 22nd. May be tight but Roger Poole pressing on this. Final agreement will go out to members ballot.
___________________________________

2. We are stepping up the pressure around the pensions deficit. Government still insisting that there will be no resolution without a transformation of the company. We are working on the basis that there will be a modernisation agreement, and that we must take initiatives to secure government action on pensions.

3. Our intiatives are:
a) Mailing all CLPs with Party conference emergency motion, and DVD of debate. Already had some CLPs writing in who have passed model motion and written to Party GS (Ray Collins).

b) Publishing a pamphlet on pensions for politicians and others. This being printed ¡V as we meet. Contains a great deal of valuable information and arguments.

c) Organising a meeting and parliamentary lobby on January 26th. All branches are expected to provide delegates to ensure the success of the day.

d) Arranging a meeting with Mandelson to re-engage the government in discussions around a solution. No date fixed, but he has agreed to meet.





Delivering Digital Britain Update

Briefings outlining the Delivering Digital Britain campaign objectives were circulated to T&FS Branches, MPs and Lords in November last year. I have attached the MPs briefing here for reference purposes, which sets out the campaign background and key objectives.

The Digital Economy Bill was announced in the Queen¡¦s Speech in November and is one of the Government¡¦s key priorities ahead of the general election.

The Bill was published on 20th November and since then we have been concentrating on how we can secure changes to the Bill that reflect our campaign objectives.

Due to the time constraints and the risk of numerous amendments stalling the passage of the Bill, as well as indications of amendments from other organisations that support our agenda, we are focussing on submitting one amendment to the Bill on the issue of workforce training. ¡V

By concentrating our efforts on getting the support needed to secure this amendment there is every chance we will succeed, and this would be a real achievement for the union and our members.

A draft amendment has been drawn up and is attached, which calls for a new duty to be placed on Ofcom to promote workforce training and development in the telecommunications industry, as it is required to do in the broadcasting industry.

We have been seeking a Lord to move the amendment in the House of Lords where it has begun its passage through parliament. Unfortunately we have not yet been successful in identifying a Lord to support us, but there is still an opportunity to move an amendment at Report stage or third reading stage. Otherwise, there is the opportunity to submit an amendment to the Bill in the House of Commons.

We have approached Lord Maxton who contributed to the debate at second reading stage and was in tune with our objectives on infrastructure investment and universal access.

Andy wrote to him in December and followed up again this year, but we have not heard from him as yet. Andy also sent our proposed amendment to John Robertson MP, who is supported by Prospect and is the Chair of Apcomms, the All Party Parliamentary Communications Group.

Mr Robertson agreed to help us identify a Lord to move our amendment, or failing that to help us move the amendment in the Commons. We are also considering asking Bob Laxton for support.

We have been in discussions with Consumer Focus who have indicated that they intend to submit an amendment calling for the introduction of a universal service obligation for broadband. There will therefore still be an opportunity to lobby on this issue which is a key campaign objective. ¡V

There will also be a chance to lobby for a change to the scope of the Next Generation Access levy to extend to mobile operators, as this element of the legislation will be introduced under the Finance Bill following the Budget.

An LTB (967/09) has been sent to branches asking them to promote the campaign amongst CWU activists, the CWU membership, local MPs and other local politicians to galvanise support and help us meet the campaign objectives. The attached leaflet was sent with the LTB.

We have also held a meeting with TFS regional representatives, and Ian Tomlinson and Carl Webb in the North West region have been particularly active in raising the CWU¡¦s campaign amongst local MPs and CWU activists.

John Blevins in the North East has also been active in political campaigning as well as talking to BT regional directors about their plans for fibre investment.

We have also drafted the attached motions for STUC and Wales TUC conferences.



I believe Martin Keenan met with Alex Salmond on 12th Jan with a plan to raise the CWU¡¦s campaign objectives. I sent him a brief update on the campaign responding to specific questions he had on our position on the Network Design and Procurement Group (which will be responsible for spending the Next Generation Access Fund created from the 50p per month levy on fixed lines), and the Next Generation Fund, as follows:


Specifically on the Network Design and Procurement Group, we have not given any detailed consideration to how we believe it should operate. However we agree that it is necessary to ensure that the Next Generation Fund is allocated efficiently and effectively.


We also agree with the aim set out in Digital Britain of the NDP Group ensuring a coherent framework for network design and systems so that networks offer all end users an optimum level of service quality and choice.

With regards to the Next Generation Fund, we are still arguing that it should be funded by mobile telephone operators as well as fixed line operators, because they are set to make millions from next generation fibre networks built by public funding.

This is because the extension of fibre access networks to back haul would improve 3G coverage and enable the doubling of cell site nodes required by Long-Term Evolution mobile networks.

However, time is running short and it is unlikely we will sway the Government on this issue at this late stage ahead of the Finance Bill. Stephen Timms has justified the position by saying that it is difficult to implement a levy in practice on pay as you go handsets and mobile companies are already contributing to broadband infrastructure through 3G spectrum licences.


The main focus now is to continue trying to identify a Lord to move our amendment on workforce training (also attached here), before time runs out.

(SEE ATTACHMENTS)







REGIONAL SECRETARY STRUCTURE

Annual Conference agreed that the union should review the roles and responsibilities of the Regional Secretaries.

This, to include the remuneration of the secretary, the department /officer they report to and the tasks they are expected to undertake.

We were instructed last year that a Report had to published to Branches by January 2010.

The timescale is going to slip ¡V because we had other competing industrial priorities in 2009.

However, A Working Party has been set up - we are due to have our second meeting next week ¡V and I am determined to press ahead on the review and be in a position to place appropriate policy and rule amendment changes to 2010 Annual Conference.

There has been little change to the Regional Secretary Structure since we merged in 1995.

An overhaul of the structure is long overdue.

Back in 2002 the CWU commissioned Professor Keith Ewing to complete a report on the union¡¦s structures post merger.

On the Regional Structure he said -:

Steps should be taken to strengthen the regional structures of the union, as a way of bringing the different parts of the union closer together, and in order to raise the political profile of the union regionally, as well to make services more accessible to members.

He went on¡K¡K..

The union should examine how this can be done in a way that would lead to the recruitment of officers at regional level to undertake the diverse demands of organisation, representation and co-ordination. These officers should work closely with all branches and steps should be taken to ensure that they are remunerated in accordance with the work they are asked to do, rather than the work they may have done in the past.

The Regional Secretary structure is an important additional resource for Branches - and their coordinating role is invaluable to CWU Headquarters.

However, The Regional Structure itself has grown beyond recognition over the last few years and we now have 7 Committees ¡V all administered by the Regional Secretary

„X Regional Women¡¦s Committee
„X Retired Members¡¦ Regional Committee
„X Youth Members¡¦ Regional Committee
„X Regional Political Committee (RPC)
„X Regional Equality Officers Committee
„X Regional Learning Committee (RLC)
„X Health and Safety Forum

I want Regional Secretaries to be proactive in their roles
I don¡¦t want them to become bogged down in administrational tasks and find themselves attending and organising endless meetings.

The working party will address this, and other structural issues.

It will also focus on the introduction of a proper Job Description ¡V election period remuneration of the regional secretaries.

We will also need to consider ¡V with a declining membership base - whether there is a requirement for 10 Regions.

We can not ignore the ongoing reduction of income in the union and we must also take this into account as part of the review.

To make progress on this policy, the working party needs both the support of the NEC and branches - across all constituencies.

Branches have been asked for their input into this issue ¡V by 27th January ¡V (LTB 1112/09 and LTB 027/10) - and I urge everyone today to take the time to respond to me on this important subject.

I would like to congratulate and thank Paul Moffet for all the work he has done in the Eastern Region.

In most respects this is a ¡§Model Region¡¨ ¡V because you have had great co-operation between constituencies and branches ¡V and your Regional Secretary possesses the skills and enthusiasm that has created a good team spirit.

You have organised events for the region and you have always made a collective effort to support those national meetings and rallies organised by Headquarters.

I want to thank Paul and the Region for their continued support in these challenging times.







]]> 2010-01-15T11:00:54-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1136 A decade of global crimes, but also crucial advances US strategic defeat in Iraq, a discredited market model, China's rise and Latin American freedom offer hope for the world Seumas Milne guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 December 2009 22.00 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/29/decade-global-crimes-crucial-advances 1136@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ US strategic defeat in Iraq, a discredited market model, China's rise and Latin American freedom offer hope for the world


Seumas Milne
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 December 2009 22.00 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/29/decade-global-crimes-crucial-advances



Eight years on, we're still caught in the shadow of the twin towers. As a rule, terrorism in its proper sense isn't just morally indefensible – it also doesn't work. In contrast to mass national resistance campaigns or guerrilla movements, the record of socially disconnected terror groups, from the Russian anarchists onwards, has been one of unmitigated failure. But the wildly miscalculated response of the United States government succeeded in turning the 9/11 atrocities into what may rank as the most successful terror attack in history.

It also triggered the first of four decisive changes which have ensured that the 21st century's first decade has transformed the world – in some significant ways for the better. Osama Bin Laden's initial demand was the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia, which was carried out in short order. But it was George Bush's war on terror that paradoxically delivered the greatest blow to US authority and the world's first truly global empire, in ways al-Qaida could scarcely have dreamed of.

Not only did the lawless savagery of the US campaign of killings, torture, kidnappings and incarceration without trial spawn terrorists across the Muslim world and beyond, while comprehensively disposing of western pretensions to be the global guardians of human rights. But the US-British invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, in the latter case on a flagrantly false pretext, starkly exposed the limits of US military power to impose its will on recalcitrant peoples prepared to fight back.

In Iraq, that had already amounted to a strategic defeat, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, by the time the US surge bought some time by splitting the resistance movement. Both on a regional and global scale, the demonstration of US military overreach strengthened the hand of those prepared to defy America's will, and revealed 2003 as having been the high-water mark of US imperial pomp.

The election of Barack Obama on a platform of withdrawal from Iraq, and Russia's crushing response to the attack on South Ossetia by the US client state of Georgia, confirmed that shift by signalling the end of unchecked US unilateralism. The unipolar moment had passed.

America's unexpected decline was further underlined by the economic meltdown of 2008-9, the greatest crash since the 1930s and the second epochal development which has defined this decade. Incubated in the US and deepened by the vast cost of multiple wars, the crisis has played the greatest havoc with those economies that bought most enthusiastically into the catechism of deregulated markets and unchained corporate power, including Britain's.

A voracious model of capitalism forced down the throats of most of the world for the last 20 years as the only acceptable form of economic management, at a cost of ever-widening inequality and devastating environmental degradation, has now been discredited – and has been rescued from collapse only by the greatest global state intervention ever. In less than 10 years, the baleful global twins of neoconservatism and neoliberalism have been tried and tested to destruction.

Both failures have accelerated the rise of China, the third vital change of the past 10 years, which has not only taken hundreds of millions out of poverty as the economic gap with the US has halved (China has in fact overtaken the US in domestic capital generation), but also begun to create a new centre of power in a multipolar world that should expand the freedom of manoeuvre for smaller states. Its blithe disregard for free market orthodoxy has only added to its success in riding out the west's slump. So perhaps it's no surprise that western politicians are increasingly anxious to blame China for their own failures, in everything from trade imbalances to the fiasco of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations.

The decade's last globally significant shift, less often remarked on than the others, has been the tide of progressive social change that has swept Latin America. Driven by the region's dismal early experience of neoliberal economics, and assisted both by US absorption in the war on terror and the emergence of China, a string of radical socialist and social-democratic governments have been swept to power, attacking social and racial injustice, challenging US domination and taking back resources from corporate control. Twenty years after we were told that there would be no 21st century alternatives to neoliberal capitalism, Latin Americans are creating them here and now.

Of course, the positive dimensions of the events of this decade come with a heavy dose of qualifications. The US will remain the richest and overwhelmingly dominant global power, with a military presence in most countries in the world, for the foreseeable future. Its defeat in the Middle East, in any case partial, has been bought at huge human cost. It continues to wage the war on terror, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. And the emerging global multipolarity brings its own risks of conflict.


Free market capitalism may now be reviled, but governments have mortgaged their citizens' futures to keep it afloat, while the crisis has generated mass unemployment and attacks on the living standards of the already poor across the world. China's success has been bought at a high price in civil rights and inequality. And in Latin America, the elites show every sign of wanting to reverse the social gains of the past decade, as they have already succeeded in doing by violent coup in Honduras, with US acquiescence.

But at least there is now more space for progressive movements and states to manoeuvre. The Washington consensus is gone and the post-Soviet new world order is mercifully no more. Who predicted that at the millennium? Meanwhile, citizens of the US and its allies have shown increasing reluctance to send their sons and daughters to die in neocolonial wars. With the re-emergence of other independent powers, American leaders might even see the advantage in a rules-based system of international relations.

Liberal commentators in the US have branded the past 10 years as a "lost decade" and a "big zero". They have certainly seen catastrophes and crimes on a wanton scale. But for most of the rest of the world, there have also been crucial advances.
]]> 2009-12-29T16:38:00-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1133 2010 – THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT 1133@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/
It is sometimes easier to change the past than to predict the future.

A whole swathe of people make a living by predicting for individuals, this or that in their lives, star signs, health lines and the like.

Bookmakers become rich on the fact that we try to guess the outcome of a forthcoming event in sport or the wider world.

Polling organisations exist to measure and ascertain the outcome of forthcoming events, be that buying habits or the success of a particular product.

Pollsters are famous for gauging the standing of political parties with the public. Based on probability theory, there is no doubt that opinion polls can be a useful guide to the public mood.

The CWU itself uses opinion polls for campaigning activity, to measure our campaigns in checking against where we want to be as against where we are.

Recent polls have suggested that the Conservatives are on course for an outright victory at the next General Election. Notwithstanding the recent improvement in the position of the Labour Party in the polls, it would appear it is all over bar the shouting.

A recent poll by Mori provided to the CWU told a somewhat different story. It showed when asked who they support - Labour or Tories - 34% went to the Tories and 34% to Labour with Liberals at 16%, others 16% When asked if they would actually vote - Tories went up to 37%, Labour down to 31% Liberals up to 17% - others down to 15%

The significance being that many Labour supporters appear to be saying that they will not vote at the next election. - The “stay away” vote. There was evidence of this in the recent German General Election, when the SDP (Labour’s sister party in Germany) saw its core vote stay away.

The significance for CWU members in our workplaces and across our sectors is that, for specific issues to be addressed, we need a Labour Government.

The message from Labour’s core support, of which CWU people are a crucial part, is that the party must deal with our concerns – the Royal Mail Pension deficit, in particular, together with broadband access for all and the wider interests of the Labour movement

If Labour does that in the run up to the forthcoming General Election it could surprise the pundits and the political elite and achieve an historic fourth term.

Odds describe the future – they do not dictate it.

My prediction for 2010 is that the CWU will be working to protect and promote the interests of all CWU members.

***********************

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:
RED – WELL
NO WAY TO RUN AN ECONOMY

By: Graham Turner

Graham Turner is one of the few economists who predicted the world financial crisis. His new book, No Way To Run An Economy, explains why the world remains mired in economic crisis and claims the Obama administration has failed to stem the slide into deep recession.

Turner recommended aggressive measures, such as quantitative easing, in early 2008. But the action that has been taken has been too little, too late. He dissects policy errors including Obama’s doomed market-led response to the crisis and the obsession of central banks with the red herring of inflation.

Ultimately, Turner argues, the mistakes are the fault of a flawed economic system.

PlutoPress
www.plutobooks.com

***********************
QUOTE:

SHERLOCK HOLMES, FACES DEATH 1943

Closing scene:

Holmes: “I don’t think so Watson, there is a spirit abroad in the land, the old days of grab and greed are on the way out, we are beginning to think of what we owe the other fellow, not just what we are compelled to give him.

Times are coming when we shan’t be able to fill our belly in comfort while the other fellow goes hungry, or sleep in warm beds while others shiver in the cold, when we shan’t be able to kneel and thank God’s blessing, before our shining altars while people anywhere are feeling mental or physical subjection.”

Watson: “You may be right Holmes.”


]]> 2009-12-21T15:34:49-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1132 Polly Toynbee The Guardian, 8th December 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/08/class-war-cameron-background-privilege 1132@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ The Guardian, 8th December 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/08/class-war-cameron-background-privilege

Politicians' backgrounds are of no importance – unless, like the Tories, they are hell bent on defending their privilege

David Cameron was right: "It's not where you're from, it's where you are going," he said. Yes indeed; and where are he and George Osborne going? We can know them by their policies, not by their private schools. Cameron says that even to mention his party's platoon of Etonians is "petty, spiteful and stupid". But by accusing Labour of below-the-belt class warfare, he strives to obscure the facts about his class-biased policies.

If politicians often come from private schools and well-heeled families, sadly that's not surprising. The 7% of people emerging from private schools dominate disproportionately in top universities, the bar, medicine, the City, journalism and any well-paid profession. But politics is not like other professions. Background becomes significant if people go into parliament and devote their lives to preserving the privileges of people like themselves. Osborne and Harriet Harman were both St Paul's pupils. The big difference is that she has spent her career trying to promote fairer life chances for those without her privileges, while Osborne and his fellow frontbench Etonians seem bent on defending theirs. What matters is less where politicians come from than whose side they are on.

So far every single one of Cameron and Osborne's tax plans promote the wealth of the exceedingly wealthy. Not the middle or upper middle but the top 2%. It is astonishing that they have been so overt about it. No previous Conservative party ever sought power on the basis of promises to divert so much revenue from so many to so few.

It is not class war or engaging in scare tactics to point out that Cameron and Osborne's only known tax plans gift £1.2bn to the top 2% of wealthiest estates in inheritance tax. Their marriage tax relief gifts 13 times more cash to the top than the bottom. Giving back extra tax relief on pensions of the richest gives £3.2bn to the top 1.5% of earners. Reversing Labour's 50p income rate gives £2.4bn back to the top 1%. The total sum taken from 98% of voters to donate to the top 2% is £11. 7bn. That really is class war – the rich looting everyone else.

It has entered political mythology that Labour lost Crewe and Nantwich by sending out students parading in top hats as Eton toffs. But that was an irrelevant prank. The clincher on every doorstep I visited was a quite different class issue – Gordon Brown's abolition of the 10p tax band. These middle Englanders expressed outrage at Brown trying to buy their votes with an income tax cut paid for by the lowest earners.

Class and fairness is at the root of politics – always was, always will be. "Why is it OK for Mr Blair to have been educated at Fettes, but not for David Cameron to have been educated at Eton?" William Rees-Mogg – father of two safe-seat Tory candidates – asked in the Times today. Here's an answer: their privileged backgrounds would be a matter of no importance if Cameron were sailing into power with pledges akin to those Blair arrived in office with in his first term. If only Cameron were planning equivalents, such as raising the minimum wage to a living wage, increasing child tax credits or shifting excessive sums spent on top university students towards underfunded Sure Starts for poor children. If Cameron's tax plans leaned even slightly in favour of causes he likes to mention – green issues or poverty – then raising his background would indeed be a "petty, spiteful and stupid" sneer.

Plainly the Conservatives are embarrassed, or they wouldn't have expunged any mention of anyone attending a private school from their website (www.conservatives.com/People.aspx). The only Tories whose schools are named are those like William Hague, David Davis and Eric Pickles, who went to state schools. Turn for example to Cheryl Gillan, shadow Wales secretary and alumna of Cheltenham Ladies College, and she is listed only as "educated at local schools until the age of ten". Central Office plainly does understand that it is seriously embarrassing that a party bent on enriching the rich is itself privileged.

The Tory riposte is an odd one: the right attacks anyone on the left born well-heeled or privately educated as a hypocrite – especially women, especially Harriet Harman. Why? It seems on the whole a good thing to support a cause that is patently not self-interested. Sadly few do: pollsters can predict with reasonable accuracy the way most people in most wards will vote according to the size of their home and their bank balance. Well-paid liberal-minded citizens who cross the line and vote to be more heavily taxed are, alas, statistically sparse. But oh how the right loathes these class traitors most of all. Champagne socialists! Bollinger Bolsheviks!

The British like to delude themselves that class is dead, when it has merely changed its appearance. Osborne had the effrontery to say that "we're all in this together", though class is more entrenched than ever. This is not a Nancy Mitford parlour game of U-word snobberies that divide the top 10% into fine gradations by their use of napkins or serviettes. The hard social facts are that since the early 1980s, people are more likely to stay in the income bracket where they were born. There was more social mobility in the 1950s and 1960s; the Labour era's effect on mobility is unknowable for another decade and even then will no doubt be disputed.


Class is Cameron's weakness only because of the policies he has chosen. Now it's for Alistair Darling to kick the ball into that open goal in at Wednesday's pre-budget report. Bankers and their accountants will be crafty at avoiding a bonus windfall by redescribing their incomes: better to slap a 60% income tax on all astronomic City earnings above a set level. Lawyers such as Withers LLP are already touting their services to help the mega-rich "escape the long arm of HMRC". Darling should reach for the excellent loophole stoppers devised by Compass and Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK.

Labour's political problem is a 12-year head-in-the-sand refusal to tackle ballooning wealth. With Brown still at the helm and congenitally incapable of admitting mistakes, a U-turn may be greeted with an understandable measure of public cynicism. Better late than never, but without a new start and an honest political explanation of these years of fawning to the City, beating up bankers now risks looking like something of a desperate remedy.
]]> 2009-12-16T13:52:05-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1131 This has been a very tough year for CWU members in the postal industry. This time last year we had the announcement from Lord Mandelson that Royal Mail was to be privatised. 1131@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/
This time last year we had the announcement from Lord Mandelson that Royal Mail was to be privatised.



Consequently, from last December to July this year, we had to place a huge amount of resources to oppose the Postal Services Bill.

This was a difficult campaign – and many said we couldn’t succeed.

But we used good tactics – and the commitment of activists and members was even better.

We produced our alternatives:

• A pamphlet “Case Not Made” which challenged the economics of the Hooper Report.
• Another pamphlet “Modernisation by Consent” – demonstrated that Royal Mail could be modernised while remaining in the public sector.

We organised meetings up and down the country.

We toured a giant postcard around the country – had a week of events in every region of the country around the postcard.

We organised many lobbies of Local MPs and a number of national rallies and lobbies.

I must say that the lobbying work done by Branches in the North East Region was absolutely outstanding.

It won a lot of Labour MPs to opposing the Government plan – and this was decisive.

There was a division in Government – not all Ministers agreed with Mandelson’s plan.

Consequently – all your work in contacting MPs had a direct response inside Government.

We also helped the opposition inside the House of Lords.

Tony Clarke played a heroic role in leading the opposition inside the House of Lords.

The debate took place in sittings occupying many sessions. In total there were 35 hours of debate.

Tony put dozens of amendments, and really stretched the Government to answer his criticisms.

The pay off came in July when the Government let the Bill fall. This was a notable victory to which you all contributed.

Of course, there are problems remaining – most notably on the deficit in the pensions.

When the Post Office announced a the 4% rise in profits this week – Adam Crozier also suggested that the deficit might be ten billion pounds.

Clearly – Royal Mail has no future if the Government does not take its responsibility for the deficit.

The difference is clear – Royal Mail is spending £280m a year to just pay down the deficit.

If the Government took the deficit then this money would be available for investment on innovation, services and staff rewards.

But that £280m is on a deficit of £3.5b. If the deficit goes up to £10b then repayments will nearly triple.

This would wipe out the profits, and put the company deep into the red.

So the deficit has to be addressed – there were going to do it had it been privatised, so they must do it anyway.

We got the Labour Party Conference in September to carry an Emergency Resolution insisting that the Government must deal with the deficit.

We are pressing MPs and Ministers on this. Next week we will be mailing every Constituency Labour Party in the country with a package of material in support of our case.

Now everything that I have said previously has had an impact upon workplace relations this year.

Remember the 2007 strikes came after we had defeated Leighton’s proposals to privatise the industry?

Well this year we have seen a similar pattern.

Royal Mail management refused to negotiate sensibly with the Union for the whole period that they thought Royal Mail was going to be privatised – up to July.

And after July they have so set themselves up for confrontation with us that the Union had to call a national strike ballot.

As you know we got a 76% YES vote.

That shook management – they thought you would all be cowed by the recession.

But it took the two national strikes to really bring management to their senses.

The strikes were wonderfully well supported. So management finally crumbled and were forced to sign up to the interim agreement.

This gave us two things we didn’t have:

• A commitment to review and renegotiate in the many areas of the country where change had been imposed.
• An acceptance that modernisation will be negotiated with improvements to terms and conditions for the workforce.

This was a break though for us.

The national talks are proceeding well – the involvement of ACAS has been very helpful.

The Unions national negotiators are committed to getting a final agreement by 23rd December.

That’s a tall order – but any final agreement will be put to the membership for voting.

So it has been a difficult year – but your support has allowed the Union to find a way through it.

Thanks for listening.








WH/SB/JM
11.12.09






]]> 2009-12-12T14:41:28-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1130 ASLEF HQ 9 ARKWRIGHT ROAD, HAMPSTEAD, LONDON NW3 ON THURSDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2009 at 10.00 AM 1130@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ 9 ARKWRIGHT ROAD, HAMPSTEAD, LONDON NW3
ON THURSDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2009 at 10.00 AM

I am delighted to be able to address the ASLEF National Executive. In recent years the CWU has been able to work more closely with ASLEF.

We have campaigned together, with other rail unions, to maintain mail being conveyed on the rail.

And we have worked together with other TULO Unions on the last two Election Manifestos to the Labour Party.

At the moment, we are working together to ensure that the next Labour Party Manifesto is more representative of the needs of working people.

As a consequence, together in the TULO talks with Government, we are committed to calling for a return of the rail franchises to public ownership.

And we are also committed to ensuring that the Government will support keeping Royal Mail as a public service in its Manifesto.

Since 2001 Royal Mail has been operating in a liberalised market. By 2006, the position was that any company could secure a licence for a thousand pounds and compete for any area of Royal Mail’s work.

Royal Mail still had the obligation to provide a universal service. This means Royal Mail will collect and deliver to anywhere in the country, six days a week, at a uniform tariff.

Of course, the competitors were not interested in providing a universal service. All they were interested in was picking out the most profitable bits of the industry.

So by last year, Royal Mail was still delivering 99.8% of previously reserved mail. Yet the competitors had won 40% of the highly profitable bulk mail collection and conveyance.

Royal Mail was tied up by the industry regulator – POSTCOM.

POSTCOM was hostile to the public service character of Royal Mail. It imposed upon Royal Mail a system of access through its network for competitors.

This access actually means that Royal Mail subsidises the competitors to the tune of one hundred million pounds a year.

In a liberalised market, Royal Mail was being prevented from competing fairly with private competitors.

Successive Governments have neglected investment in Royal Mail. This was rather like British Rail before privatisation. As a consequence, Royal Mail has not acquired all the new technology that postal services in other countries are using.

The assumption has been, that Royal Mail will eventually be privatised, and the buyer will purchase the technology they need.

In 2004, there was a serious lobby by Royal Mail management to privatise Royal Mail.

They wanted to sell 31% of shares to the market, and distribute 20% shares to the workforce. This was an attempt to buy off the union’s opposition.

But we fought a campaign against this – which involved getting nearly 200 Labour MPs, signing a Parliamentary Early Day Motion against this.

We also got a commitment in the 2005 General Election Manifesto that Labour would not privatise Royal Mail.

Eventually, in January 2007, the Government announced that it had rejected management’s plans to privatise. That was a victory after a long time.

But, the financial position of the company was deteriorating. As I said earlier, the company was subsidising its competitors.

The company was also suffering from a pension deficit which was as a result of a thirteen year pension contribution holiday for the employer. This took place between 1990 and 2003 – so this had been sanctioned by both Tory and Labour Governments.

Since 2006, the employer has had to pay an extra two hundred and eighty million pounds a year on top of the normal pension contribution, just to deal with the deficit.

When the Government reviewed the industry, through the Hooper Report in 2008, it accepted the conclusion of Hooper that the only way out of the financial problem was privatisation. Actually this wasn’t a way out – merely something that Hooper – and some of the Government – wanted to do anyway.

So Peter Mandelson announced, the same day that the Hooper Report was published in December 2008, that it would accept the Report’s proposals concerning privatisation. This broke the Manifesto commitment – which was also Party policy reinforced at the National Policy Form in 2008, and at Labour Party Conference in October 2008.

We set out to campaign against this proposal.

We produced our own response to Hooper which showed that Royal Mail could be transformed in the public sector.

All the Government had to do was to take its responsibility for the pension’s deficit, and remove the subsidy to competitors.

We organised inside the PLP, gaining 147 Labour MPs to sign an Early Day Motion against privatisation.

We lobbied so effectively that it became clear that there was a major split in Cabinet.

We worked with Compass, who produced two reports – one showed that the economics of privatisation were unproven – the second showed how Royal Mail could be modernised in the public sector.

We organised events up and down the country – with every region of the country having a week of action around the delivery of a giant postcard and post box.

When Peter Mandelson introduced the legislation into the House of Lords, we worked with Lord Tony Clarke, and others, to challenge the Postal Services Bill at every stage of its progress.

Tony placed numerous amendments, and debated the issue line by line with Government spokes people. This was a really heroic contribution from Tony.

At the event of July 2009, the Government announced that it did not intend to proceed with the Bill.

The rebellion was so strong, that the Government could only have got it through with Tory votes. Wisely, the Government decided that this was a tactic which would have been dangerous – who can trust Cameron – and unpopular.

This was a tremendous fillip. Indeed it was a fillip for all of those who have supported a progressive policy in the Labour movement.

We are pressing the Government to take on the pension deficit arising from the employers pension holiday in Royal Mail.

To this end, we got an Emergency Resolution carried at Labour Party Conference this year. Thanks to unions like ASLEF supporting us all the way – the union forced this on to the agenda and it was carried unanimously.

Our problems don’t end here, we have had a national strike recently – following the defeat of the Postal Services Bill.

Our members voted 76% in favour of strike action. Management were shocked by the strength of the vote – and by the strength of the strike.

They assumed that the recession would intimidate our members out of any action. They were wrong and had to change their tune.

As a consequence – we got a national agreement which covered the essential areas for further negotiations.

Management had been refusing to negotiate these. The deal was endorsed unanimously at our Executive – and there is no branch in the Country campaigning against the deal.

Well I hope it has been helpful for you to hear our experience.

We have many struggles ahead. But I am confident that the CWU and ASLEF will strongly support each other in all of them.

Thank you for listening.
]]> 2009-12-10T09:59:53-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1129 SATURDAY 28TH NOVEMBER CONGRESS HOUSE 1129@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ CONGRESS HOUSE

The direct impact of the ECJ decision on the postal sector is negligible at present.

Royal Mail provides a national service which no competitor is in a position to duplicate.

Further, the level of Union density in Royal Mail is sufficient to prevent any immediate threat of workers being introduced at lower rates on a permanent basis. –

Temporary or agency work is another problem but I will return to that.

My main point is that the type of break up of national agreements linked to the Viking/Laval judgements is not immediately posed.

There are however serious problems posed in the postal sector. There have been two EU postal directives. These have resulted in the end of the protected area of service – the monopoly on mail below 250g in weight and £1 in value.

I would stress that the directives do not impose privatisation upon the industry. Nor do they force Royal Mail to close local post offices.

There is a certain amount of myth making about this – both from Tories and some on the left who should know better.

For my part, I need to stress that as I believe it is crucial that Unions positively engage with the EU institution.

I remain of the view that the best line for socialists is to promote international co-operation between governments and workers organisations through the EU rather than seek withdrawal.

That said, there clearly is a problem for Royal Mail, or any European post office with the abolition of the work monopoly.

The national providers offer a universal service for customers – in the directive it is 5 days for delivery and collection – but in Britain it is a 6 day service.

The directive indicates that this service should be offered at an “affordable” rate – although in Britain it is at a uniform tariff – i.e. one price regardless of geography.

The problem arises from the fact that providing this universal service involves maintaining a very large infrastructure and relatively large work force.

Providing a service to rural addresses or collection points is more expensive than in the densely populated urban areas.

As a consequence, Royal Mail takes a loss on many of the services it delivers to many areas of the country.

An element of cross subsidy exists in fact – if not in law.

Removing the monopoly opens the way for competition on the profitable areas – no-one is going to compete for the loss making areas.

This is what has happened in the UK. Since 2001, the monopoly area has been reduced by stages until it was abolished completely in 2006.

Competitors have been able to bid for any of Royal Mail services. –
In reality, they have concentrated on the highly profitable bulk mail.

This means doing nothing more complicated than picking up bags of mail from large posters – part sorting it – then dropping off in Royal Mail to complete sortation and final delivery.

The industry regulator – Postcom, has further rigged the market by preventing Royal Mail from charging a market price for the service it offers competitors for completing delivery.

As a consequence, the industry subsidise competitors by around 2p per letter –

according to Adam Crozier, Royal Mail’s CEO –

which makes around £100 million a year subsidy.

So this is money for old rope. Royal Mail has not won a contested contract in this area – and the competition has secured around 40% of the bulk traffic.

Yet in delivery – Royal Mail continues to deliver 99.8% of previously reserved mail. No competitor is likely to break into this unless the regulator further rigs the market.

I must make it clear, that the system used in the UK is not used in any other country. It is uniquely bad.

Equally, I must stress, that the British government has gone further and faster on the question of liberalisation than necessary under the EU directive.

In my view, for decades British governments have pursued a very right wing line in the EU. British governments have been a by word for deregulation and liberalisation in Europe – following the experiences of the deregulated market in the US.

As you can see, I am not of the opinion that our problems arise primarily from the EU. I think they arise from under-investment and the promotion of neo-liberal policies by the British and other governments.

Of course, there has been no privatisation in the UK of Royal Mail. This is different from some European countries such as Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, where there has been partial or complete privatisation.

But the only reason Royal Mail is not privatised is because the CWU has waged a number of successful campaigns. British governments have certainly tried.

Most recently the Union defeated the Postal Services Bill 2009 which would have seen the sale of up to 49% of Royal Mail to a private partner.

The Union campaigned inside and outside of Parliament, and inside and outside of the Labour Party.

A major split developed inside the PLP and Cabinet. Although the Bill completed its passage through the Lords, it was unable to get past the first reading in the House of Commons.

149 Labour MPs signed up to EDM 428 which opposed privatisation. As a consequence, the government faced having to rely upon Tory votes to get the Bill through.

Rather than take the risk, the Government dropped the Bill.


This followed our intensive and very public campaign. So we were very grateful for the support we received across the Trade Union and Labour movements.

Management were unable to reconcile themselves to this defeat. Instead they continued to attack our Union’s part in the modernisation of the industry – imposing changes without reference to the negotiating procedures.

Consequently the national strike was inevitable. –

This has been resolved with an interim agreement acceptable to the Union.

There are many obstacles to overcome – but we are determined to use the opportunity to also modernise our members terms and conditions.

There was a problem of the use of agency workers in the dispute.

The employer said it intended to employ up to 30,000 – although it never reached anything like that figure.

However, the Union prepared to test the law which indicated that agency workers should not be used for strike breaking.

In reality the law was much more ambiguous than it appeared.

So that, for example, it appears that if an agency worker has been hired to work while other staff are working, then it is not illegal for them to keep working after the staff had walked out.

But, unfortunately or not, the dispute was settled before we were able to go to court. John Hendy provided excellent assistance here. The argument though would have been eventually on agreement about the terms of British law.

The CWU fully supports the work of the IER. We also campaign alongside you and others in opposing the impact of the ECJ cases. Today’s conference is an important contribution to that work.
Thanks for listening.

]]> 2009-11-28T09:39:52-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1125 WEDNESDAY, 25 NOVEMBER BRITANNIA COUNTRY HOUSE, DIDSBURY, MANCHESTER 1125@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ BRITANNIA COUNTRY HOUSE, DIDSBURY, MANCHESTER


This is the CWU's 6th National ULR workshop. It's always a good time to step back and consider where we've come from and where we're going to - never more so than when we could again be facing big challenges.

The Conservatives have made clear that if (and that is IF not WHEN) they get into power they intend savage public spending cuts - and if they are planning to stick our kids back into pre-fab classrooms you shudder to think of what they might have in store for adult education!

Obviously the Tories have got a lot of discredited Thatcherite ideas that they want to turn loose on us and our members - and the risk of falling into defeatist language is that we end up accepting these things by default.

Education - like most other issues IS political - and ULRs are union activists - and we would do well to all remember that because it is activism that protects our members interests in the face of attacks from bosses and politicians.

The introduction of the ULR and the provision of legal rights were one of the big successes of the Labour Government - a success attested to by over 25,000 CWU members, friends and families who have taken courses thanks to this.

That so many members have engaged with the union in this way has ensured that learning has made its mark among the many other issues that crowd the inboxes of senior officers - and it is a tribute to the hard work of our ULRs and the Regional Learning Committees that this has happened.

The network we have now; over 1,000 ULRs trained, over 140 learning centres opened, Regional Learning Committees in every region - these are things that stand us in good stead whatever the future may hold. We now have a network of activists committed to delivering quality learning opportunities to all our members - and where possible the wider community.

It's just as well we have this network because the banking crisis and the potential for a change in Government means that there will be even more pressure on course funding - and more pressure on our members finances too.

Around the country learning centres are experimenting with alternative models of delivery; informal learning, e-learning, community partnerships and formal IAG provision (soon to come under the Adult Advancement & Career Services). All show some potential - but this potential needs to be considered in the cold light of day - not in the first flushes of excitement.

Informal learning is great if it's not all we are left with after all the funding has been redirected to employers.

E-learning is great if it doesn't leave learners feeling isolated or without the support to reach the end of the course.

Provision of funded services such as IAG is great if it doesn't bog ULRs, and the union as a whole, down in the minutiae of contract management.

The Law of Unintended Consequences has a long reach - that's why it's always a good idea to take advantage of events such as this to look at the pros and cons of all these issues.

Now is also a good time to stop and thank all the other comrades who have helped with inspirational ideas, support and resources to make our union learning project the success that it is.

Obviously Unionlearn are at the heart of much of what we do both regionally and nationally.

The University of Hertfordshire have provided just the type of objective assessment that we need at this stage.

ENTO have offered great support in helping us to gain recognition for the quality of support our ULR network provides.

NIACE continue to provide us with solid research, backed with a campaigning zeal to support adult education in all its forms.

UK Online are helping us to expand our horizons - and our reach to members we have struggled to reach before.

And then there are all those trade unionists who never forget that sharing good ideas is what we're all about - and a particular thank you is owed to the learning team at the Bakers & Allied Food Workers Union who have been so generous with their time and ideas.

It could really be an endless list, there's so much going on - but I'll end with one last thank you - to Castleford Community Learning who show us what working people can achieve against a hostile Government and without all the advantages of the ULF that we have been able to draw on. If ever we have cause to bemoan our lot, it’s those sorts of examples that inspire us to achieve ever greater things.

That's what this national ULR event is all about - enjoy the next couple of days and go back to your branches inspired to do more of what you all do so well.
]]> 2009-11-25T11:59:55-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1126 AT 1900 HRS ON MONDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2009 COMMITTEE ROOM 9, HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT 1126@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ AT 1900 HRS
ON MONDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2009
COMMITTEE ROOM 9, HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

Tonight I want to offer the support of the CWU for the founding statement of this campaign.

The Union’s membership is drawn from workplaces where the existence of many cultures is a fact of life.

Increasingly, the Union’s membership reflects the diversity of our society.

Our Union’s bargaining agenda has therefore had to change, in order to express the needs of a changing membership.

For example, in a number of Royal Mail sorting offices, we have had to wage serious campaigns to establish prayer rooms.

These campaigns were often the result of initial pressure from Muslim members of our Union.

Without special provision, Muslim members were having to pray in whatever suitable areas they could find – such as loading bays.

Clearly this is an elementary issue of dignity for the workers concerned.

What happened though was that as these prayer rooms were established, so they were used by workers of different faiths.

In this sense, the campaign for such facilities strengthened the unity of the workforce.

Equally, we have regular difficulties securing adequate leave arrangements for religious holidays.

At present there are statutory days off for Christian holidays – something we must insist upon.

To do this often involves the entire workforce in Royal Mail working many additional hours – particularly in the run up to Christmas.

Yet frequently, we have difficulties in gaining time off for the workers who want to celebrate Eid or Diwali.

So one task we must achieve is a broad guarantee of equality in the rights of religious observance.

Of course, these issues are frequently covered with a thick layer of racism.

Insistence upon a single culture invariable means insistence upon the suppression of others.

It is taken a long struggle by minority communities to secure the cultural liberties that exist.

But we must not assume this process is complete. For example, the centuries old discrimination against Catholics still finds expression in the bar upon Royal marriage.

Nor can we ignore the fact that Tony Blair obviously did not feel able to declare his conversion whilst he was still Prime Minister.

These are broad issues which require a broad campaign. The threat from the rise of racism, and intolerance to various faiths is very real with the growth of the BNP.

The CWU negotiated a conscience clause for postal workers allowing them to opt out of delivering material whose content breached their conscience.

Nick Griffin’s response to this was clear – he said that workers exercising this clause should be sacked.

Clearly, such a view allows no dissent, no variety of conviction or faith. We know where that leads.

It is vital that we defend the multi-cultural character of our society.

On behalf of the CWU, we are prepared to stand up for the human rights at the heart of this campaign.

Thanks for listening.
]]> 2009-11-23T19:00:11-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1127 – 5pm Monday 23rd November, Congress House 1127@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/
Martin Sandoval is a human rights activist and regional leader of the Permanent Committee for Human Rights (CPDH) – the largest human rights group in Colombia. He has spent the majority of his life working to end human rights abuses in Colombia and has worked closely with Colombian trade unions and their leaders and members. Much of his work in the Colombian region of Arauca, where he is based, is aimed at bringing those responsible for murdering trade unionists to justice.

In November 2008, as a result of this work, the Colombian regime jailed Martin Sandoval. He was never put on trial, never convicted of any crime, nor told when he might be released. Shortly after his arrest, British trade unionists (including members of Unite, the GMB and the CWU), trade union lawyers (particularly the Dagenham and Congress House offices of Thompsons) and Labour MPs began campaigning for Martin to be freed. Letters were sent, meetings held with Colombian officials and a visit organised to Martin in prison in Colombia. In April this year Justice for Colombia took some Labour MPs to visit Martin in jail in Arauca. They subsequently brought his case up with senior Colombian officials and, in May, after six long months in jail, he was finally released – a clear example of international solidarity really making a difference.

Running order:

Ellie Reeves – opening remarks (5 mins)

Richard Ascough – experiences of visiting political prisoners in jail in Colombia and why the GMB Southern Region supports the CPDH project (5-10 mins)

Billy Hayes – why international solidarity is important, in particular in the case of Colombia, and how Martin’s own case shows that it works (5-10 mins)

Gail Cartmail – the work done by Unite on political prisoners and then an update on the new campaign against a proposed EU-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (5-10 mins)

Martin Sandoval – personal experiences and current situation in Colombia (20 mins)

Steve Cavalier – summing up and why Thompsons supports the CPDH project (5-10 mins)

Q&A (end by 6.30pm)











Speech – Justice for Colombia
Congress House
THOMPSONS CONFERENCE SUITE
(6TH FLOOR)
Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3LS




It is very probable that our friend Martin Sandoval would not be here today if it was not for international solidarity. - In particular solidarity from trade unions in the UK.

Had his case not been taken up by trade unionists here, supported by Thompsons and several Labour MPs, he would likely still be waiting in prison, with no trial, with no release date, kept apart from his family.


Something important needs to be remembered about Martin’s case. In April this year Justice for Colombia (JFC) took a group of Labour MPs and trade unionists to visit him in prison in Colombia.

They were appalled by how he had been treated and they made those feelings very clear to the Colombian regime when they met with Government officials during the same trip. Within a very short period from that pressure being put on he was free.

I think that this is one of the most clear cut cases of international solidarity really making a difference.


The Colombian regime is acutely aware of their international image – they want to tell the world that everything is OK, that justice is being done and human rights violations are a thing of the past.

We know it isn’t true and that 32 trade unionists already have lost their lives this year, but all the same, the regime does not like people drawing attention to the abuses – abuses that see hundreds of innocent people held in jail for political reasons.

This means that pressure, even moderate pressure, can lead to concrete results on the ground in Colombia.

If the Colombian regime sees that they are getting a reputation for jailing people for political reasons they are less likely to do it. When pressure is put on them they respond.

The major problem is that our own Government refuses to engage in this. They will not pressure the Colombian regime – instead they cosy up to the nasty, abusive and violent elite that is running Colombia. –

The Foreign Office, for example, refuses to admit that there are political prisoners in Colombia!



Martin Sandoval is proof enough of that – months and months in prison but never taken to court, never convicted of any crime – and there are hundreds of others like him and I know some of you have had the chance to visit the prisons in Colombia and enter the specific ‘political prisoner’ wings of those prisons. –


It beggars belief that the FCO still denies this reality.


So pressure also needs to be put on our own Government. –

We need to make it clear to David Miliband and his colleagues that being on friendly terms with a regime that kills and imprisons trade union activists and others that it sees as opponents in totally unacceptable.

Friends, international solidarity does work and, in Colombia it is quite clear that it works. But we also need that political pressure. –

When the campaign against the South African Government first began all those years ago it was the trade unions that led the way – the British Government had to be dragged on board. –

Though eventually they did come on board and that nasty regime was isolated and, ultimately, brought down.

Colombia is similar. The trade unions are leading the way but we need to put a lot more effort into convincing our Government that rewarding the Colombian elite with political, military and diplomatic support is no way to encourage them to change their ways.

And, in conclusion, it is only when they change their ways that our colleagues in that country, people like Martin, will be able to go about their daily lives without fear of being attacked, thrown in prison or even murdered.

Colleagues, we must redouble our efforts and ensure an end to the abuses in Colombia.



Thank you.






]]> 2009-11-23T17:00:21-00:00 http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/rssfeed.php?id=P1128 Larry Elliott The Guardian, Monday 23 November 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/23/labour-economic-policy-general-eelction 1128@http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/ The Guardian, Monday 23 November 2009


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/23/labour-economic-policy-general-eelction

Labour has good progressive policies but they need to be delivered with conviction

It's 10pm on 6 May 2010 and the polls have just closed on election night.

The news begins with a sensational item. Nick Robinson says that a BBC exit poll shows that a last-minute surge by Labour has left the result in the balance. If the exit poll is accurate, Britain is heading for its first hung parliament in 36 years.

Fanciful? Despite yesterday's Observer poll showing Labour only six points adrift of the Conservatives, that remains the case. It is only one poll and the government has been trailing badly for so long that David Cameron remains a strong favourite to win next spring.

Even so, the Observer findings suggest that Labour supporters already resigned to defeat next spring are being unduly negative. The economy, at last, is on the turn. The threatened rise in the unemployment total will not materialise this side of polling day (if at all) and consumers feel a lot more cheerful about the state of their personal finances than they did six months ago. Traditionally, that sort of economic backdrop would mean a tightening of the political race, and we now may be seeing the start of that happening.

Rogue poll or not, it is still good news for Gordon Brown. For months, the received wisdom has been that the prime minister is the problem, and that Labour has no chance of putting any serious pressure on Cameron without a change of leadership. Again, this seems a tad defeatist. Two thirds of the population heartily loathed Margaret Thatcher, but that didn't stop her winning three elections. Voters didn't much care for the woman, but enough of them were prepared to back policies they thought were good for Britain.

These included selling council houses, tax cuts and privatising large chunks of industry.

So what's Brown offering? Peter Mandelson says we should have less financial engineering and more real engineering. Ed Miliband supports the idea of a Green New Deal. Alistair Darling thinks a slash and burn approach to public spending would derail economic recovery. Yvette Cooper is spending billions to prevent a repeat of the long-term youth unemployment that blighted the 1980s. Brown now supports the idea of some sort of financial transaction tax.

These are all good, progressive policies to form the economic core of a Labour manifesto. Brown's Damascene conversion to hitting the City where it hurts is particularly interesting, and contrary to reports the prime minister is determined to push the transaction tax idea hard over the coming months. It's not hard to see why. City bankers are detested by voters; they are seen as having had it too easy for too long. As today's YouGov poll shows, a tax on financial transactions would be politically popular if it were designed to help poor people.

The problem for Brown is that the sum of these policies is less than the component parts. Voters don't appear to be listening and those who think the prime minister should fall on his sword believe visceral loathing of Brown means the public switches off whenever he appears.

An alternative explanation is that the talk of real rather than financial engineering and of Tobin taxes lacks credibility given Labour's craven approach to the City between 1997 and 2007. There may be something in this: Thatcher's policies were seen as driven by conviction, Brown's by expediency. If the public is cynical about the promised get-tough approach to City bonuses, it has every right to be.

Big state

Whatever you might think of Cameron's policies, they have an intellectual consistency. His pitch to voters is as follows: the British state is too big, too expensive and too intrusive. While you, the individual voter, are doing your utmost to live within your means, the government is accumulating bigger and bigger debts. Those big debts threaten the UK's reputation with the credit ratings agencies, and action is needed now to prevent a downgrade on Britain's debt that would precipitate a run on the pound, leading to higher interest rates and a weaker recovery. The Big State approach has failed at every level.

Except, of course, when it came to dealing with the crisis. The flaw in the Conservative approach is that it was not the Big State but the deregulated market that caused all the problems. It is still possible for Labour to win the election, but only if it is able to exploit this weakness, something it has miserably failed to do up until now. The reason for this failure is easy to explain. Four successive election defeats between 1979 and 1992 shredded Labour's confidence to posit an alternative to the prevailing beliefs in self-correcting markets, utility maximising consumers, and perfectly informed rational investors. As Roger Bootle notes in his excellent new book, The Trouble with Markets (Nicholas Brealey; £18) it was this creed that convinced policy makers, Brown included, that financial bubbles were impossible and that it was perfectly feasible to trumpet the end of boom and bust.

Onto this orthodoxy Labour has latterly grafted some cod Keynesianism – the notion that the only proper response to the crisis is a temporary use of bigger budget deficits to support activity until a revival of the private sector allows fiscal policy to be tightened once more. But if Labour is going to rediscover Keynes, it needs to do a bit more homework. At root, Keynes believed that modern economies were far more prone to shocks and persistent uncertainty than classical economists believed. Budgetary policy was a secondary tool to be used alongside monetary policy to smooth out big fluctuations in the economic cycle, whether booms or busts.

Short-termism

The Keynesian argument for action to prevent long-term unemployment is that there is no guarantee that labour markets – however "flexible" – will deliver full employment: they can settle at any equilibrium. The Keynesian case for "real rather than financial engineering" is that the short-termism of speculators is bad for long-term enterprise. The argument for a transaction tax is that controls on capital are necessary to counter the tendency of financial markets to de-stabilise economies.

Since Keynes's death, these ideas have been either rejected or abandoned, and all that's left is the notion that Keynes would have backed the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy and opposed a slash and burn approach to the deficit. Indeed, given the current weakness of "animal spirits" he would be arguing for more investment spending in next month's pre-budget report on the grounds that it would lead to lower unemployment, stronger growth, a shorter recession and a more rapid improvement in the government's finances. Then, and only then, would policy be tightened, with the aim of building up a surplus, not just as a macro-economic tool but as a war chest for spending during the next downturn. This part of Keynesian fiscal policy was sadly ignored by many of his so-called disciples during the post-war era.

Much of what Brown will be arguing for between now and the election makes sense. Without some form of intellectual under-pinning, however, it looks like a ragbag of ideas designed to score political points. It doesn't meet the need to respond to the failure of a flawed set of ideas with an alternative philosophy.

Brown's sudden interest in a financial transaction tax suggests that the penny may finally have dropped and If he really is ready to shed all the intellectual baggage from his chancellorship, all credit to him. That's precisely what is needed.In terms of turning the political tide, though, he is leaving it uncomfortably late.

larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk
]]> 2009-11-23T15:23:25-00:00