Ed Miliband Makes Landmark Speech at The Trade Union Congress, Calls on Unions to Accept Radical Changes

Photo by Anthony Mckeown

In a landmark speech to the Trade Union Congress conference, Miliband called on Unions to accept the radical changes the Labour party is proposing to make to the way their membership is formed.

Miliband was expected to receive some hostility as he addressed trade unionists in Bournemouth as he set out his vision for a system where union member must opt in to the Labour party, rather than become automatically affiliated. Prior to the conference, the proposal was widely criticised by unions for its expected effects on how well-funded and supported the Labour party is.

The Labour Party leader began by paying tribute to Lesley Mercer, the first female President of the TUC, and Edward Stanley, a Conservative Prime Minister of the late Nineteenth Century, proclaiming him ‘Ed Red’, a nickname commonly attributed to Miliband. He continued with his speech by praising the membership of trade unions, condemning the Prime Minister for ‘ooz[ing] contempt for trade unionists.’

As he breached the most controversial and tensional topic of trade union membership, the Congress was, in contrary to the attitude expected of them, fairly supportive of his reforms. Miliband called for ‘a real voice in our party based on an active choice to be part of our party’ and asked for unions to get the ‘courage to change’. No delegates took advantage of the question and answer session to criticise the reforms that Miliband proposed, demonstrating a positive response from trade unionists.

The remainder of Miliband’s speech...

This article was originally published on H4TV - for the full article, click here

Waging War on the Welfare State

Image by Helen Cobain

Welcome to April. At the next possible opportunity, make a U-turn.

Today is the day of the implementation of further dreaded cuts. As April arrives, we can only optimistically hope that it is some well-organised April Fool’s joke, but unfortunately we know better of a Conservative Government. Lambasted as the “nastiest” ever Government by the TUC, it is difficult to ignore the harsh effects of the benefit changes that are begin from today; from our beloved "bedroom tax” to the loss of legal aid. All of these seem set to only make the poor poorer in the name of deficit reduction.

While Iain Duncan Smith claims that they changes are “fair”, the shouts of society are in stark contrast and looking at the policies, we can understand why. Firstly, and most prominently argued, is the effects of the incoming “bedroom tax” which will force families out of social housing simply due to the number of rooms their house has. Two-thirds of the people who will be hit by this tax are disabled. People will be coerced into moving into smaller homes which may not meet their needs, in order to remain financially sustainable.

Perhaps in an attempt to pin some blame on the local councils, the Government are now offloading council tax benefits into local control (with a 10% reduction already imposed). Whilst local councils are already being forced into making cuts by the Government, there is little leeway for them to increase the spending in these areas and we are likely to see further reductions by local councils in order to meet the other demands required of them.

At the end of the month, the Universal Credit will be piloted in the area of Ashton-under-Lyne, intended to merge many different benefits together into one means-tested payments. However, this will undoubtedly reduce the amount of money that claimants will receive, pushing those with no alternatives further towards or below the poverty line. Furthermore, with the software for the pilot not yet looking ready, this reform is looking set to fail.

The U-turns and amendments of the Government on planned policies have simply demonstrated how ill thought-out their work is. With regards to the “bedroom tax”, it is a sorry state of affairs that the public and Labour must point out how the policy would disproportionately impact the elderly, disabled and military families, before the Government can realise what is wrong with their policies. It changes little though and many policies continue to pass through the Houses and into legislation without being properly scrutinised and surrounded by public and opposition doubt of their practicalities, effectiveness and, most importantly, impact.

However, the welfare system is far from perfect and its reform is not a topic we should just shy away from. There are things about the system which are fundamentally unfair; for example, that some families can be better on benefits than if they worked, but the battle plan of the Government is waging war on the wrong side. Rather than ensure that companies pay their employees wages which make living comfortably possible, therefore ensuring that people on benefits do not have more money than their working counterparts, they are simply reducing the amount of money they dole out to help those in real need of help.

The fiscal year of 2013/2014 will definitely hit hard, and those who need the most financial support will see it unfairly dwindling away whilst their rich counterparts receive a tax break. It is unfair, it is harsh and it is ill thought-out but these are reforms we will be forced to suffer the consequences of, simply so that we try and get rid of those minus signs in our bank balance.

This Country is at War…

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

...with itself. As fresh strike announcements are made from the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) after votes in their annual conferences, it does not come as a shock. This is yet another wave of strikes that adds to the wall of resistance that is being built by unions across the country. Today Post Office workers went on strike, last November students took to the streets of London and now we look forward to a summer of more protest against the Government aims. Nothing will match that of the million-strong march against the Iraq war in 2003, but this united front does serve a united message to the Government; we are at war with the Government.

The Government’s cuts, reorganisation and privatisation is not going unnoticed and unchallenged, and these are hitting hard across many sectors of the nation. Astoundingly, however, there is an air of annoyance between sectors and the public. With the announcement of strikes from teachers today, there were criticisms across the board from mothers, fathers and students, who, in dismay, challenged the skills of these professionals and argued that this meant they had no right to go on strike. Now, these are unfair judgements and accusations – people do forget the strains and pressures of teachers and lecturers commonly arguing things such as “they get the summer off” and “they work short hours”, but these are myths. Both of these “holiday” periods are used for marking or preparing, not for simply bathing in their luxurious grand lifestyles. Yet, these myths fuel sectors to fight amongst themselves, rather than to fight over the main problems.

It seems ludicrous that sectors of society facing the same threats would argue about the disruption to life each other causes, rather than unite and offer support against the detrimental changes the Government is making. Instead of holding a general day of action, unions hold their own individual days (perhaps with other unions in the same sector, such as teaching), but then criticise and complain when other sectors do. We are forgetting that if the Government were not making these disastrous cuts to our services, then there would be no need to strike. Furthermore, the most effective parts of protest is the disruption it causes; after all, disruption only rebounds negatively on the Government. To take that away, would take away its effectiveness. But to criticise and complain is to show a divided society, and this we should avoid.

Hence, society is not just at war with the Government, but rather at war with itself. The small battles that we fight are detrimental to the strength of the united anger that could be. To win, unions must unite; to win, society must multilaterally, unanimously fight back.