There is a Better Way

Songs for Social Justice: Gil Scott-Heron - A Message to the Messengers

2012-01-25T00:30:00.000Z

Speakingahead of the Songs for Social Justice Festival on Thursday, SweetS (Northern Xposure) said, “Music has always been atthe heart of many civil rights movements and revolutions, andit also acts as a vehicle for different cultures and faiths to have somecommon ground. It is something that reaches so far into our very being andexistence that it resonates with each and every one of us on a profound level,indeed even before we can say our A, B, C, D we find it is easier tocommunicate with a harmony or a bit of melody. Therefore itis NRNXPO's mission to promote music for social justice in all form's andacross all genre's.”

Rap and Hip Hop started out inthe 1970’s as a way of communicating a social and political message whilehaving a good time.

Gil Scott-Heron is oftencredited with being the Godfather of Rap, he was rapping to music by 1970, sometime before Kool Herc and Afrika Bambaataa created Hip Hop as a means of bringingcommunities together, offering young people a route out of gangs and encouragingsocial harmony.

Gil Scott-Herons’ lyricsfocussed on the social and political issues of the time. His music stillresonates today and he can still find a new fan-base amongst young people. His2010 album I’m New Here, was remixed by Jamie Smith of The XX and released in2011 as We’re New Here.

It is difficult to choosejust the one track from Scott-Heron’s extensive, educational and inspiringoutput, obvious choices would be The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, TheBottle or Johannesburg. However, today’s choice comes from his 1994 albumSpirits. A Message to the Messengers calls on rappers, musicians and youngpeople to remember their history and heritage and use this knowledge andunderstanding to promote positive social change.

Gil Scott-Heron - A Messageto the Messengers

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: SOPA / PIPA Blackout Day Protest Songs

2012-01-24T00:30:00.000Z

This blog was written by John Powles at the Alistair Hulett MemorialTrust. STUC Unions Into Schools and the Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust haveworked in partnership on the Songs for Social Justice Festival. We would liketo thank John for writing this blog.

On Wednesday 18th January 2012 many internet sites intentionally blackedout for the day in protest against the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA(Protect IP Act) legislation now being advanced in the USA. The day of protesthas been judged a success by some of the major organisations involved.Wikipedia stated "More than 162 million people saw our message asking ifyou could imagine a world without free knowledge. You said no. You shut downCongress's switchboards. You melted their servers. From all around the worldyour messages dominated social media and the news. Millions of people havespoken in defence of a free and open internet." Meanwhile Facebook founderMark Zuckerberg urged people to protest saying "Tell your congressmen youwant them to be pro-internet. We can't let poorly thought out laws get in theway of the internet's development. Facebook opposes Sopa and Pipa, and we willcontinue to oppose any laws that will hurt the internet."

Of course the internet with sites like YouTube, Facebook and the rest isa powerful tool for distributing activism against social injustice, includingusing songs as a vehicle for protests. Needless to say the SOPA / PIPA protestshave led to the creating and posting of songs. The following examplesdemonstrate just how easy it can be to make protesting voices heard – noexpensive equipment is required, no record industry moguls have to be grovelledto, no media pawns of government have to be persuaded – just do it and post it.

The first sample uses the age old method for creating a song of socialjustice – the adoption and adaption of an existing well known tune and lyric –in this case Don Maclean’s American Pie. Created by LaughPong, The Day TheLOLcats Died - #SOPA #PIPA Protest Song [http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/17/the-day-the-lolcats-died/]includes some pertinent lyrics:

”Why, why are laws a thing you can buy? / They got paid off, should belaid off, re-election denied / Our web means more than lawyers, lobbies andlies / So speak up before the internet dies / Speak up before the internetdies”.

LaughPong - The Day The LOLcats Died

Finally in this brief selection Stop the SOPA Song is just a guy in his room with an acoustic guitar and some very clever lyrics:

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: The Projects – Anne is a Socialist

2012-01-23T00:30:00.000Z

There are regular articles in the press whichclaim that there is no political music around that reflect the times in whichwe find ourselves. This just doesn’t play out, though it is obvious that thereis a void of political song making the charts these days, the charts themselvesare not the focal point they once were. Ways of promoting, accessing anddistributing new music has changed dramatically in recent years. The internethas been the key factor in this stage in the evolution of music distribution andaccess.

The internet and social media has also played a role in the uprisings acrossthe Middle East, in the anti-capitalist protest movements which are nowgalvanizing young people across the globe and in the democratisation of newsdissemination. Activists around the world are blogging and organising from thecomfort of their own armchair, they are also taking to the streets armed with acamera, a mobile phone and a laptop and then distributing their own first handaccounts of what they deem to be headline news to a global audience.

The video for ‘Anne is a Socialist’ captures footage of protests which we mayrecognise from our TVs and from citizen journalist postings on the internet,the footage is edited to provide an unflinching visual account of the song’slyrics and music. The Project’s singer tells Anne’s story via a webcam.Combined, the audio-visuals act as a strong proponent of the protest movementsand provide an angry portrayal of the power that the protestors are strugglingagainst.

This contemporary political song is absolutely a reflection of the times; it isa song very much for this moment.

Sadly, Graeme Wilson the singer, lyricist and driving force behind The Projectspassed away in December 2011. Ricky Maymi, guitarist with The Projects said “Ithink this [the Songs for Social Justice festival] is a great thing for hissong to be a part of! I'm honoured to be a part of it!”

The Projects – Anne is a Socialist

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: Rev Hammer - Freeborn John: The Story of John Lilburne – The Leader of The Levellers

2012-01-22T00:30:00.000Z

The Songsfor Social Justice blogs have so far looked at individual songs on the subjectof social justice, often stating that the bands have a canon of fittingmaterial but offering a reason as to why that particular song has been chosen. Occasionally a great album is released with a common theme of socialjustice, but seldom does an artist release a biographical album about ahistorical figure. In 1997, Rev Hammer released such an album.

The story is set during the English Civil War, with a particular focus on one of the maincharacters of that period – John Lilburne, the leader of The Levellers. John Lilburne struggled against tyranny in the pursuit of equality, fairness and the freedom of speech. Thealbum is a biography set to music and lyrics and is based on Pauline Gregg’s biographical book ‘Freeborn John’.

Rev Hammerworked with a number of artists on this album, with many taking on particularroles. Eddi Reader, The Levellers, Justin Sullivan and Maddy Prior all makeappearances.

Rev Hammer- Freeborn John: The Story of John Lilburne – The Leader of The Levellers

The full album can be listened to here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/levellinglilburne/videos

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: Michael Franti & Spearhead – I Know I’m Not Alone

2012-01-21T00:30:00.000Z

Michael Franti isbest known as a political activist and musician. His song ‘Television: The Drugof the Nation’, was widely hailed as a groundbreaking mix of politicalrap/rock. He originally recorded it in 1988 with his first group The Beatnigsand then re-recorded it with his next band The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy.U2 brought the song to prominence by using it as the intro on their Zoo TVtour. In 1994 he formed a new band - Spearhead which had more of a soul andfunk influence, while remaining political.

In 2004 MichaelFranti decided to visit the Middle East to see with his own eyes, the humancost of war. He undertook the trip with a group of friends, a camera and hisacoustic guitar. On returning to the USA he edited the footage into a film andencouraged fans to organise screenings in cinemas, in community halls and intheir homes.

‘I Know I’m NotAlone’ is that award winning documentary, the filmmaking process resulted inthe album ‘Yell Fire!’ which was also the soundtrack to the film. The title ofthe film is also the name of one of the tracks on the album.

Michael Franti& Spearhead – I Know I’m Not Alone (Song)

I Know I’m Not Alone (Full length film)

I Know I’m Not Alone (website, with lyrics and background info):

http://www.iknowimnotalone.com

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: Patti Smith - People Have The Power

2012-01-20T00:30:00.000Z

Today's blog has been written by Paul Simpson, singer and lyricist with The Wild Swans. We would like to thank Paul for his support throughout this project.

Perhaps if Robert Johnson hadmet Jesus, the Buddha or the prophet Muhammad at the Rosedalecrossroads instead of the devil, optimism and positivity in the lyrics of rocksongs wouldn’t now be considered quite so Sir Cliff-tastically uncool. Lennon’scaustic anger always trumped McCartney’s hokey nostalgia, than that’s just theway it is, but occasionally a rock song offers hope without making us cringeand such is the case with Patti Smith’s People Have The Power. Those four potent words are about assimple and direct and powerful a message as it’s possible to sing withoutsounding hopelessly naïve. There’s so much conviction in Patti’s delivery that bythe time she reaches the pre-chorus refrain of ‘The power todream, to rule, to wrestle the world from fools, it's decreed the people rule’ she’s almost levitating with excitementbecause she knows she just seconds away from the chorus and absoluteconnection.

Universal truths can be anextremely effective weapon in song, just listen to Give Peace A Chance and AllYou Need Is Love. OK, the latter’s slightly naïve message was flawed but Isuppose All You Need Is Love, Food and Shelter didn’t scan so well. People HaveThe Power seeks to inspire and fuel change, and what’s more, not just for the‘stick-it-to-the-man’ hippy-dippy sake of it, but in a constructive, focussed,‘we outnumber you, stand aside, we want out’ way.

Ironically the William Blakeinspired verses of this anti war song - all shepherds and soldiers sharingvisions of peace beneath the stars, appeared shortly before the so-called‘liberation of Kuwait’and the Persian Gulf War. My favourite line of all in the song is ‘People have the power - to redeem the work offools’.

For me Patti Smith’s simple message of optimism and the desire for changethrough union has never been more relevant than in these ill-governed times.

Paul Simpson.

Patti Smith - People Have The Power

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: The Spatial AKA Orchestra – Ghost Planet

2012-01-19T00:30:00.000Z

Wecan’t leave this song out. The updated classic by “General” Jerry Dammers,probably one of the most potent and poignant songs of the 1980’s and beyond,this version warns of a Ghost Planet, if we don’t address world issues. Thisband are an absolute treat to see live playing ska, funk, reggae and soul, Ifor one look forward to them cutting some vinyl in the studio.

(Terry AndersonSTUC)

Jerry Dammers and TheSpatial A.K.A. Orchestra
Ghost Town / Ghost Planet (Lyrics)

“This Town Is Coming Like A GhostTown
All The Buildings Have Been TornDown
This Place Is Coming Like A DragPlace
A Dead Place
Wipe The Smile From A Child's Face

This World Is Coming Like A GhostPlanet
On This Here Planet
If You Treat Man Like Mouse HeWill Breed
Treat Man Like Fly And He WillSwarm

This World Is Coming Like ARubbish Tip
It Coming Like A Cesspit
That's Feeding, Feeding On It'sOwn Vomit
Coming Like A Rubbish Dump
In Need Of A Stomach Pump

This Place Is Coming Like ADisgrace
A Child's Smile Turned Into AGhost Place

This Place was a Back StabbingGreedy Corrupt Place
What, What Is That, What Is ThatSweet Sickly Smell
Is It Heaven, Turned Into Hell ?”

TheSpatial AKA Orchestra – Ghost Planet

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: The Nightwatchman – The Road I Must Travel

2012-01-18T00:30:00.000Z

Alongsidefellow musician Serj Tankian, Tom Morello founded ‘Axis of Justice’ in 2002 tobring together musicians, music fans and grassroots organisations to fight forglobal social justice. Recently Morello has played short sets at Occupy campsacross the USA and Europe

TomMorello is best known for his work with the politically charged Rage Againstthe Machine. He also played guitar with Audioslave and is currently guitaristand lyricist with Street Sweeper Social Club and The Nightwatchman.

Itis a difficult task to choose just one single track from across Morello’sindustrious output of songs about social justice. This song is from TheNightwatchman’s early days when Morello used this moniker to record and play asa solo acoustic artist. ‘The Road I Must Travel’ has an excellent accompanyingvideo in which Morello is surrounded by pictures of his inspirations, thefootage also includes quotes from a number of those figures.

TheNightwatchman – The Road I Must Travel

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: The Clash – 1977

2012-01-17T00:30:00.000Z

36 yearsago, there was a revolution in pop music. The popular protest songs of the1960’s had faded. Young people growing up in multi-cultural working classneighbourhoods found the problems of society cut across ethnicities, that theroot causes of unemployment, poverty and lack of progress could not and shouldnot be blamed on BME and migrant communities. The Queen’s Silver Jubilee loomed.A referendum on Scottish devolution was on the horizon. Glam Rock, Prog Rockand Showaddaywadday ruled the charts – the bands had nothing to say.

The musicand charts changed dramatically when a bunch of teenagers from London decidedto over-throw their older peers and create a new sound which was influenced bythe rebellious socio-political messages found in reggae. The new music came tobe known as punk. It rejected conforming to the class structures, its ethos wasD.I.Y. and the records they listened to were British and Jamaican reggae.

The Clash wasthe most obvious band to have had reggae influences in their music and they arecredited as having brought the political edge to punk. Their music and songswere a reflection of their times and personal experiences, their messagesconnected with young people.

The Clashare often cited as being inspirations to countless other musicians, they gavemany bands their first opportunity to tour and play in front of largeaudiences. The Clash broke down the superficial barrier between band andaudience. Their music was innovative and changed with each album. Their song ‘1977’railed against unemployment, the lack of opportunities for young working classpeople and the Jubilee.

Disastrously,1977 sounds as relevant today as it was 35 years ago.

The Clash –1977

Songs for Social Justice Dance Nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm– midnight

o Tickets£8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: The Impressions – We’re a winner

2012-01-16T00:30:00.000Z

Anycomposition with Curtis Mayfield involved normally grabs the attention of allsoul music lovers. Curtis Mayfield wrote this uplifting composition with lyrics to encouragethe listener into action by accepting that the time for self-pity was over andthat one should acknowledge his or her worth, even in the face of opposition.The song points people towards collective action as a self - improving andempowering route for both individuals and communities – it does this throughamazing vocals from Curtis set at a gentle uplifting pace.

TheImpressions – We’re a winner (ABC Records, 1967)

Songs for Social Justice Dance Nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm– midnight

o Tickets£8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: Tracy Chapman – Talking ‘bout a Revolution

2012-01-15T00:30:00.000Z

Tracy Chapman came toglobal prominence when taking to the stage at the 1988 Nelson Mandela 70^thBirthday Tribute concert at Wembley Stadium, a concert which was broadcast livearound the world. Three years after Live Aid, this concert had a more politicalstance and demanded an end to apartheid in South Africa and the release ofNelson Mandela and other political prisoners. The organisers, which includedJerry Dammers, staged this concert at a time when the Conservative governmentof the day regarded Mandela and the ANC as terrorists.

A second concert wasorganised in 1990 two months after his release. He regarded this as an officialinternational reception, the concert was once again broadcast around the world.Mandela attended and took the stage for a total of 45 minutes, he did not meetthe British government on this visit to the UK.

Tracy Chapman’s setat the first concert, and this song in particular, seemed to capture the moodof the day. It catapulted her from being a little known artist that sang aboutsocial activism to becoming an international artist that sang about socialactivism. She also performed at the ‘Nelson Mandela: An International Tributefor a Free South Africa’ concert in 1990.

Tracy Chapman - Talking 'bout a Revolution - live at the 'Nelson Mandela 70^th Birthday Tribute':

Further information:

http://www.about-tracy-chapman.net/1988-nelson-mandela-70th-tribute-concert/

Songs for Social Justice Dance Nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm– midnight

o Tickets£8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: Pop Will Eat Itself – Ich Bin Ein Auslander

2012-01-14T00:30:00.000Z

Pop Will Eat Itselfteamed up with Fun-Da-Mental for this driven anti-fascist song. It was from thealbum Dos Dedos Mis Amigos, which was the band’s most political output.

Released in 1994, itwas written following the 1993 election of a BNP candidate to the Millwallcouncil seat. This was the first time that a BNP candidate had been elected. After much local campaigning by anti-fascist andanti-racist organisations alongside local people and trade unions, the BNP lostthe seat at the following year's election. It was not until 2002 that the BNP wereonce again able to get their members elected to local councils in England.

Thework undertaken in the area against the BNP demonstrates that local campaigningcan and does successfully drive back the fascists. This song still resonates, as the BNP still have elected members and today Unite Against Fascism are holding a rally against the fascist EDL as they take to the streets of Barking in London.

The coverof the single had a clear focus on anti-nazi symbolism. The song got into theTop 30 and the album reached No. 11.

After PopWill Eat Itslef split up in 1996, one of their singers – Clint Mansell – startedwriting film scores and has now written the scores for The Wrestler, Black Swanand Moon amongst many others.

Pop Will Eat Itself – Ich Bin Ein Auslander

Songs for Social Justice Dance Nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm– midnight

o Tickets£8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songs for Social Justice: Gary Byrd and the GB Experience – “The Crown” on Motown records

2012-01-13T00:30:00.000Z

An 1980’s Motown rap with Gary Byrd featuring Stevie Wonder – this songfor me celebrates diversity and inspires you to explore your roots even if thestatus quo view in school, society or the media tells you to look the other wayand believe in the same old line. Musically it moves along with a skip andproves the point that celebrating, smiling and making a political and socialpoint can all be done at the same time – a gem of a song.

(Terry Anderson, STUC)

Gary Byrd and the GB Experience – “The Crown”

Lyrics: http://www.justsomelyrics.com/1884621/Gary-Byrd-And-The-G.B.-Experience-The-Crown-Lyrics

Songs for Social Justice dance nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Disability Living Allowance - the perfect storm

2012-01-12T13:08:00.003Z

As the coalition Government continues to impose draconian cuts on working class people in the United Kingdom, while at the same time attempting (and failing) to create the false illusion "we are all in this together" ; however the disabled movement is fighting back.

We have already witnessed the introduction of the flawed Workplace Capability Assessment where around 4 in 10 of those judged fit for work have the decision overturned on appeal.

Now proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance are currently in the House of Lords. These cuts seek to reduce the cost to the Government of providing Disability Living Allowance by 20%, a conveniently round amount of savings, after which they attempt to claim that the lives of disabled people will be improved.

Not surprisingly the disabled movement is not standing back and accepting these cuts and a report on the proposals, Responsible Reform has been written researched and funded by disabled people, their friends and carers. This report clearly shows that the majority of those who responded were overwhlemingly against the proposals yet the Government is forging ahead with its attack on disabled people, apparently ignoring the views of individuals and organisations who took the time to respond.

Pat Onions, recognising the fact that many disabled people cannot attend public demonstrations such as the Hardest Hit Rally in Edinburgh on the 22nd October and the STUC's People First on October 1st to fight for their rights has launched an e-petition on the UK Government's website to ensure their views are aired . The petition urges the Government to stop and review the cuts to benefits and services which are falling disproportionately on disabled people their carers and their families.

This petition currently has 14401 signatures and is open until the 1st December 2012. We would urge readers of this blog to sign Pat's Petition and help reach the 100000 required to secure a debate in the UK Parliament on this issue.

Ian Tasker
STUC

Songs for Social Justice: Primal Scream – Come Together

2012-01-12T00:30:00.000Z

JesseJackson’s speech at Wattstax in 1972 is sampled at the start of this song.Wattstax was a music festival organised by Stax Records on the 7^thanniversary of the Watts Riots, which lasted for five days. The root cause ofthe riots is still discussed today, but racism; discrimination; highunemployment; poor schools and poor living conditions for African Americansliving in the Watts area of Los Angeles are regarded as being factors.

Theinfluence of politicised popular music and culture can be heard in many ofPrimal Scream’s songs and interviews. In the autumn, the band condemned theTories when they were said to have used a Primal Scream song at their partyconference.

On PrimalScream’s recent 20^th anniversary tour of Screamadelica, singer BobbyGillespie added extra lyrics to Come Together relating to the economic andpolitical climate of today, repeating the refrain ‘Agitate, Educate, Organise’at some of the latter shows.

PrimalScream – Come Together (Live at T in the Park):

JesseJackson – Wattstax:

Songs for Social Justice dance nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songwriters and musicians support Songs for Social Justice

2012-01-10T23:25:00.001Z

In previous decades, the pop chartshave had an abundance of politically motivated songs which have provided asoundtrack to the everyday realities faced by young people. As part of theSongs for Social Justice, the STUC spoke to a number of artists that arerenowned for their politicized songs.

Jerry Dammers is active with LoveMusic Hate Racism; he was a founding member of Artists Against Apartheid andwas heavily involved in Rock Against Racism. He is probably best known forbeing the powerhouse behind The Specials and the 2Tone record label. His bandThe Special AKA wrote and performed ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ which reached number9 in the singles chart in 1984.

Jerry Dammers (The Specials / TheSpatial AKA Orchestra / The Special AKA / Founder of 2Tone)

“I personally would advise allmusicians and artists of all ages to wake up to what is happening in the worldand address it in their work. Record companies may tell artists it will damagetheir career, but I think in the big picture the opposite is true. If artistsdon’t try and address serious issues at all, we are all, including the recordcompanies, in danger of becoming a bit redundant. Pop music at its best hasalways had at least a bit of a connection to the social revolution.”

In addition to the DJs and musiciansperforming on the 26^th of January, a number of other musiciansrenowned for their political music have supported the project.

Eddi Reader has also written andperformed on a number of songs with a social message. Prior to singing with FairgroundAttraction and embarking on a successful solo career, she was a backing singerwith the post-punk band Gang of Four.

Eddi Reader

“In my experience, songs helpdescribe hurt, loss, pain, love. Sometimes a song will hit and soften the hardest heart even moreeffectively than someone shouting or debating. I rely on song. Patience ofAngels was sung because single mothers were being demonised by the, then,Conservative Government, under John Major. I wanted to redress that unfairness by supporting people who ended upbringing up kids alone due to circumstances and fate. The words of that song supported me, and Ihope others.”

PaulSimpson was a founding member of The Teardrop Explodes along with Julian Cope.After leaving the band, he formed The Wild Swans and released the classic ‘TheRevolutionary Spirit’ in 1982. In 2011 The Wild Swans released a new album ‘TheColdest Winter for a Hundred Years’.

Paul Simpson (The Wild Swans)

“For some youngsters the lyrics in asong are of secondary importance to the music, but for me they are crucial. In1977 I was an unemployed school leaver struggling to define myself in adifficult time of mass unemployment similar to the recession we are goingthrough now, but through the words and music of the more politicised bands likeThe Clash and The Gang Of Four I discovered an alternative worldview to the onepresented by my parents and the Evening News. If the words in a song aremeaningless the song is rendered impotent, just aural chewing gum and as suchwill be valued the same and just as quickly discarded. Words can inspire,illuminate, beautify the world or spread dissent, they can be jewels or food orammunition. Don’t undervalue or waste your words.”

In the build up to the Songs forSocial Justice events, we will be publishing short blogs on popular songs thatwe feel are about social justice. Songs by the artists above that fit with thiscan be accessed at the links below:

Special AKA – Free Nelson Mandela

Eddi Reader – Patience of Angels

The Wild Swans - English Electric Lightning

Songs for Social Justice dance nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

STUC Unions into Schools and the Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust: Songs for Social Justice Festival

2012-01-10T00:30:00.000Z

The STUC’s Unions into Schoolsproject has worked in partnership with the Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust toorganise a new piece of work on the subject of Songs for Social Justice. Thiswork has seen schools write, perform and record songs about young people’s experienceand understanding of social justice.

Later this month, the young peoplewill come together alongside musicians and trade unionists to discuss thebackground to their songs and the historical and contemporary context ofpopular politicized music and the role that this type of music can have inraising awareness and encouraging activism.

The Songs for Social Justice projectwill then culminate at the STUC Centre on the evening of the 26^thof January with a DJ set headlined by Jerry Dammers and also featuring NorthernXposure, Mark Linton and Tam Coyle.

Grahame Smith, General Secretary, Scottish TUC

“Encouraging school students towrite songs relevant to them on the theme of social justice is an excitingopportunity for the Scottish TUC. Forworking people over the years, the arts have been a powerful means ofarticulating messages of protest, of hope and of demands for progressive changeand a better way. I am delighted thatthe STUC is helping continue this important tradition working with today’syoung people.”

TheAlistair Hulett Memorial Trust

“The Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust (AHMT) isproud and delighted to be partnering the STUC Unions into Schools in the “Songsfor Social Justice” Festival. The AHMT,established in

Scotland

and

Australia

following the death ofAlistair in January 2010, exists both to promote Alistair’s legacy and toadvance his ideals of, and aspirations for, social justice for all. The “New Songs for Social Justice” Festivalwill encourage and nurture the work of schools in considering and valuingprinciples of social justice through the creative medium of song, an initiativeAlistair would wholeheartedly have supported.”

SheenaMacDonald, Regional Organiser, The Musicians’ Union

“There is a long history ofsongwriters and musicians contributing to struggles and campaigns for socialjustice. Music and song has played ahuge role in galvanising, sustaining and recording the struggles of ordinarypeople. The Musicians’ Union is delighted to supportthis initiative to encourage young people to write songs about the issues ofsocial justice which matter to them.”

Songs for Social Justice Dance Nightfeaturing guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o Thursday 26^th January

o STUC, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o 6.45pm – midnight

o Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Some Songs for N30 (naked 80s nostalgia fest!)

2011-11-29T20:42:00.001Z

Hardly the first person to say it I know, but it really is a crying shame that our There is a Better Way campaign lacks a decent soundtrack. It seems popular music has become totally disconnected from lives lived and battles fought. Popular music in 2011 is a caterwauling, narcissistic freakshow.

So at the risk of coming across all fogeyish, I really do have to scream that it wasn’t always thus! The struggle against Thatcher was played out against a soundtrack of immense variety and occasional brilliance. Thought it might be fun to remind people of this as they prepare for N30.

I’ve also been desperate to write a musical list for a few weeks now - for therapeutic reasons really; to help me get over the fingernails-down-the-side-of-ship excruciating horrorshow that was Scotland’s Greatest Album.

So here we go with a mad 80s nostalgia fest. I've used a pretty liberal interpretation of 'political' here and all are from Britain and Ireland. Opening it up to the States would have been too problematic; a danger that Public Enemy would've scooped all 15 places. Still an awful lot has been missed out. In no particular order...my fave political songs of the Thatcher era:

Specials – Man at C&A

Yeah, tempted to go for something off the first LP but this track is of special sentimental value given that it was the first thing I taped after we bought a video recorder off my Dad’s winnings on the Celtic Pools. Played to death. My old boss was Terry Hall’s brother-in-law; something that cannot be said about Grahame Smith.

The Ruts – Jah War

Totally loved the Ruts and this is punk/reggae crossover at its devastating best; you can almost smell the terror invoked by an out of control Special Patrol Group. Magnificent.

Dexy’s - Dance Stance

Er, almost afraid to include this in the current climate. But it’s Dexy’s, it’s Dance Stance and it’s a song of towering brilliance. Just has to be in there. And yes I know Eugene O’Neill isn’t Irish. But a songs gotta scan...

Au Pairs – It’s Obvious

You’re in for a treat if coming across this for the first time. The sexual politics were I think lost on me at the time; too busy enjoying the signature post punk early eighties trebly guitar fest. Genuis.

The Clash – Know Your Rights

What to choose? Nearly went for personal face Charlie Don’t Surf but, having today listened to Gideon outline the next phase of his attack on workers‘ rights I thought it just had to be this. Incidentally, deeply regretting telling my eldest that by the time I was her age I'd seen the Clash at the Apollo. Further regretting my maw telling her that she didn't worry too much. You can see where this is leading #bulliedfather

Easterhouse – Whistling in the dark

‘I’m told that my homes on a nuclear free zone, that ain’t no help when there’s bills to be paid. Police accountability, non-nuclear defence strategy, it’s foolish ideology, it’s made the fight a mockery’

Excellent political songwriting, by the Mancunian band Easterhouse; not the band Scheme from Easterhouse, Glasgow (who were an interesting lot in many ways but, unfortunately their music was completely pish). A misconception that used to get me particularly riled back in ’85. And I had a temper on me back then. Their debut album, Contenders, was genuinely powerful but very few tracks appear to have found their way onto Youtube. Shame, I was looking forward to hearing Lenin in Zurich.

The Chords - Maybe Tomorrow

Even the Mods were angry back in the 1980s. One of only two bands I seen play East Kilbride as a teenager (other was Orange Juice), they were great live. By the way, for that scoot, my kids would be sleeping in the shed.

The Redskins – Lean on Me

A really, really silly band; the whole socialist (Red, geddit?) skinhead cultivated image and the SWP poster lyrics. But the tunes were fantastic and after a couple of decades of ridiculing them, I’m genuinely staggered at how amazingly fresh this sounds. Anyway, you’ve gotta love a band that releases a single called Go Get Organised!

The Style Council – A Stones Throw Away

Still remember reading the NME review of Our Favourite Shop arguing that Weller’s political voice had matured at the same time as the SC’s music. Quite. Having watched a number of horrible Occupy pepper spray and baton incidents over the past week this really does resonate.

Robert Wyatt – Shipbuilding

Had to be in there. And so it should, it’s awesome.

Everything but the Girl – Anytown

Remember feeling very sophisticated buying Eden; they had that sound. This is from the second, inferior, album but great nonetheless.

That Petrol Emotion – Big Decision

Always thought it was mightily impressive the way the Petrols scorned the Undertones legacy to make edgy, political and, in early use of sampling etc, really quite innovative music. For a band with a major contract they were overtly and heavily political, using record covers to bring attention to issues like the use of Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. Brave and strong. This track is awesome.

Billy Bragg – Which Side are you on?

I know this will get me into trouble but, much as I love him as a person, could never really take to his delivery. However, remember seeing him perform this at the Apollo supporting TSC during the miners’ strike. Powerful right enough. Guess the question will be posed more than once tomorrow.

Crass – Big A Little A

A fascinating bunch. It’s incredible to think just how big they were; totally uncompromising and yet sold a stack of records – probably more than Joe McJedward sell these days. I used to correspond with guitarist Penny Rimbaud, saying things like, ‘love your records but you shouldn’t be too hard on religion ‘cause my mum and dad are religious and they’re really ok’. Amazingly, he used send me lengthy patient replies and loads of stencils to ruin good t-shirts with. I was a wee anarchist soul as a 12 year old, I really was.

Linton Kwesi Johnson – The Great Insurrection

Got into reggae through this, the Ruts and the Clash. Forever grateful Linton!

So go on then, what have I missed?

The IMF is never wrong...really?

2011-09-13T19:49:00.000+01:00

I blogged a while back about the rapidly growing disconnect between IMF endorsements of its member states' economic strategies and the findings of its current research; the IMF World Economic Outlook published in October 2010 had included a long and serious demolition of the Coalition's 'contractionary fiscal policy is expansionary' (cuts are good for growth and jobs!) argument but, when asked directly, IMF representatives tended to strongly back the Government. And, as we all know to our cost, any endorsement by an international institution is repeated ad nausuem by Gideon and co.

Well, the IMF has just published the latest issue of its quarterly magazine Finance and Development which contains a number of articles (precis of research papers) which are, to say the least, challenging to the coalition's worldview.

Consider 'Painful Medicine' by Daniel Leigh, Laurence Ball and Prakash Loungani which has already been helpfully summarised by Paul Krugman. Building on previous IMF research this explodes the carefully cultivated myth that fiscal contraction (cutting public spending) is good for growth and jobs. It finds that:

1) cuts are bad for incomes and jobs

2) cuts increase long-term unemployment

3) cuts hit labour much harder than capital (an aside - snipping tool, I love you)

The paper repeats an argument that the STUC has made consistently over the past couple of years and which has never received a proper response for the Michael Moores and Danny Alexanders of this world: that the various mechanisms (currency depreciation, interest rate cuts, global boom) that have allowed countries to grow and create jobs while cutting spending in the past are not available to the UK in 2010/11-

"The reduction in incomes from fiscal consolidations is even larger if central banks do not or cannot blunt some of the pain through a monetary policy stimulus. The fall in interest rates associated with monetary stimulus supports investment and consumption, and the concomitant depreciation of the currency boosts net exports. Ireland in 1987 and Finland and Italy in 1992 are examples of countries that undertook fiscal consolidations, but where large depreciations of the currency helped provide a boost to net exports.

Unfortunately, these pain relievers are not easy to come by in today’s environment. In many economies, central banks can provide only a limited monetary stimulus because policy interest rates are already near zero. Moreover, if many countries carry out fiscal austerity at the same time, the reduction in incomes in each country is likely to be greater, since not all countries can reduce the value of their currency and increase net exports at the same time".

And it doesn't stop there...this issue of F&D also includes a short piece, 'Unequal = indebted', Kumhof & Ranciere, drawing attention to the association between high levels of income inequality and high domestic and foreign indebtedness. Inequality as a proximiate cause of financial crisis is an issue the STUC has consistently raised and one these IMF economists have published on before.

Tell me, how often have you heard a UK politician talk about rising income inequality as a contributory factor in the financial crisis?

So, if you ignore the endorsements of bad policy presented for purely political reasons, the IMF is sometimes actually worth listening to. After all, they're never wrong are they?

Stephen Boyd - STUC

A sense of vindication...and fear

2011-08-26T22:49:00.000+01:00

Jonathan Portes, Director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and ex-chief economist at the Cabinet Office has a masterly piece 'The coalition's confidence trick' in this week's New Statesman. I'm not providing a link because as many people as possible should buy the mag and support good journalism; I can assure you it will be money well spent. But here's a flavour...

Portes systematically rebuts the coalition's case on the timing of deficit reduction. For me, this is the key paragraph:

"...with regard to confidence and the threat of higher interest rates, and despite a very large deficit, interest rates were low and stable at the time of the 2010 election; government borrowing was as cheap as it has been for decades. There was no market panic. In the run-up to the election, senior economists in government, including me, were worried that an inconclusive result would lead to market jitters or worse. But we were wrong; even during the fraught negotiations to form the coalition, both gilt yields and the pound were remarkably stable".

The STUC has stressed this point time and time again over the past year but still the coalition sticks to the 'UK is the next Greece' scenario. Sure others have taken them on; Martin Wolf of the FT has been consistent on this and a number of international voices (Krugman, Stiglitz etc) have weighed in. But this is first piece I've seen which comprehensively links last year's big cons to Gideon's more recent claims that falling gilt yields through the summer prove markets regard the UK as a 'safe haven' due to the coalition's fiscal policy.

Portes is appropriately dismissive of this nonsense; explaining that as gilt yields fall, so do stocks and sterling - 'Low long-term interest rates reflect economic weakness and a lack of market confidence in the prospects of the Uk economy'. (He even chucks in a lovely graph of yields on UK ten-year gilts since '94 which I intend pinching with my lovely new snipping tool).

Noting that Gideon refers to his Nobel Prize winning critics as being on the 'outer fringe of the international debate', Portes concludes with the observation that 'this argument ['slower pace of consolidation combined with policies to support growth'] is neither radical nor old-fashioned Keynsianism, nor is it in anyway unorthodox. It is just standard, common-sense macroeconomics; or, just more simply, common sense'.

Yep, its Gideon who inhabits the lunatic fringe.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

5 annoying things about the Scottish Government's Corporation Tax Discussion paper

2011-08-19T21:47:00.002+01:00

Had to get some things off my chest while I’m in the process of compiling the STUC’s comprehensive response to the Scottish Government’s discussion on corporation tax published this week. I have found the following aspects of the paper most annoying:

1 The sophistry

You say ‘introducing an attractive, competitive corporation tax policy’ ; I say ‘reducing the contribution to the common weal of currently cash rich, non-investing, often ethically dubious corporations’.

They all do it I know and in this respect the paper is no better or worse than the majority of Government consultation/discussion papers. Still annoying though.

2 The contempt for the discipline of economics & the knowledge accrued through its study over a couple of hundred years

Yes, economists have an awful lot to answer for but, y’know, economics has taught us some important stuff about the way the world works. It has not taught us that, “The key driver of economic growth in the long-run is the private sector”; a mind-bogglingly absurd sentence and perhaps the silliest ever to appear in a Government consultation paper.

One paper cited in support of the economic benefits of reducing corporation tax is described, ridiculously, as ‘seminal’. It is not. The Market for Lemons is seminal. On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets is seminal. The General Theory is seminal. Hell, it would be silly not to acknowledge that Friedman’s the Role of Monetary Policy is seminal. You might have issues with the author but it’s undeniable that the paper had a massive influence on the future development of the discipline. Lee and Gordon’s 'Tax Structure and Economic Growth' did not; it is not seminal. Why pretend that it is?

3 Asserting as fact that which is highly contentious

“Corporation tax is one of the chief levers that any government can use to promote growth, investment and jobs over the long run. It is also a vital source of competitive advantage in an integrated, flexible global economy, helping to attract new businesses, key corporate functions and highly skilled jobs”.

Is it a ‘chief lever’? Is it a ‘vital (or, more importantly, sustainable) source of competitive advantage’? Does reducing corporation tax really help to attract ‘key corporate functions and highly skilled jobs’? The paper utterly fails to provide compelling evidence in support of any of these propositions.

4 Misleading references

The rest is just annoying - this is bad. Struggling to make sense of data attributed to the ‘World Bank’, I clicked on the lengthy non-World Bank link provided (pg 24). Lo and behold the paper referenced isn’t actually published by the World Bank at all; it’s from the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Republican economic wing-nuttery still striving to prove the Laffer Curve (gloriously described today on Twitter by Nouriel Roubini as the ‘most erroneous and laffable garbage ever hypothised’). The AEI tortures World Bank data in an effort to uniquely demonstrate that the US has the highest effective rate of corporation tax in the OECD and the Scottish Government serves this up as evidence. Incredible.

Oh how I wish I could be in the room at the next meeting of the FM’s Council of Economic Advisers when Joe Stiglitz is presented with this ‘evidence’...

5 The assumption that entrepreneurs know best about the development of economic policy

I’ll blog separately on this issue soon so I’ll keep this brief. If the Government wants advice on selling cheap sportswear then it should go to Tom Hunter. If it wants to learn about fitting exhausts it should go to Tom Farmer. If it wants to consider how sustainable economic growth might be maximised over the longer-term then, yes, it should speak to these people. But it should do so with a healthy scepticism and recognition that civic voices must also be heard. It is a demonstrable truth that entrepreneurs have a propensity and, it often appears unlimited capacity, for spouting abject nonsense about matters economic.

The words of Paul Krugman ring very true: “...economics and business are not the same subject and mastery of one does not ensure comprehension, let alone mastery, of the other. A successful business leader is no more likely to be an expert on economics than on military strategy...the next time you hear business people propounding their views about the economy, ask yourself, Have they taken the time to study this subject? Have they read what the experts write? If not, never mind how successful they have been in business. Ignore them, because they probably have no idea what they are talking about”.

Full response to the discussion paper in due course. Before departing I’ll quickly note a couple of things. First, to be fair, the paper does acknowledge that reducing corporation tax is not an economic cure all which puts it in a different bracket from the loony right think tank stuff on this subject (which makes the AEI reference all the more bizarre). Second, how Labour must regret their disgraceful, mystifying opposition to the modest Supermarket Tax proposals which conceded so much ground on ‘competitiveness’ (competitiveness? Retail? Lordy...) that credible opposition to these Corporation Tax proposals will be very difficult to achieve.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

PCS Scottish Launch “WELFARE – An Alternative vision”

2011-07-25T16:05:00.000+01:00

All Welcome- PCS Scottish Launch “WELFARE – An Alternative vision”
Thursday 28th July (6,30pm), STUC , 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow.

PCS has taken a leading role within the trade union movement in voicing
concerns about welfare policy, and in campaigning to defend and strengthen
the welfare state.

As a union representing nearly 100,000 staff delivering welfare, PCS has an
obligation not only to our members, but to those who use it – including our
future, current and former members and their families too.

PCS members take pride in the welfare state, and they want a welfare state
that provides a decent standard of living for the retired, the unemployed and for
those unable to work, and that rewards them fairly as public servants.

Over the past 30 years the concept of welfare has been under attack. As
governments have stopped pursuing policies of full employment they have
sought to pass the blame for unemployment to the individual.

Now the government’s £18 billion welfare cuts will damage the welfare state
as a safety net that ensures a decent standard of living for those unable to work.
We have no wish to return to the welfare state of the late 1940s: it reflected the
social attitudes of its time (especially towards women and disabled people).

However, the welfare state did establish the principle of ‘social insurance’
giving people the security of knowing that if they become unemployed, ill or
disabled, and when they retire they will not be in poverty. If people need to
care for children, disabled or elderly relatives then they too should be guaranteed
a dignified income.

These principles are the hallmarks of civilised society – we need to make the
case for welfare for the 21st century. Our case is set out in a pamphlet which looks at the past, present and future of welfare and we hope it starts a new debate about the sort of welfare and society that we want.

JOIN IN THAT DEBATE THIS THURSDAY AT THE SCOTTISH LAUNCH OF THE VISION AT THE STUC, 333 WOODLAND ROAD, GLASGOW (6.30PM START)

Lynn Henderson - Scottish Secretary - PCS

Wick Wants Work Wins Work for Wick

2011-07-22T10:45:00.003+01:00

Congratulations to all those involved in the Wick Wants Work Campaign following the Government announcement that the HMRC office in Wick will remain open for another two years.

This is not only a victory for common sense but also one for effective community campaigning, in this case led by the PCS and supported by Thurso and Wick TUC . Only last April we welcomed the Wick Wants Work Campaign to Congress and they contributed to trhe debate, along with a number of other civic organisations and partners, sharing our view for a "Better Way" , an alternative to the coalition's slash and burn approach to deficit reduction.

On the first day of Congress, in a strong contribution from Hamish Drummond from the PCS it quickly became clear to delegates just how ludicrous the coalition Government's decision to close the HMRC office in Wick was.

The Congress in Ayr provided Wick Wants Work with the chance to bring their campaign south and campaigners took every opportunity to raise the profile of what has ultimately turned out to be a shining example of trade union and community campaigning producing results and protecting jobs.

The visit allowed campaigners to engage with politicians from the UK and Scottish Governments, affiliated trade unions, other local TUCs and a number of other visitors to Congress.

We should remember that an HMRC presence in Wick is only guaranteed for two years but this provides a foundation for PCS and Wick Wants Work to build a case for a permanent future for HMRC workers in the north of Scotland.

The STUC, working with local TUCs will continue to support campaigns to protect jobs and services in communities throughout Scotland and the success of Wick Wants Work serves as a reminder of the important role that trade unions have, not just in the workplace but also in our communities and throughout our society.

Once again congratulations to all involved in Wick Wants Work.

Ian Tasker
STUC

A Better, Safer Way for Young Workers

2011-07-20T13:57:00.029+01:00

Guest Blog, Laura Connor, Thompsons Solicitors

Work related ill health and injury cost the UK economy billions every year yet many employers continue to place their workers at risk by failing to meet their statutory obligations to protect their health and safety.

The CBI report that workers took 180 million sick days in 2009 with 30 million of those related to ill health and injury caused by work. The direct cost to employers of these work related incidences was £3.7 billion with an additional £31.5 billion being paid out in compensation payments to those made ill or injured by the failures of their employers.

Thompsons and the STUC have always shared the view that the majority of incidents in the workplace resulting in death, injury or ill health are easily preventable and it is incomprehensible, given the economics of health and safety failures as outlined above, that the current coalition Government is slashing the budget of the HSE by 35% over 3 years.

Young people are historically at significant risk of suffering workplace injury or being made ill by their work although recent figures published by the HSE show a significant reduction in fatal and major injuries since 2007/08.

The question that arises is how much that reduction is related to enlightened employers grasping the importance of providing health and safety training for young workers or, and this is the more likely given the recession, there are less people under 25 years of age in employment, therefore less opportunity for them to be killed injured or made ill by their work.

Employers may continue to moan about the cost of ill health and injury but for work related conditions and incidents the answer is in their own hands. It is vitally important that all workers continue to be protected in the workplace, especially young people. Far too many young lives are ruined as a result of workplace accidents and, in the worst cases, they may be extinguished and never be allowed to participate and contribute to society.

Unfortunately many young people are not aware about the legal assistance that is available through their union.

At the 71st STUC Annual STUC Youth Conference Thompsons organized an informal meeting with delegates to discuss how we could help the Youth Committee promote the importance of good health and safety awareness, provide a platform for young people to share their views on workplace health and safety and encourage young workers to raise health and safety concerns with their trade union.

From those attending it was clear delegates from all sectors - public, private and voluntary had experience from their own workplaces or sectors where they felt their employer does not support them. In one case a primary school teacher had been assaulted by a pupil in the course of her work. Unfortunately physical and verbal abuse against young workers is not uncommon as identified in research undertaken at Queen Margaret University as part of ongoing work between the Scottish Centre for Healthy Working Lives and the STUC.

If you have any concerns, contact your union for advice. Thompsons offer their union clients, and their members, advice on most legal issues. As a young worker, you should not feel threatened or in any way inferior to those who may be older or more experienced than you. You have the same legal rights as every other worker. Austerity is not an acceptable excuse for unfairness or breaches of health & safety laws. Make sure your voice is heard and do not accept that which is unjust.

It would be good to hear from others who have similar concerns…..

Laura Connor, Thompsons Solicitors
info@stuc.org.uk

http://www.thompsons-scotland.co.uk/

OBR Financial Sustainability Report: ConDems lick their lips…

2011-07-11T14:40:00.004+01:00

On Wednesday the Office for Budget Responsibility publishes its first Financial Sustainability Report which will ‘present long term projections for public spending and tax revenue, describe the public sector balance sheet, and set out summary indicators of the long term sustainability of the public finances’.

The FT reports today that ‘after years of delay, the Government will give the first glimpse of what the UK’s public finances would look like if the UK were a listed company such as Marks and Spencer or BT’.

The consequence?

‘Counting the future liabilities of the accrued pension rights for public sector workers and the future costs of private sector finance initiative projects will inflate the apparent liabilities of the state and send the calculated assets of government deep into the red’.

Pensions alone could add between £800bn and £1200bn to the estimate of current government liabilities, depending on the discount rate chosen. PFI will account for tens of billions more. This is surely a disaster for an economy at ‘risk of becoming the next Greece’? Er, no. As the FT goes on to say:

‘Experts welcomed the new transparency but cautioned that the new liabilities shown did not represent debts that had arisen out of the blue. Future assets, such as the ability to collect tax and imprison people who refuse are not counted in the new balance sheet’.

Carl Emmerson of IFS is quoted:

‘Unlike in Greece, where a new Government uncovered significant new debts that had been brushed under the carpet, any additional liabilities shown under new accounting rules are known and discussed’.

I usually stay very well clear of the forecasting business but here’s what I think will happen on Wednesday:

The OBR report will estimate liabilities in line with FT predictions above. Ministers and their supporters will immediately claim the report as additional evidence to support austerity. They will not miss the opportunity to present the report as signalling a new era of Government transparency and more evidence of the secrecy and profligacy of their predecessors.

Although the outlook for the UK’s long-term financial sustainability will not change with publication of the report expect a frenzied reaction designed to leave the uninformed with the impression that spending cuts and pension reform (wage cuts) are unavoidable if the UK is to avoid the fate of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and now Italy.

What will be the response of the markets to the report? I think they will shrug. Of course, by the Government’s own logic, any new information confirming a significant deterioration in the public finances should provoke a negative reaction in the markets. But the markets know very well that what Carl Emmerson argues above is true and that the OBR report changes the UK’s relative fiscal position not a jot. I also think that those who consistently invoke the markets as a justification for austerity will do as they always do – ignore what the markets are actually saying today in order to focus portentously on what they might say tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the new labour market stats also published on Wednesday morning will be cherry picked and the stream of shocking economic data pointing towards very low or even negative Q2 GDP growth ignored or dismissed.
That is my prediction.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

A little masterpiece of political economy

2011-07-08T15:34:00.005+01:00

The latest Fraser of Allander economic commentary published a fortnight ago did not make for happy reading. Its analysis confirmed the views consistently expressed by the STUC through the first half of 2011: the recovery is weak to non-existent and the headline stats do not begin to tell the full story of what is happening in the labour market. Not good.

However, a pleasant surprise awaited those who managed to stick with the commentary to the end; an outstanding article on ‘The Governance of Scotland’s Ferries’ by Professor Neil Kay, Department of Economics, Strathclyde University. This is a little masterpiece of political economy – in six short pages Prof Kay manages to catalogue the failures of policy since devolution, describe the dangers that lie ahead and propose sensible solutions rooted in a deep understanding of microeconomic analysis, EU competition law (the great bogeyman of Scottish ferry policy) and the needs of our island and peninsula communities. Marvellous stuff, if ultimately depressing in the story it tells about policy development under devolution.

Professor Kay has been a regular commentator on ferry policy over the last decade, contributing in depth to the seemingly endless stream of Government consultations and parliamentary inquiries. His contributions (which can be found on his website http://www.brocher.com/ ) are offered as a ferry-using peninsula resident who happens to have much relevant expertise. Has Government welcomed this public spirited contribution? Not likely. Perhaps the most disillusioning moment I’ve experienced in the Scottish Parliament was to hear the term ‘academic’ being used pejoratively by Ministers against Prof Kay and other interested researchers during a debate on tendering back in 2005. Disgraceful.

Nevertheless, Prof Kay has continued to provide valuable insights into the shambles that is ferries policy. I can’t improve on Prof Kay’s FoA article so would simply encourage people to take a look. The following quotes do not tell the full story but provide a flavour of where bad policy has left us and the nature of the dangers that lie ahead:

“The…more dangerous scenario is that eventually Calmac loses its contract to another EU bidder. At this point, if there was a coherent regulatory framework in place as for other essential services then at least there is potential to guard against problems from moral hazard, adverse selection, opportunistic behaviour, technical or financial failure on the part of the incumbent operator. But obviously these safeguards would have to be in place before the tender process takes place, you do not start re-writing the rule book once the game has started and you are worried about who is winning, just as you do not start looking for an operator of last resort when you need them to start tomorrow”.

..and

“There is a debate to be had, and reasoned arguments on both sides, as to whether most of the Scottish ferry network should be run by a single state owned holding company or whether most of it should be in private hands, much of it awarded through public service contracts. There is also a debate to be had, and reasoned arguments on both sides, as to whether or not some routes should be tendered separately rather than as part of the main Calmac bundle, effectively to institutionalise cherry picking and bring in a degree of oversight by government. Indeed these very debates were encouraged in the current Scottish Ferries Review. The problem is that the debates are irrelevant, a waste of time and even counter- productive since they are not predicated on a real understanding of commercial logic and interests, let alone what EU law permits and prohibits in this context. In the absence of coherent oversight the market will provide its own solutions and one of the first lessons students learn in Economics 101 is that you cannot just rely on crossed fingers to ensure that private interest aligns with the public interest” (my emphasis).

I’ll say it again, read the full article.

The ferries debacle reflects some wider problems with policy development under devolution. These include:

The inability or unwillingness to treat issues of profound importance to Scotland’s fragile peripheral economies in a serious fashion – Prof Kay highlights the fact that Western Ferries now has an unregulated monopoly of vehicle services on Gourock-Dunoon. He asks, not unreasonably, whether the Scottish Government would let a private operator have an unregulated monopoly of tolls on the Forth Bridge?
The extreme credulity of officials in the face of private sector companies and their lobbyists. Of course Western Ferries are motivated by the public interest. What else could possibly motivate them?
The selective application of microeconomic analysis – when the STUC and others sought German style wage subsidy programmes at the start of the recession, the full weight of the Government’s analytical resources is thrown at us to show that high deadweight costs render such programmes inadvisable. But when standard economics strongly suggests that a regulated state ownership is the most appropriate model, the economics are dropped. All we get are vague statements about the need to ‘test the market’ whatever that is supposed to mean.
Despite our devolved Parliament’s founding principles of openness, accountability, the sharing of power and equal opportunities, it still appears very, very difficult for civic minded individuals (organisations too?) to influence the policy process to any meaningful degree – no matter their level of expertise.

That said, Prof Kay is trying once again. He currently has a petition before the Scottish Parliament which ‘calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the setting up of an independent expert group to consider and recommend institutional and regulatory options for issues relating to the provision of competitively tendered Scottish ferry services under EC law’. You can find it here. The background information contained therein is another beautifully concise summary of the failure of policy to date.

I do have some concerns over ‘expert groups’ and believe it is usually necessary to balance the experts with civic interests who tend to be more accomplished at seeing the bigger picture. The same goes for any future regulatory authority. But it is a good petition which deserves a fair hearing.

As the Scottish Government's ferries review proceeds towards the completion of a ‘ferries plan’ which will help determine the structure and quality of ferry services for the next couple of decades, let’s hope that the powers that be start to listen to the Professor.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

The strange and selfish world of employer lobbying

2011-07-07T16:40:00.004+01:00

Interesting piece in the business pages of today's Glasgow Herald, 'Spending Cuts are top threat to SME sector' (pay-walled) which reports a survey of SME's (small and medium sized enterprises) by RSM Tenon. With 18% of respondents identifying it as the most pressing threat to their business, 'spending cuts' replaces 'cash flow' as the top concen of the SME community.

The authors cite the direct loss of public contracts and the detrimental impact on consumer confidence as the primary mechanisms through which spending cuts translate into problems for SMEs. Hardly original observations but accurate nonetheless; the STUC has always argued that the coalition's war on demand would adversely impact all sectors of the economy.

Worth noting in this context that the bodies which purport to represent SMEs remain gung-ho supporters of austerity ( I would give the Federation of Small Business a partial exemption here - for all their faults they do engage on an entirely different level to the other employer representative oragnisations in Scotland) . I spend a reasonable amount of time in the company of these people and I have not once heard any senior employer rep in Scotland acknowledge the impact of cuts on SMEs - or for that matter, larger firms. Not once. Instead I hear only blanket adulation for coalition ministers, support for their risible plan for growth, dutiful repetition of Gideon's 'Uk is the next Greece' line (yep, they're still at it) and all the usual Government/household equivalence fallacy of composition hysterics.

They act as if things are going swimmingly. Not the case. To emphasise the awfulness of current economic performance, let me thrown in a couple of graphs:

From todays' NIESR monthly estimate of GDP growth which forecasts that the UK economy grew by only 0.1% in 2011 Q2. With 0.5% GDP growth in Q1 cancelling out the 0.5% contraction in 2010 Q4, the NIESR is in effect forecasting that the economy has grown by only 0.1% in the 9 months to June - this is an appalling performance by any standards and one that cannot lead to a sustained fall in unemployment.

Second chart, courtesy of Duncan's Economic Blog, shows the weakness of production and manufacturing output in Q2. Together with weak PMI data for services and construction this seems to confirm that the NIESR's forecast is likely to be accurate.

Depressing.

Of course none of this matters to employer bodies whose priorities remain 1) rewriting history around the origins of our current troubles and 2) arranging economic and social affairs in order that the proceeds of growth continue to be funnelled unmolested to their larger members (no pun intended). Having vigorously promoted an extreme deregulatory agenda for the past couple of decades, they react with great indignance to any suggestion that they might, just might, bear some responsibility for the crisis.

No surprise then that policy which undermines the prosperity of small firms is of so little consequence. But maybe policymakers, particularly those who claim to aspire to a fairer distribution of wealth, should stop paying them so much attention?

Stephen Boyd - STUC

Food for Thought: Trade Union Strategies for Marketing

2011-07-06T17:07:00.000+01:00

Historically, it is not very often, if at all, that the words – or principles – of trade unionism and marketing are used or seen together. Trade unionists often blanch at the thought of marketing, sometimes seeing it as linked to the corporate world only.

Marketing isn’t necessarily always a full-page advertisement in a newspaper, a TV commercial, or a sports team sponsorship that costs a fortune. In its basic sense, it’s about ‘selling’ or ‘persuading someone to buy’ something. In the case of trade unionism, the product is not usually something concrete in the first instance. However, there are many aspects which make it highly valuable, and therefore, extremely marketable.

Unions offer members and workers the opportunity to have better terms and conditions, increased access to learning, a safer work environment – to name but a few. In the case of union learning, for example, unions are ‘selling’ workers the basis for a better life, better skills, better career prospects, increased confidence and the potential for a healthier wage-packet.

Some people instinctively feel that trade unions can only make negative contributions in the workplace, while others instinctively appreciate that trade unions are there seeking to add value. Marketing and communications are key functions, requiring specific skills, which help to address this lack of understanding and get our messages out to our publics. By employing marketing and communication skills, the roles of union reps and activists can be enhanced and become more effective. Marketing - and increasingly, Social Marketing through Twitter and Facebook – are of integral part to the success of any campaign.

Across the country, budgets are being squeezed, poked and slashed from every angle. Money allocated to marketing is sometimes the first to go. Indeed, the April 2011 IPA/BDO Bellwether Report* reveals that marketing budgets were “revised down” (or in other words, cut!) for the second consecutive quarter in response to public sector spending cuts and rapidly rising cost pressures.

Competing pressures for trade unions means we need to work together to reduce the costs of marketing and communications. Members can reap the benefits through our hard work, time and effort in negotiating on their behalf to bring the many facets of marketing together creatively and strategically for all of our campaigns. In the future, they will remember that “the union did this for us” which will, in turn, raise the profile of individual union brands and the trade union movement as a whole.

An article that appeared in the Journal of Marketing Communication** in 2009 said, “Once, we thought that comparing advertising and public relations was a bit like comparing apples and oranges. While they both belonged to the broad general category of communications, they looked and sounded different and were even very different in practice. Then in the 1980s, someone suggested fruit salad...The educational approach to date has largely focussed on changing what already exists. That is, what is the best way to combine the apples and oranges we already have, rather than what is the best way to make fruit salad (Kerr, 2009).”

This insight can also be applied to marketing and trade unions. To ensure maximum effect and achievement of our aims, trade unions must use a combination of many different methods of marketing: careful branding, press releases, case studies, public relations, integrated social media, etc. We need to pinpoint measures of our successes and think of integrated, long-term strategies as a better way forward to meet our objectives. By thinking strategically, and in combining individual union campaigns with the aims and objectives of the STUC’s Better Way campaign, we can get our messages out – and have them be heard. The key to achieving maximum impact is maintaining a positive, consistent and highly visible profile – and to proactively add value at every opportunity.

Jennifer Payne, STUC

*The Bellwether Report is researched and published by Markit Economics on behalf of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA). First published in July 2000, it features original data drawn from a panel of around 300 UK marketing professionals and provides a key indicator of the health of the economy.

** Kerr, G., (2009) Apples, oranges and fruit salad: A Delphi study of the IMC educational mix, Journal of Marketing Communication, vol. 15, nos. 2-3, April-July 2009

Iain MacWhirter; a response

2011-06-30T12:19:00.001+01:00

There was time, not so long ago, when the op-ed pages of the Glasgow Herald were actually worth reading. Commentary by experienced, knowledgeable journalists such as Alf Young regularly enlightened the reader on the big political, economic and social issues of the day. You might not always agree with the writer but investment in reading the piece was usually rewarded with some stimulation of the intellect.

No longer. As journalistic capacity declines with circulation, the tone of the op-eds becomes increasingly shrill. Provocation, not enlightenment, seems to be the order of the day for hitherto thoughtful writers.

Take renowned journalist and political commentator, Iain MacWhirter who today is responsible for the subtly titled piece, ‘Madness to go on strike over pensions’. There has been much to admire about Mr MacWhirter’s writing over the years and recently he has been particularly effective in holding political and financial elites to account for their moral degeneracy and managerial hopelessness before, during and after the banking crisis. He has been less effective – embarrassingly so at times – on the wider economics of the crisis; a point I’ll return to later.

A recurring theme for Mr MacWhirter over the last year has been attacks on public sector workers and the Scottish public sector as a whole in which he has repeated a number of the tired myths so beloved of the Serious People of the Scottish right, to whom Mr MacWhirter appears increasingly anxious to ingratiate himself. Therefore, Mr MacWhirter’s criticism of striking public sector workers hardly comes as a surprise.

With characteristic elegance, today’s piece misrepresents both the trade union position and wider pensions issues. Public sector workers we are told have an ‘exaggerated sense of their own grievance’ and an ‘inability to see the situation in the round’. Unions are apparently invoking Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and the General Strike of 1926. Public sector workers are the only group of workers that are still ‘well organised’. Weirdly, Mr MacWhirter thinks the Tories have chosen the ‘battlefield’ of public sector pensions to defeat Bob Crow of the RMT a union which organises primarily in the private transport sector.

I have sat through numerous meetings of the STUC General Council and other gatherings of senior trade unionists in Scotland during which the pensions issue has been discussed. I have heard no invocations of struggles past but I have heard an awful lot about the wider economic and social context facing workers across the economy. I have certainly discerned a ‘sense of grievance’ but always rooted in a deep understanding of the pensions delinquencies visited on private sector workers by employers and government. It may come as a surprise to Mr MacWhirter but private sector unions (yes, there are still large parts of the Scottish private sector with high union density) are solidly behind this action; they know more than anyone else that all workers suffer from the race to the bottom on pensions.

More than anything, I have witnessed trade unions anxious to explain their case as they did in this week’s Sunday Herald. I do not have the space to do so again here but after reading Mr MacWhirter’s article I would refer readers to the following for some much needed balance Nigel Stanley of the TUC; Nicola Smith, Dave Watson of UNISON Scotland; and for those of you with the time, the TUC response to the Hutton Review here.

Suffice to say that Mr MacWhirter completely ignores some key issues such as the reforms introduced by the previous Government which reduced the value of public sector pensions by around 10% and the present Government’s decision to replace RPI with the lower CPI to uprate pensions in the future; a reform which will further reduce the value of public sector pensions by 15%.

Similarly, Mr MacWhirter chooses to ignore the consequences for the recovery of further reducing real wages in a fragile economy for a significant section of the workforce. This point has been cannily taken up by the Scottish Government who, to be fair to them, have consistently stressed the importance of buttressing demand throughout the economic crisis. They know that stripping more demand out the economy with the output gap and unemployment high and the bulk of spending cuts yet to bite, is potentially catastrophic

Rather pathetically for a big boy who has been mixing in the political world for some decades, Mr MacWhirter anticipates receiving ‘hate mail’ in response to this piece. This couldn’t be a pre-emptive attempt to undermine reasonable responses could it? I can assure our unexpectedly timorous friend that this response has not been written in hate; only frustration and disappointment.

However, given Mr MacWhirter’s intellectual confidence and haughty dismissal of opposing views, I do feel justified in ending this response by reminding readers of a couple of his recent faux pas on the economy…

Example 1: on 29 September 2008, at the very height of the banking crisis, Mr MacWhirter argued that, ‘There are already rumours that the Bank of England will cut interest rates by half of one per cent later this week…this will push inflation through the ceiling – which is exactly where the Government wants it to be’.

Push inflation through the ceiling?! Now for anyone with a passing interest in economics this risible attempt at sophistication was always ridiculous. The economy was collapsing round about us in late September 2008 and there was no prospect of cuts in interest rates feeding through into rocketing inflation. The imperative at the time was to stop the recession ( which we now know began in spring 2008 – many of us knew this at the time) becoming a depression and a massive monetary response was necessary – as I think most reasonable people on left and right can agree on.

Worth pointing out that the Bank did indeed cut interest rates from 5% to 4.5% in October 2008; to 3% in November and to 2% in December. Rates continued falling to reach 0.5% in March 2009 where they have remained ever since. This massive monetary response to the recession was boosted from March 2009 by a programme of Asset Purchases (or ‘quantative easing’).

What happened to inflation?

Yep, as interest rates were cut, inflation fell – as to be expected in a recession. Since autumn 2009, inflation has risen largely due to the pound’s depreciation (a good thing); higher than anticipated inflation has since been sustained by rising commodity prices and, more recently, the VAT rise.

But cutting interest rates in autumn 2008 did not lead to higher inflation! Mr MacWhirter clearly has no understanding of basic macroeconomics let alone the quirks of a liquidity trap.

Example 2: In writing about the Edinburgh Book Festival in August 2010, Mr MacWhirter wrote another strange piece on the economic views of Noble Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz and Scottish historian Niall Ferguson. He seems to believe that Prof Ferguson was advocating an approach of ‘trying to solve the debt by piling on more debt’. Now, I didn’t hear Ferguson speak in Edinburgh but I have read his FT pieces over the last few years and he has never promoted a programme of fiscal expansion in response to our current situation. Quite the opposite. Maybe he was just trying to wind Mr MacWhirter up.

But, again, the main problem with this piece is Mr MacWhirter’s crushing ignorance of economics and economic history. ‘In the end, the stimulus offered by both Stiglitz and Ferguson is the old solution of trying to solve a debt crisis by piling on more debt. It didn’t work in Japan and I don’t see why it should work here’.

Oh my Lord, where to start. First, the UK is not, and was not, in a debt crisis. We are in a crisis of low growth and high unemployment. It gets so, so boring rebutting this nonsense that I can only refer to our previous work.

Secondly, it didn’t work in Japan because it wasn’t tried. See the work of Paul Krugman, Adam Posen and others.

Third and most importantly, Mr MacWhirter, when a country has weak or no growth, when unemployment is high, when interest rates are already up against the zero bound (meaning contractionary fiscal policy cannot be offset by expansionary monetary policy; unless its QE but, wait a minute, you don’t like that either), when there is little prospect of further currency devaluation, when our main trading partners continue to have weak domestic demand, when real wages are falling at their fastest rate since the 1920s (I could go on)…how do you get out of a crisis of low growth and high unemployment? Eh?

In breezily dismissing the views of a world renowned centrist economist (Mr MacWhirter describes Stiglitz as ‘left-wing’; for a Nobel Prize winning economist maybe but not in the usual Scottish sense) Mr MacWhirter displays the same hubris of which he has quite correctly accused bank executives. I’m sure he is well enough read to know what hubris leads to. Maybe he should stick to politics.

Stephen Boyd STUC
Twitter @stephenboydstuc

Christie Commission: Look out for strong values and long term innovation. Not budget quick fixes.

2011-06-28T16:29:00.000+01:00

Though Campbell Christie, ex-STUC General Secretary, is a friend and a former colleague, I have no advanced notice of the contents of his report which will be launched on Thursday this week. It would seem that through one source or another both the Holyrood magazine and the Glasgow Herald have!

I have feared for a while that the media and many commentators may be underwhelmed by the recommendations. Almost since its inception, there has been a growing implication, hardly discouraged by the Scottish Government, that Christie's findings will in some way provide guidance on how the Cabinet Secretary for Finance should approach his diminishing budget and public spending crisis in the next two or three years. That was not Christie's brief, nor could it ever have been.

Indeed what is clear, and consistent with the line of inquiry adopted by the Commission when STUC met with it, is that its impressively qualified members have taken seriously their actual brief - to provide a road map for reform, through being long term and radical in their outlook.

This will be no ‘privateers charter’. Those who would change the nature of public service provision to the marketised or 'enabling state' model will be disappointed. All indications are that the Commission will recognise the state as the key provider of public services, albeit buttressed by an innovative voluntary sector. If Christie’s plans reach fruition cross agency working between PSOs and a bottom up approach to service delivery involving both users and public service workers will be the key.

Inevitably, at the same time as localism is championed, we will see recommendations for more shared services - the amalgamation of particular functions between local authorities or between different public service providers.

A word of warning is required here. Shared services can work … sometimes. But they are no panacea, often the imagined savings are delayed or do not appear at all, and there is a real risk that by ghettoising particular parts of public service delivery from others, work is shunted around, but less systematic and non 'problem-solving' approaches proliferate.

Headline news is that the Commission will demand a major shift towards early intervention and that social and economic justice will be driven more deeply into the ethos and, importantly, into the evaluated outcomes for public service organisations. To achieve this we need the right type of regulatory regime - clear and well-defined but not prone to increasing transaction cost. I also predict that the Commission will recognise that farfrom flirting with the nonsense touted by the right wing that public services are a ‘drag on the economy’. The real value of the sector to growth will be heralded.

Above all, I hope and trust Christie has some positive things to say about public service workers. It is no exaggeration to say that, along with public service users, our workers are the key to effective service redesign. They know what works and what does not and, more importantly they very often know why. But a worker who is fearful for their job, undervalued and undertrained and whose pay and pensions are under attack is less likely to be able to help us think our way into improvement.

Value the worker and much which is positive will follow.

Grahame Smith
Scottish Trades Union Congress

More IMF'in nonsense

2011-06-06T20:55:00.003+01:00

I really can’t be bothered running through all the reasons why the only reasonable response to the IMF’s endorsement of the coalition’s economic strategy is unconcealed derision. Anyway, already did it here last September.

But I would add that all is not what it seems...Understandably, the instinctive reaction of the IMF’s critics is to do what I did in the linked blog above: describe the ideological nature of the Fund, its risible record as a forecaster, the times events have revealed its assessments to have been stupidly, incredibly wrong and list the many occasions on which its prescriptions have led to disaster.

Thing is though, the IMF has published a lot of good stuff in recent months; honest, it really has. And its current wonkish policy work is incredibly hard to reconcile with country reports like the one it has issued today on the UK.

Examples? Take the IMF World Economic Outlook published in October 2010. Chapter 3 poses the question Will it hurt? The macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation. There is little in here to console the Osborne’s of this world. Among the conclusions:

Fiscal consolidation typically has a contractionary effect on output. Quite.

Reductions in interest rates usually support output during episodes of fiscal consolidation – can’t happen in the UK in 2011 with interest rates already up against the zero bound.

A decline in the real value of the domestic currency typically plays an important cushioning role by spurring net exports and is usually due to nominal depreciation or currency devaluation – very unlikely to happen here; Sterling depreciated by 25% prior to the fiscal contraction with vefry limited benefits.

Fiscal retrenchment in countries that face a higher perceived sovereign default risk tends to be less contractionary. However, even among such high-risk countries, expansionary effects are unusual. Well, the UK was always a low default risk and the second sentence says it all.

The IMF has also produced a number of excellent ‘working papers’; papers which are not yet full IMF policy but which are informing its policy development. Have a look at this on Inequality, leverage and crises if you don’t believe me. Olivier Blanchard, the Fund’s chief economist has worked with Joe Stiglitz and others to try to shed some light on the failures of macroeconomics as a discipline. The IMF even organised a joint event in the summer of last year with the ILO on the Challenges of Growth, Employment and Social Cohesion which resulted in this excellent report.

So why does the Fund continue to toe the orthodox line in its assessment of UK Government policy? Stephanie Flanders hints at the truth in a blog responding to today’s events:

“Impeccable sources have told me there was considerable concern among senior IMF economists last year at the pace of the coalition's plans to cut the deficit. However, political negotiations at the highest level meant that these concerns did not get expressed in public”.

When the IMF will adapt its political interventions to align with its current policy work is anybody’s guess. But its record suggests that we could be in for a very long wait.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

ASLEF Drives Forward Modern Apprenticeships

2011-05-31T10:26:00.002+01:00

ASLEF has successfully negotiated a new Modern Apprenticeship in

Customer Services for school leavers with First ScotRail. This will be First ScotRail’s first recruitment drive for school leavers since the rail industry was privatised.

This Modern Apprenticeship programme is a partnership between ASLEF, Skills Development Scotland and First ScotRail.

Skills Development Scotland has provided funding towards the training costs of the apprentices.

The recruitment drive will see 12 new Modern Apprenticeship posts created. The young people who undertake this opportunity to earn and learn over an 18-month period will, upon successful completion of their Modern Apprenticeships, gain guaranteed permanent posts with First ScotRail.

In addition to undertaking the SVQ Level 2 Modern Apprenticeship in Customer Services, the apprentices will also embark on a Duke of Edinburgh Award which will provide them with the opportunity to work directly with communities and go on an outward-bound team building course.

ASLEF will also utilise the Rail Union Learning Centre at Stow College to provide the apprentices with career building skills such as CV writing, completing job applications and interview skills. Jim Baxter, ASLEF Project Worker, said, “We see this not only as a benefit to the apprentices and the trade unions within the rail industry, but also to the rail industry itself.”

For information on Modern Apprenticeships in Scotland, contact Tommy Breslin, Development Officer, at tbreslin@stuc.org.uk

www.scottishunionlearning.com/apprenticeships

The worrying durability of crank ideas

2011-05-27T16:25:00.002+01:00

There are some ideas which should put their proponents beyond the bounds of sensible policy debate forevermore. The best example is supply side economics (encapsulated by the Laffer curve and the foundation stone of Reagan’s ‘voodoo economics’): the proposition that in each and every circumstance, tax cuts always pay for themselves and therefore do not need to be offset by spending cuts. There is no evidence in support of this proposition and libraries full of evidence to the contrary. Anyone subscribing to supply-side economics – step forward the Institute of Directors, Taxpayers Alliance and most of the Tory party! – should be summarily banished from any forum from which they might, just might, influence public policy in Scotland.

Another such idea, one that resurfaced just this week in COSLA’s shameless submission to the McCormac review, that should be labelled ‘CRANK’ and quickly consigned to the policy dustbin is performance related pay for teachers. This exhibits all the characteristics of a classic zombie idea: it is murdered time and time again by the sheer weight of evidence rallied against it but somehow still manages to get stagger back to its feet. How interesting that it is COSLA offering the helping hand.

Just over two years ago, one of Scotland’s most renowned entrepreneurs was to be found on the front page of the Sunday Herald pontificating (through a ‘spokesman’ of course) on the merits of introducing performance related pay into the Scottish education system. What sound evidential basis underpinned this strident call? Er, well…’everywhere else in the world, from commerce to government is subject to incentivisation. Why not teaching?’

Convinced? Me neither. Did the entrepreneur stop to consider where performance related pay actually works and where it fails or was it a case of ‘it exists therefore it must work’? Did he even think about the assumptions underlying his case? Of course, he didn’t – he is extremely wealthy and therefore indulged; even when spouting demonstrable nonsense. We in the trade union movement are however forced by prevailing orthodoxy to be somewhat more rigorous; so let’s provide COSLA and our buccaneering entrepreneur with the benefit of our hard work.

As with most management issues – and this is fundamentally a management issue – it makes sense to turn to the doyens of evidence based management, Stanford professors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton. What they have to say on this might surprise some people:

‘Merit pay for teachers is an idea that is almost 100 years old and has been subject to much research’. Wow. However, ‘before revealing the results of all that research…we can illustrate how you can figure out if merit pay will or won’t work, and the conditions under which it will or won’t, simply by listing the assumptions inherent in virtually all teacher pay-for–performance plans’. Shockeroonie! The Profs are asking us to think about a situation logically and suggesting that the process might reveal some important truths! Hard taskmasters these boys.

Anyway, what are the assumptions to which they refer (quoting at length here which always makes me a bit uncomfortable – buy the profs’ books people! Money well spent I can assure you):

Teacher motivation is a, perhaps the, determinant of student learning and achievement. (Because merit pay is focused on teachers and administrators – not, for instance, on parents or even students – the presumption must be that teachers and other school personnel are the primary causal agents in learning);

Learning can be measured reliably and accurately by a test given once a year, or less (success, as defined by these plans, is almost always assessed by standardised test scores).

Teachers are motivated largely, or at least significantly, by financial incentives; so pay for performance will induce greater and more effective effort.

Teaching is a solo activity – there is little interdependence with others in the school. Many plans reward only individual teachers; there is no incentive to cooperate or share with others; and some plans reward teachers for hoarding knowledge in a competition with peers.

See anything wrong with these assumptions? The profs list a few rather obvious problems:

Is teaching likely to be a career choice for those motivated primarily by financial reward? Really?
How important is teacher motivation to student achievement? Some other factors likely to exert not inconsiderable influence on achievement include: teacher skill (unaffected by merit pay), parental involvement, the child/student’s home environment, the quality of facilities and resources, parental education and income and so on.
Is peer support and learning from colleagues important in affecting teacher performance? If so, will incentive structures which necessarily undermine cooperative working harm the quality of teaching? Think about it.
What are the consequences of measuring and rewarding student performance on a set of standardised tests?

As the Profs conclude, ‘You don’t have to read the evidence from literally decades of research to spot the problems with merit pay for schoolteachers. That evidence shows that merit pay plans seldom last longer than five years and that merit pay consistently fails to improve student performance. The very logic of merit pay for teachers suggests that it won’t do what it is intended to do, or do it very well. Moreover, the signal that all that matters is student test scores and the provision of rewards for improving those scores provides an incentive for some teachers to game the system’ (i.e. it provides a very strong incentive to cheat. Research into the effectiveness of merit pay systems led directly to the dismissal of several principals and teachers in Chicago).

The profs argue that the use of financial incentives is a subject filled with ideology and belief – and that many of those beliefs have little or no evidence to support them. They note that many of the best performing companies have relatively flat pay distributions – ‘by sending the signal that performance is a collective, not just an individual, endeavour, those companies are more likely to induce thought, creativity and effort on the part of their people’. Merit pay is likely to work only where the tasks are readily learned and have little or no interdependence with other employees, where it is easy to measure and monitor quality and where employee goals are unambiguous and one-dimensional. The classic case of a merit pay system that worked was Ed Lazear’s study of Safelite Glass in Columbus, Ohio – installers of automobile glass. It is difficult to imagine an enterprise further removed from the education of our young people.

Before sounding off about matters on which they are hopelessly ignorant, perhaps COSLA and our entrepreneur friend should have interrogated both the intellectual foundations and real world successes of performance related pay. The story revealed would be somewhat different to the oh-so-predictable conclusion that performance related pay systems should be inflicted on the education system. In most modern workplaces, characterised by complexity and high levels of interdependence, there is no evidence to show that performance related pay achieves anything beyond incentivising bankers to disguise risk as value creation. On the contrary, research on motivation at work emphatically confirms the 50 year old dictum of psychologist Frederick Herzburg: if you want people to do a good job, give them a good job to do.

And isn’t it interesting that those who continually preach austerity for the public sector would happily saddle the education system with the enormous transaction costs of designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating a performance related pay system of extremely dubious benefit.

We desperately require a new way of dealing with policy cranks in Scotland. You believe in the Laffer Curve? OK, then go away silly person and never return. You are embarrassingly ignorant - and we do not allow embarrassingly ignorant people anywhere near public policy. You believe in performance related pay for teachers? Then you have clearly not taken the time to consider even the basic logic of your argument. You are lazy and dangerous. Go away. Read a book. And leave policy development to those with a concentration span of more than 10 seconds.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

The Truth about Internships

2011-05-26T17:06:00.001+01:00

Many politicians from across the political spectrum are starting to highlight internships as a reasonably good solution to the problem of youth unemployment. After-all they help businesses by giving them an extra pair of hands and they help young people gain some much needed experience and show a ‘can-do’ attitude to other potential employers. So while everyone might prefer full-time, paid, permanent employment, internships are increasingly being seen as a valid starting point in a young person’s career, particularly young graduates.

Behind all of this thinking, there is a general assumption that if you employ someone and call them an ‘intern’ you don’t have to pay them and you can ask them to do pretty much whatever you want. Many interns end up working long hours and taking on a significant amount of responsibility, despite receiving little more than travel expenses and in many cases no remuneration at all.

But this assumption is simply untrue.

There is no reason to believe that minimum wage legislation does not apply to interns. If an intern is carrying out work of value for the employer, the likelihood is they should be being paid. Basically an unpaid internship is legitimate only if it involves shadowing and other such learning activities, the minute it begins to look like a job within the organisation employment rights kick in – even if the intern has signed a contract saying they will accept only expenses.

Today the National Union of Journalists won a case which illustrates this precise point.

The NUJ and Thompson’s Lawyers supported the case of Keri Hudson, 21, who had worked as an unpaid intern at the My Village Website in late 2010.

The tribunal heard that she had worked each day from 10am – 6pm and had personally been responsible for, and in charge of, a team of writers, training and delegating tasks, collecting briefs, scheduling articles and even hiring new interns. Despite this the company had told her she was not eligible for any pay because they considered her an intern.

In her evidence Keri Hudson said she had been asked when the site was taken over by TPG Web Publishing Ltd if she would stay on and work for the new company. She was assured her pay would be fixed. After 5 more weeks she was informed she would not now be receiving a payment for the work she carried out – she resigned and took out a grievance.

The tribunal found she was a worker in law even though she didn’t have a written contract and was therefore entitled to be paid at least the National Minimum Wage and holiday pay.

This case shows that interns have rights and employers should not simply assume that they don’t.

This is not the first case of its kind and unions across the UK have been challenging the use of unpaid interns for a number of years now. Despite this there is a general misunderstanding about the law and how it applies to interns on the part of employers and interns are often unaware of their rights at work.

For more information on the rights of interns see the TUC’s dedicated website www.rightsforinterns.org.uk

Helen Martin- STUC

The Royal George Hotel and the BNP

2011-05-17T16:17:00.001+01:00

On the subject of fair hotels, it has been brought to our attention that the Royal George Hotel in Perth recently allowed the BNP to use their conference facilities to launch their Scottish manifesto.

The STUC will be writing to the Royal George Hotel in order to find out how they came to take a booking from the BNP and whether they are likely to take a booking from this organisation again in the future. Depending on their response, we will then consider whether it is appropriate to ask our affiliated trade unions and their members to undertake a boycott of this hotel.

From a quick look at the hotel’s website it is apparent that the Royal George is also often used as a conference venue by the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. So we will also consider writing to these political parties to make sure they are aware of the situation and to ask them to consider using an alternative venue in the future.

Helen Martin- STUC.

Fair hotels

2011-05-17T15:18:00.001+01:00

Check out the Irish trade union initiative to drive some fairness and trade union recognition into the hotel sector in Ireland. The ICTU is promoting the use of union organised hotels both for union events and for personal use by union members.

Hotels in Scotland continue to be one of the least unionised sectors with consequential low pay and, often, poor employment practices. In the worst cases ‘per room’ pay rates are used to effectively circumvent minimum wage legislation and even where experiences are better, the Living Wage of £7.15 per hour is the exception rather than the norm.

STUC will shortly be publishing a checklist for progressive organisations which wish to inquire about the pay and employment practices of hotels before deciding where to site major events and conferences.

Meanwhile the Irish are well ahead of the curve. Make sure you stay in a fair hotel next time you visit Ireland.

http://www.fairhotels.ie/

Dave Moxham

STUC

Your rights as a Modern Apprentice

2011-05-16T10:41:00.003+01:00

Scottish Union Learning has now published a new pamphlet called ‘Your Rights as a Modern Apprentice’.

New employees in any workplace are vulnerable and should be made aware of their rights. There is a need for Modern Apprentices to be aware of issues pertinent to their new roles as employees, particularly for younger workers who may be experiencing the world of work for the first time.

This important pamphlet provides information on workplace rights to which all Modern Apprentices in Scotland are entitled. The pamphlet may be useful to all those who are undertaking, or considering undertaking, a Modern Apprenticeship. It may also be useful to union reps that have Modern Apprentices within their workplaces.

The pamphlet provides answers to important questions including:

· What is a Modern Apprenticeship?

· What do Modern Apprenticeships offer?

· What are Everyday Skills?

· What are Modern Apprentices entitled to?

· How much do you get paid?

There is also information on how to join a union, support for redundancy, and terms and conditions of employment.

‘Your Rights as a Modern Apprentice’ can be downloaded from the Scottish Union Learning website by visiting http://www.scottishunionlearning.com/files/MAP/MAP-Your-Rights-Apr-2011.pdf.

To request paper copies and further information on the Modern Apprenticeship Project, email Tommy Breslin at tbreslin@stuc.org.uk.

The Wrong Plan for Growth?

2011-04-18T19:20:00.001+01:00

“…Yet the contrast between this political certainty and the underlying nature of the problem is a stark one. In the policy debate, the term ‘regulation’ lacks a commonly agreed definition, and the causal link between an increase in regulation and lower economic performance is at best crudely described….The policy positioning is largely devoid of convincing empirical support – as if it were so obvious as to need no justification. It is hard to think of any other area of government policy where the gap between public policy assertions and an evidence base is wider”. Deiter Helm, Oxford University

Put a business lobbyist together with 1) another business lobbyist or 2) a journalist or 3) a politician and you can be sure that the chat will soon turn to the ‘burden’ of regulation, ‘red-tape’ or bureaucracy – call it what you want – constraining the economy, lowering economic growth and generally making life miserable for the Randian superheroes of the entrepreneurial class.

Take a brief look at any of the manifestos for the Scottish Parliament elections and you could be forgiven for believing that the business lobbyists are correct; the burden of red-tape must indeed a major barrier to economic development in Scotland if our politicians are to be believed. I know from years of experience that to challenge the consensus on this topic is to invite ridicule. That Scotland as part of the UK is an over-regulated economy is treated as a revealed truth; a fact that requires to be asserted, never justified.

Some of us thought the banking crisis – manifestly a crisis (at least in part) of weak regulation – might provoke an open debate on the role of government regulation in an advanced economy. We were wrong. If anything, the hand of the red tape warriors has been strengthened. How did it come to this?

Well, the regulation of the economy is a boring and technical subject. It’s also a slippery one. Regulation’ is used as a catch all for very different issues: regulation of the workplace (minimum wage, health and safety, employment protection), regulation of the environment and the regulation of utility industries. It is the first of these (but also the second – they don’t understand the third) that tends to animate the business lobbyists. But they are rarely specific; by and large complaints about red-tape are general in nature, probably because lobbyists understand that the minimum wage and protection from irresponsible employers are actually quite popular with the public.

This approach is apparent in the Coalition’s Plan for Growth; a plan predicated on the assumption that the UK is hugely over-regulated (and over-taxed). In announcing his recent Budget the Chancellor argued that the UK’s competitiveness had slipped and that we had been overtaken by other countries – specifically Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. The evidence cited? The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2010-11.

Does this Report support the Government’s approach? No, it doesn’t. Indeed, it suggests that the deregulatory, low tax approach is exactly the wrong way to go if we want to improve competitiveness (let’s assume for the moment that the validity of the concept of competitiveness isn’t very dubious – which it is) in a similar fashion to the Germans, Dutch, Finns and Danish. We are already under-regulated in comparison to these nations and we are also lightly taxed.

For my sins I’ve now read all 501 pages of the Report and the fruits of my labour are now available in the STUC report, The Wrong Plan for Growth? Budget 2011, the Global Competitiveness Report and the dangers of formulating policy on a false premise which can be found here.

Problem is that there seems to be no political appetite whatsoever for an evidence based discussion on these issues. Wonder why?

Stephen Boyd - STUC

The Future of Manufacturing Industry in Scotland

2011-04-18T17:31:00.003+01:00

On the first day of Congress 2011 in Ayr, the STUC published a discussion paper on the Future of Manufacturing in Scotland. The paper will form the basis of campaigning activity over the coming year and a web discussion forum will be establishd in the near future to enable debate about the report's recommendations. The STUC welcomes, and will respond to (serious) comments. The full report can be found here. This is the introduction:

An interesting thing started to happen after the financial crisis swept the globe in autumn 2008… politicians at Scottish and

level started to talk seriously about manufacturing again. Indeed, a genuine commitment to examine how Government at all levels might more effectively support and nurture manufacturing has since been apparent in election manifestos and a blizzard of related policy papers has emanated from Whitehall and Brussels.

This fundamental rethink of economic and industrial policy is long overdue. The ‘financialised’ economic model, pursued with particular vigour in the US and UK, failed on both economic and social grounds: the narrow focus on finance and the primacy given to financial market participants in the development and implementation of policy led to a lop-sided economy; one prone to systemic crisis. Also, the model didn’t as was often claimed, lead to greater prosperity for all: it generated moderate GDP and productivity growth, an exponential rise in income and wealth inequality and a decline in social mobility.

And yet, the opportunity for genuine and substantial change already appears to be ebbing away. A full four years have now passed since problems first emerged in the

housing market but there has been no structural reform or effective re-regulation of the financial sector and the banks’ business models remain largely untouched. Incredibly, the influence exerted by financial insiders on economic debate and public policy appears undiminished.

The STUC believes that a reinvigorated manufacturing sector is a necessary component of a new, fairer and more sustainable economic and social model. Contrary to prevailing economic orthodoxy, there is no reason whatsoever that this cannot be achieved through a mix of clever and focused Government intervention together with reform of the financial sector to ensure that it supports rather than undermines the productive economy. Other advanced economies have managed to maintain far higher levels of manufacturing employment than the

Scotland

benefits from a skilled, productive and committed manufacturing workforce and many outstanding manufacturing businesses across a range of sub-sectors. Scottish manufacturing has experienced a stronger and quicker recovery than services. The STUC believes with the correct policy framework in place, manufacturing can continue to grow; both nominally and as a share of the Scottish economy.

The purpose of this paper is to provoke debate and discussion about the nature and shape of potential levers to support the growth of manufacturing in the years ahead.

STUC Congress 2011 Speeches - Economy and Industry

2011-04-18T14:42:00.002+01:00

Speech moving Composite A There is a Better Way - Growing the Economy and Creating Jobs, delivered by Anne Douglas, Prospect and STUC General Council - 18 April, STUC Congress 2011

Congress, we meet almost exactly a year since the coalition government took office. The General Council was under no illusions about the nature of this government and we quickly moved to explain why deep and rapid cuts to public spending would be a disaster for the economy. Of course the Government didn’t listen – to us or anyone else for that matter.

Instead they proceeded with the emergency Budget of June last year followed by the Spending Review in October which confirmed a package of spending cuts without precedent in an advanced and solvent nation.

All through this process, Ministers acted as if growth and jobs would be unaffected – indeed they often had the audacity to argue that cuts would boost employment. They refused to learn the lessons of economic history, which tell us that cutting in a crisis will lower growth and increase unemployment. Ministers appear to believe, on the basis of nothing more than ideology, that reducing the size of the state will necessarily unleash a wave of private sector investment.

As we predicted, this smug, evidence-lite approach is proving hugely detrimental to the economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility – established by this Government – reported on the state of the economy at the time of the Budget last month. How had their forecasts changed since their last report in October?

· They now expect GDP growth to be lower;

· Inflation to be higher;

· Employment to be lower;

· Unemployment to increase on both claimant count and ILO measures;

· The balance of payments to worsen;

· Average earnings to decline; and,

· Household disposable income to decline.

And these last two points are particularly important. Even the Governor of the Bank of England has acknowledged that real wages are likely to be no higher in 2011 than they were in 2005. The last time real wages fell over a period of 6 years was the 1920s.

So –

· Real wages are falling;

· Household incomes declined in 2010 for the first time since 1981;

· Growth forecasts are being revised down;

· Unemployment is high and widely predicted to rise – and to remain high for at least the next couple of years;

· Long-term unemployment is stubbornly high;

· Long-term youth unemployment is still rising;

· All forward looking indicators of consumer confidence are collapsing; and,

· Understandably given collapsing demand, the private sector can’t see sufficient investment opportunities to plug the gap.

And Congress, all this before spending cuts begin in earnest. In these circumstances we simply have to ask where are jobs and output growth are going to come from?

The Government’s latest response is simply pathetic: A Plan for Growth based almost exclusively on business tax cuts and deregulation; a plan developed on the most spurious of evidence and one guaranteed to further embed the economic and social model which imploded so spectacularly in the banking crisis.

The Government has claimed that its spending cuts and unfair tax rises are ‘unavoidable’; with utter shamelessness, they have claimed that austerity is fair and progressive. They have claimed that we are ‘in this together’.

The General Council firmly believes that their programme is entirely avoidable, unfair and regressive – we have set out our case in detail; we have watched with little surprise but some dismay as Ministers have embarrassed themselves trying to respond to our arguments.

Congress the General Council will

· continue to develop positive alternatives – just today we have published a significant new piece of work on the future of manufacturing;

· we will continue to expose the dogma and ineptness of coalition economic policy.

This composite shows that:

· there is a better way on tackling the deficit – through fair and progressive taxation and forcing the super rich and corporations to face up to their taxation responsibilities;

· It shows there is a better way to sustainably grow the economy and create good jobs.

Congress, I ask you to support.

On the Tory Manifesto

2011-04-05T10:34:00.002+01:00

The Scottish Tories published their manifesto yesterday. My time is limited this morning so I really can’t do more than offer some rough and ready thoughts on the Growing the Economy and Creating Jobs section…which starts with this jaw droppingly awesome paragraph:

“With an economy heavily dependent on the financial services and public sectors, Scotland more than anywhere else has suffered from, and is experiencing the lasting effects of, the failure of the financial regulatory regime created by the last Labour Government at Westminster and the problems stored up by its overspending. Worse, Scottish businesses and jobs have been hit severely by the recession, which owing to Labour’s failure to support business and address welfare dependency, lasted longer in the UK than anywhere else in the G20”.

Let’s break this down…

‘experiencing the lasting effects of, the failure of the financial regulatory regime created by the last Labour Government at Westminster’

Didn’t the Tories have something to do with the creation of the regulatory regime? Perhaps Annabel might tell us exactly which deregulatory moves the Tories opposed? Sorry, but I can’t recall vocal Tory opposition when the FSA was handed a duty to ‘promote’ the industry it was meant to be regulating. However I can recall many occasions when Tory MPs screamed red-tape and business burdens when the Labour Government made any attempt to regulate (no matter how inadequate).

And are the Scottish Tories seriously arguing that the banking crisis was simply a consequence of poor regulation? Didn’t structure have something to do with it - the growth of ‘too big to fail’ financial conglomerates able to exert excessive influence over the economy and political system? How were such institutions ever to be effectively regulated? What about performance pay systems that incentivized risk taking? What about the abject failure of corporate governance? What about the growth of the unregulated shadow banking system? What about the role of the auditors and credit rating agencies? What about the wholly unsustainable business models pursued by people who knew they would not have to pay for systemic collapse? Scottish Tories, please remind me of your record on each of these issues!!

‘the problems stored up by its overspending’

Please no, not again.

Look, reasonable people will continue to disagree about the Labour Government’s handling of the public finances. It is an entirely respectable intellectual position (although I disagree with it) to argue that in the last years of its administration Labour should have been seeking to run a surplus. It is a preposterous position to argue that the current deficit - and the rise in stock of debt over the last couple of years - are attributable only to the Labour Government’s mismanagement.

I have nothing more to add on this question except to pose this question: knowing what we know about the Tories at Scottish and UK level, is it reasonable to assume that, faced with the Labour Government running a surplus, their reaction would have been to applaud Labour’s sound management of the public finances? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they would have screamed for the money to be ‘returned’ through tax cuts? Yep, exactly.

“Scottish businesses and jobs have been hit severely by the recession, which owing to Labour’s failure to support business and address welfare dependency, lasted longer in the UK than anywhere else in the G20”

A quote from the German polymath Frederich Schiller has been doing the rounds since the banking crisis – ‘against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain’. You can see why. I’m tempted to leave it there but I will say this:

In terms of the fall in output, it might be fair to argue that the recession lasted longer in the UK than anywhere else in the G20. However, if this statement is left to stand unchallenged, the inference is that the recession was somehow worse in the UK. This is manifestly untrue: the rise in unemployment in the US was much more rapid, steep and enduring (though this is likely to change as a result of ConDem policy). The impact in the Eurozone periphery was, and is, obviously much, much worse than what happened in the UK.

That unemployment didn’t rise to the levels anticipated given the fall in output is attributable to the policy response from the Labour Government which introduced (wholly inadequate – this is beginning to read as a defence of Labour’s economic record. It isn’t ) fiscal stimulus and active labour market interventions (Future Jobs Fund) to help people back into work. This is why growth was strong in the first half of 2010. This is why unemployment was falling. This is why the deficit fell by over £20bn between the December 2009 PBR and March 2010 Budget.

I’m baffled about the link between the ‘failure to address welfare dependency’ and the length of the recession. The recession hit harder in the UK because we were over-reliant on financial services and property sectors. End of.

Oh dear, I’ve spent all this time and we’re still on the first paragraph. Time to press on. The Tories next turn their fire on the SNP Government…

“it has not delivered fully on its pro-business rhetoric and it has failed to see the need to take some tough, “big picture” decisions, such as the need to call time on unsustainable borrowing and rebalance our economy from the public to the private sector”.

The Scottish Government doesn’t borrow. Therefore, I have to assume it’s an attack on the Scottish Government’s record in opposing ConDem cuts. If so, it reflects, once again, the nakedly ideological position of the Tories: the private sector will necessarily grow because the public sector is being cut. The evidence to support this proposition is non-existent.

The manifesto then goes on to laud the measures – cuts in corporation tax etc – being undertaken at UK level. The STUC is currently developing a paper in response to the Budget and will return to these issues at a later date. Let’s focus on the Scottish issues. Here’s a belter:

‘and in the most recent Budget, we secured £26m of stimulus for business’

Wow. Stimulus. They actually used the word. Not support. Not assistance. Stimulus. Is Annabel Goldie a closet Keynesian? Surely not…

The next section is on supporting enterprise and is concerned almost exclusively with the need to increase business start-ups. Scotland’s low rate of entrepreneurial activity is routinely cited (by all the main parties) as a primary reason for comparatively weak economic performance (if indeed you accept that our performance is comparatively weak).

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, nonsense. I’m with Ha-Joon Chang, the renowned development economist who argues,

“if effective entreprenuership ever was a purely individual thing, it has stopped being so at least for the last century. The collective ability to build and manage effective organizations and institutions is now far more important than the drives or even the talents of a nation’s individual members in determining its prosperity”.

Quite. Spending a lot of money in order to boast that the rate of business start ups has improved is utterly pointless. Building world leading, innovative, well managed organizations is much more important but also much more difficult. And the urge to pander to the small business community is something Scotland’s politicians appear unable to resist.

Interesting also that the Tories will ‘place a new duty to promote economic growth on all public agencies and require them to report on the positive – and negative – impacts that the decisions they have taken have had on economic growth’. This is plain daft on a number of levels: how can such an assessment be credible – particularly in the short-term, or even over the life of a single Parliament? The majority of growth enhancing investments made by, for instance, Scottish Enterprise are long-term. Note that the Tories are arguing that agencies must report on the impacts decisions ‘have had’ on economic growth; not ‘will have’.

Next up, we have all the usual nonsense on business rates – again, something that all parties are guilty of.

‘we will legislate to ensure that the main Business Rate poundage can be no higher than in England’

Well, to be fair, the Tories didn’t support devolution so I suppose the have the right to mock it. Suffice to say that if any of the main parties believe that Scottish businesses are being handed a genuine and sustainable advantage by cutting business rates they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The SNP’s Small Business Bonus Scheme has wasted hundreds of millions of pounds. It is not tied in any way, shape or form to job related investment. It is money that could have been invested much more productively elsewhere (Scottish Investment Bank, enterprise networks, infrastructure, education etc).

Unsurprisingly, the Tackling Red Tape section is prominent, introduced in big bold letters no doubt signaling the Tories robust approach on what they regard – in the face of all credible, international evidence – to be the biggest issue facing the Scottish economy.

The STUC has rebutted enduring myths around ‘red tape’ on many occasions over the years; most recently in our 2011 Budget Submission. I will not repeat them here.

But I can’t help being a little excited by the Tories strong – nay, overwhelming – support for the Regulatory Review Group:

We will retain the RRG
We will allow any voluntary, private or public sector organisatiob to refer regulations which are unduly burdensome to the RRG;
We will take forward the RRG recommendation….
We will strengthen Business and Regulatory Impact Assessments (overseen by RRG) etc etc

Guess what? I’m on the RRG! The Tories love me! They want to hand me more power! Or maybe they’ll kick me off…

The serious point is that the RRG will need much more resource if it is to undertake additional responsibilities. Will these resources be forthcoming at a time of austerity? And it is heartening to note that the Scottish Tories do not seem to be attracted to the risible ‘one-in, one-out’ approach to regulation being pursued by the coalition.

On Planning, the Tories propose to establish a ‘business led review’ of the system in order to raise economic growth. It is not immediately clear to me why business should lead this process; a process which is very likely to come back to bite the Tories for it is their members who are often at the nimby vanguard. Who can forget Murdo Fraser MSP striding the moors in his big green wellies whilst campaigning against Beauly-Denny?

The section on infrastructure is predictable: bring back PPP and prioritise projects of the greatest economic benefit. The proposal to tender the Calmac and Northlink routes in smaller bundles is 1) plain daft to anyone who has thought about the issues for more than 5 minutes 2) detrimental to the interests of users, workers and the communities they serve and 3) potentially very dangerous.

On Scottish Water they manage to avoid using the ‘p’ word or even the ‘m’ word (mutualisation). Instead they commit to Scottish Water becoming a ‘publicly owned Public Interest Company, free from Government control’. Get your head round that if you can. Are the Tories conceding public ownership? Or are they simply setting up an unsustainable organisation in order to privatize somewhere down the line. Voters – you decide….

Having lost the will to live, I’ll leave the public sector reform stuff to others.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

A pathetically irrelevant Budget

2011-03-23T18:08:00.001Z

Spent the Budget participating in a Daily Record online forum. I was particularly taken with ‘Gasper’ who after 45 mins asked ‘if there was any news on fags?’ And the death of Liz Taylor caused a bit of a stir amongst fellow contributors. Tricky keeping up with the detail in these circumstances but it was good fun nonetheless (sorry Liz). In any case, the Chancellor’s statement is never, ever the full story (remember GB’s removal of the 10p tax rate?). Some surprising stories will undoubtedly emerge over the next few days as people work out the detail.

What did we learn from the speech?

Not much we didn’t already know. Gideon is a deregulator. Gideon doesn’t like talking about unemployment; particularly when it is high and rising as a result of his actions. Gideon couldn’t care less about vulnerable workers and the meagre protection afforded to them in the UK workplace. Gideon is an ideologue. But to the detail…

Somewhat inconveniently for a ‘Budget for Growth’ it started with a downgrade of the OBR’s growth forecast from 2.1% to 1.7% for 2011; its growth forecast for next year is 2.5% compared to the OECD’s forecast of 2.0%. The forecasts have been raised for 2013 and 2014 but, as the FT has already noted, this is a mechanical extrapolation which does not reflect anything the OBR knows about these years.

Gideon couldn’t restrain himself from repeating his usual nonsense about the public finances:

“Our country’s fiscal plans have been strongly endorsed by the IMF, by the European Commission, by the OECD, and by every reputable business body in Britain”.

We could have an interesting debate about what constitutes a reputable business body; I’m certainly intrigued to learn whether the Chancellor believes any business bodies are disreputable….step forward the Institute of Directors? Thought not…

Anyway, it’s always worth reminding folk that until very recently the IMF, OECD, employer-body axis of ignorance disparaged anyone who dared, for instance, to suggest that financial innovation might have rendered the banking system less stable. Try the IMF’s 2006 Annual Report

Directors noted that the rapid growth in recent years of credit derivative and structured credit markets had facilitated the dispersion of credit risk by banks to a broader, more diverse group of investors, making the financial system more resilient and stable’. It went on, ‘While cyclical changes could well expose weaker segments and pockets of financial markets, the Board considered that these were unlikely to pose systemic risks….regulators should place greater reliance on the self-correcting forces of financial markets’.

It gets worse. Here is the IMF on Ireland in 2006, ‘In March 2006, an IMF team visited Dublin to update the 2000 Financial sector Assessment Program (FSAP). The team found that Ireland’s financial system remained robust’.

The IMF’s view is also very inconsistent. The STUC’s Budget Submission quotes from the extensive research published in the IMF’s world outlook published in October 2010, ‘Fiscal consolidation typically has a contractionary effect on output. A fiscal consolidation equal to 1% of GDP typically reduces GDP by about 0.5% within two years and raises the unemployment rate by about 0.3 percentage points. Domestic demand – consumption and investment – falls by about 1%. Hardly stands up as a ‘strong endorsement of coalition policy does it?

But by now Gideon was in full and rather unpleasant flow:

“Market interest rates in Greece are 12.5%, in Ireland they are close to 10%, in Portugal and Spain they are 7% and 5%. Today our country’s market interest rates have fallen to 3.6%. We have a higher deficit than Portugal, Greece and Spain, but we have virtually the same interest rates as Germany. This is our powerful monetary stimulus to our recovering economy. Stability. Credibility. Lower interest rates. This is what we’ve achieved”.

Oh Lordy…how often must we rebut this claptrap. Anyone who wants to read a fuller analysis can find it here but for now let’s just focus on the five main reasons why the UK was never in danger of ‘becoming the next Greece’:

1. The UK is not in the Euro – we have control over fiscal and monetary policy; Sterling can (and did, by around 25%) devalue against other currencies and decisions can be taken without reference to the ECB and the Eurozone’s big players;

2. Yes, the deficit is high by international standards but the stock of debt is not;

3. As Gideon points out, the cost of servicing UK debt is much lower than in the countries he mentions; the costs of servicing UK debt will rise from 1.6% of GDP in 2007 to 3.1% in 2014 – Greece is currently spending upwards of 12% of GDP;

4. The structure of debt is very different: around two thirds of UK debt is held internally (for instance, by you and me through our pension funds) and the maturity of UK debt is much longer-term than for all other advanced nations. The UK’s debt ‘burden’ has been well managed; and,

5. The UK economy is bigger and more diverse than any of the other nations listed and investors can rely on our Budget data. In contrast to what was argued later, the UK is recognised as a good place to do business.

Gideon’s contention that low UK interest rates are a direct result of coalition policy is demonstrably false. Don’t take may word for it; here’s Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator at the FT writing in September 2010:

“Markets have also been remarkably relaxed about funding these deficits: interest rates on index-linked gilts have been 1 per cent, or less, for more than a year; the yield on 10-year gilts has remained below pre-crisis levels and is now close to 3 per cent; and spreads over German bunds have been 1 percentage point, or less, throughout the crisis”.

From repetition of the most enduring myths of the current crisis, Gideon fast forwarded to the main thrust of his speech; the Budget was about making the UK the best place in the developed world in which to ‘start, grow and finance’ a business’. And boy did he trot out some well worn clichés…

“For this Budget confronts the hard truth that has been ignored for too long. Britain has lost ground in the world’s economy and needs to catch up. In the last decade, other nations have reduced their business tax rates, removed barriers to enterprise, improved education systems, reformed welfare and increased exports. Sadly the reverse has happened in Britain. We gambled on a debt-fuelled model of growth that failed. With the state now accounting for almost half of all income, we simply cannot to go on like this. Britain has to earn its way in the modern world… Britain has fallen behind many others in the world in the last decade. We’ve dropped from 4th to 12th place in the global competitiveness league”

It is no surprise that Gideon is so attached to the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness index – it is the only international survey that suggests the UK has become more regulated over the past decade (actually to be fair, its more complex than that – but an analysis of this particular survey will have to wait for another day). As covered in detail in our Budget submission (linked above), the evidence is very clear: the UK is a very lightly regulated economy – the third most lightly regulated labour market in the developed world and the second most lightly regulated product market. The UK is the fourth best place in the world in which to do business according to the World Bank. All the references are in my submission. The veracity of the proposition that UK businesses are over-regulated and over-taxed rests only in its repetition.

So Government’s resources will be targeted at a non-problem. Indeed, most sane commentators, particularly those with any attachment all to the principles of fairness and equality would regard the

as too lightly regulated. The UK was at the epicentre of the banking crisis because our product markets are so lightly regulated. To govern as if any oversight of the business community represents an unwarranted ‘burden’ is to ignore the lessons of economic history as well as principles of sound governance.

“In the last decade, countries like Germany, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands have all overtaken us in the international rankings of competitiveness”.

If this is true (and we’re back to that one survey again) it isn’t because they’ve deregulated. Germany, Finland and the Netherlands all have far more interventionist economies than the UK. Denmark’s flexicurity system is an interesting comparator – yes, Denmark has similar levels of regulation to the UK but backed up by an impressively generous welfare state e.g. redundant workers entitled to 60% of earnings for two years. Can’t imagine Gideon seeking to replicate that one…

The specific policies Gideon announced hardly conflate into a coherent and credible growth strategy:

· £350m worth of specific regulations will go – including the Equality Act’s costly dual discrimination rules;

· Lord Young’s recommendations on health and safety laws will be implemented in full;

· The no-win no-fee legal services that prey on employers will be restricted;

· existing regulation will be scrutinised by the public.

Is this it?! Is this a strategy for growth that will build a ‘more balanced economy by encouraging exports and investment’? Pitiful.

I’m going to leave an analysis of the various tax measures announced because 1) the TUC and Tax Research UK will do it better and 2) I want home for my tea. But it’s clear that plans are still being developed on the assumption that cuts in corporation tax will boost growth. Never a convincing strategy it’s become irredeemably tarnished by the Irish experience. Any benefits to low and medium paid workers through the cut in fuel duty and the increase in income tax personal allowances will be more than offset by other tax changes such as January’s VAT rise and the NI rise from next month.

The resources supposedly targeted at evasion and avoidance are wholly insufficient to deal with the scale of the challenge. Despite the bullish rhetoric, current policy is actually handing firms more opportunities to avoid and evade; key examples being enterprise zones (will just shift existing activity – no mention of the ‘deadweight’ issues that are always raised with active labour market interventions) proposals on foreign owned companies.

A couple of points on the green agenda. The full impact of the carbon floor price will only become apparent once the Government announces its intentions in other key areas of electricity market reform such as the Emissions Performance Standard, the replacement of the Renewables Obligation with Feed in Tarriffs (plus contracts for difference) and the Review of Ofgem’s role and remit. I can’t see how Gideon can conclude that this measure alone will ‘provide the incentive for billions of pounds of new investment in our energy infrastructure’.

The additional two billion pounds of funding for the Green Investment Bank is welcome but it is disappointing that it will be unable to borrow before 2015. The GIB’s resources are almost insignificant when set against the levels of investment required to achieve a genuinely low carbon economy. Even Gideon knows the market isn’t going to deliver on this one.

All in all, the Budget sidestepped the sustainable growth and jobs challenge. The FT’s influential Lex column has noted that, -

“While the political packaging makes sense, it points the arrow of causation the wrong way. Rather than a Budget for growth, it is a Budget that depends on growth…. If the expected growth does not arrive (as many economists currently fear), then lower tax receipts will limit the government’s ability to forment any fresh growth. What then can stimulate the economy?”

Gideon has no answers. My view is that he genuinely believes his scorched earth policy on regulation will produce the desired effect. The evidence suggests otherwise. Yes, there is a theoretical rationale for what he is attempting but most normal people thought the theory had died with the banking crisis. It is now abundantly clear that bad economic theory doesn’t die; indeed it seems that coalition policy is formulated only on the basis of zombie economics: deregulation, privatisation, trickle down and the Laffer Curve.

The UK Budget is very unlikely to grow more strongly as a result of this Budget. But we can be very confident that the UK workplace will become an ever more unwelcoming, even hostile, place to more and more workers. The economy will certainly become less fair and less equal. As a result it will become more unstable and more prone to systemic crisis. Now remind me again of what provoked our current economic difficulties?

Stephen Boyd - STUC

Advocating against the Council Tax Freeze is an increasingly lonely undertaking.

2011-03-17T00:09:00.000Z

The SNP has hit the public finances four years in a row. The measure now means that public services and vital community projects are being underfunded to the tune of £300 million a year.

Labour, who were hardly likely to announce an emergency budget to reverse this year’s increase have undertaken to freeze it in 2012-2013 also.

The Tories don’t like taxes or services, and the Liberals have said they “won’t block a Council Tax Freeze” revealing a surprising optimism about the number of seats they might win in May.

The immediate problem is that, when taken alongside the small business bonus scheme (the only other tax currently devolved and available) the Scottish Government is denying itself funds of more than half a billion - enough to keep higher education free and accessible, fund major improvements in child care, create a significant and real jobs scheme for young people, and still have change left over to go towards paying the Scottish Living Wage. Or alternatively – just keep a lot of services open.

STUC has long taken the view that the far from perfect Council Tax needs to be made more progressive through widening its banding but has tended to oppose other schemes on the basis that some element of the funding that goes to local government needs to stay local.

Year on year we are witnessing a degrading of local autonomy as the power of councils to influence their own resource levels diminishes. This not only reduces accountability but it encourages a shift away from universal service provision and increases in charging.

It is simply not sustainable to have in place a tax which no-one dares increase. The next Scottish Parliament needs to improve it, change it or make use of it.

Dave Moxham STUC

Annabel Goldie is an ‘enemy of enterprise’!!

2011-03-08T09:31:00.002Z

Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Tories, has this morning joined ‘bureaucrats in government departments’,’ town hall officials’ and ‘public sector procurement managers’ among the ranks of what her great leader boldly describes as the ‘enemies of enterprise’.

How so? Well, on Good Morning Scotland, she joined host Gary Robertson and Michael Grant of the Sunday Herald for a discussion on the ‘Old Firm summit’ being held this afternoon to discuss responses to last week’s game.

Annabel was in bullish mode. The clubs had to get their house in order; they should be charged with bringing forward proposals to reduce disorder; they should bear direct responsibility for domestic abuse associated with the game; rescheduling of games must be considered and so on.

Let’s break this down. Here we have the leader of the Scottish Tories explicitly arguing that businesses:

should be held directly accountable for the adverse social consequences of the business they undertake;
should be charged with bringing forward solutions to these problems; and,
if refusing to tackle, or failing to tackle effectively, these adverse social consequences, should expect regulatory restraints to be placed on their ability to trade as they would wish.

The logical deduction from the above is that Annabel believes it is right and proper for businesses:

to accept responsibility for the adverse social consequences of what they do;
to be regulated in order to eliminate or reduce the adverse social consequences of what they do; and,
to suffer direct financial consequences if they refuse to tackle the adverse social consequences of what they do.

I agree but I fear this is sufficient to justify the ‘enemy of enterprise’ tag. In the interests of consistency, I look forward to hearing Annabel’s enthusiastic support for:

structural and regulatory reform of the banks;
minimum pricing of alcohol; and, retrospectively of course,
the ban on the display of tobacco products in shops.

I think I’ll be in for a long wait. For in opposing every progressive measure aimed at limiting the ability of business to do what it wants, Annabel’s party has screamed ‘red-tape!’ and ‘business burdens!’ It seems that all attempts to regulate for a better society must be opposed. Unless we are talking about football. In that case, appealing to the Victorian snobbery of the Conservative base, regulating socially irresponsible businesses is the right thing to do.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

More on the 'enemies of enterprise'

2011-03-07T19:47:00.000Z

I had a few words to say about Cameron's 'enemies of enterprise' Spring conference speech earlier today. A few more have pitched in; Tim and Phil at Touchstone; Chris Dillow at Investors Chronicle and Danny Blanchflower at the New Statesmen.

The PM's speech was indeed risible: offensive and provocative to public sector workers, simply wrong on the extent and impact of regulation in the UK economy, ignorant of the necessary and positive role of Government regulation in addressing a wide range of market failures (particulary climate change as Phil points out) and utterly bereft of anything approaching a serious growth strategy.

The coalition now promises a growth strategy as part of the March 23 Budget. Be scared. Be very scared.

Stephen Boyd - STUC