Strike for strike sake

The unions leaders that called strikes today have not only caused serious disruption but in some cases have put lives at risk.

At the Metropolitan Police Authority meeting this morning we heard that front line police officers had to cover call centres because many of the civilian support staff had not come in to work.  I have a serious issue with strikes that put lives at risk.

The fact that these strikes were called while pension negotiations were still taking places shows that for some union leaders this is more about the fight than the victory.

I wrote a little while ago that the unions are in danger of showing themselves to be obsolete and out of touch.  The recent strike threats by the RMT are a case in point.  Two Tube workers were sacked by London Underground and their cases were taken to an employment tribunal.  Before the tribunal had even reached its conclusions Bob Crow threatened to strike and demanded the two employees were reinstated.

The tribunal found in favour of the two sacked workers and they were given their jobs back.  There may be questions to answer about why London Underground sacked them in the first place but the more important point is that their rights were protected by the law, not the union.

Changing demographics and longer life expectancy means that the current model of public sector pensions is unsustainable, most people understand that.  The solution will be found through negotiation not a few militant union bosses jumping on the first excuse they could find to call a strike.

Response from Southeastern on Monday night's incident

After the incident on Monday evening I wrote to Southeastern to find out what happened to the train and passengers on the Bexleyheath line train and the subsequent delays to the rush hour services.  I received an apology and this explanation earlier today:

First and on behalf of the company, we are very sorry to all those passengers delayed, inconvenienced or held on trains in what were intolerably hot conditions on Monday evening. All those affected will be compensated in the form or leisure or rail travel vouchers and every claim, including those for out of pocket expenses will be considered. Please ask your constituents so affected to contact our Customer Relations team on telephone 0845 000 2222, by surface mail at P.O Box 63428, London SE1 5FD or by webform via our website http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/ If any report problems in securing compensation, please let me know.

The causes were as follows. Late on Monday afternoon (27 June) a train broke down between Bexleyheath and Dartford, causing a number of following services to come to a halt. Unfortunately the failed train was near a crossover point so a number of services were affected. Engineers were called to the scene and an investigation is being carried out into the exact causes of the breakdown. Completing repairs took longer than expected and given the unseasonably warm weather, understandably, passengers became frustrated.

After approximately 30 minutes passengers on a following train that had been halted asked the driver if they could be let out. For safety reasons (you will appreciate we operate a third rail power supply network) this was not possible. This advice was ignored and passengers activated the emergency egress and began to leave the train and for obvious reasons the driver had to instruct Network Rail to turn off the power supply. This was unfortunate as by this time, emergency repairs to the failed train were near complete, services could have been resumed and delays and cancellations kept to a relative minimum.

Given that passengers were now exiting the train, the driver took the correct decision to assist with a controlled evacuation. You will appreciate that away from a station platform it’s a drop of several feet from the train to the track and ladders are required to safely exit the train. The train was crowded and it obviously took some time to get passengers off and escort them to a place of safety.

In such situations, evacuating a train is a last resort and only done when there are significant numbers of trained Network Rail and train operating company staff to assist (with support from the emergency services as necessary) and buses to take passengers to the nearest station . Apart from the electrified third rail, the railway is a dangerous environment as passengers, some of whom may be elderly or mobility impaired, will have to walk over ballast, negotiate sleepers and walk perhaps a considerable distance to a place of safety, which sometimes can only be reached by climbing up or down steep cuttings or embankments. In this instance, with just the driver to manage the subsequent controlled evacuation, getting passengers safely off the train took considerably longer than normal. Compliments have been received at his management of the situation and his actions are to be commended.

Unfortunately, with just the driver available to evacuate the train and its location near a crossing point meant that yet more trains became backed up towards London and resulted in services being severely disrupted. Although trains began to move at around 1745 you will appreciate that disruption on this scale has a knock on impact until much later in the evening as trains are in the wrong place and train crews are displaced.

In partnership with Network Rail there will be a full investigation covering all aspects of this incident, including communications, hot weather arrangements and customer care and we would be happy to share the outcome with you.

Clearly there is still a big question mark over the speed and content of passenger information on the trains and platforms and I have asked for more detail about these failings, I will also read, with interest, the Network Rail report.

Public sector pensions

Over on ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie highlights three compelling arguments for public sector pension reform from David Cameron's speech to the Local Government Association annual conference.

I don't usually do a cut and paste but there really isn't anything I can usefully add:

Argument one: We can't afford to go on like this

"In the 1970s, when a civil servant say retired at sixty, they could expect to claim a pension for around twenty years. Today, when they retire at sixty, they can expect to claim a pension for nearly thirty years – about a fifty percent increase on before. Now, obviously, more people living for longer is a great development for society. But more people claiming their pension for longer has a real life impact on our ability to pay for pensions. Indeed, we are already seeing the impact. In 2009, total payments to public service pensioners and their dependents were almost £32 billion – an increase of a third, even after allowing for inflation, compared to 1999."

Argument two: Taxpayers are paying too much towards public sector pensions
"Under the current system, the balance between what public sector employees pay in to their pensions and what the taxpayer contributes is getting massively out of kilter. Take, for example, the Civil Service Pensions Scheme. Today, employees contribute around 1.5 and 3.5 percent towards their own pension. The taxpayer, however, contributes nineteen percent. Indeed, in total, the taxpayer currently contributes over two-thirds of the costs of maintaining public sector pensions. That’s the equivalent of £1,000 a household. That figure is only expected to rise. Is that a fair? I don’t believe it is, especially when people in the private sector are seeing the value of their own pensions falling, their own pension
age rise… and when, according to the Office for National Statistics, the average gross pay in the public sector is now higher than in the private sector."

Argument three: Public sector pensions will still be generous

"I can look you in the eye and say public service pensions will remain among the very best… much better, indeed, than for many private sector workers. And it’s because we are determined to do what’s fair by people who work in the public sector that we are suggesting other changes. The public service pensions system today is inherently biased against some of the lowest paid workers. That’s because, under a final salary scheme, it’s the people who reach very high salaries at the end of their careers who benefit the most. Yes, these are talented people. And yes, they are hugely important to the running of our public services. But the way the system works, it’s not the community nurse who retires on a final salary of £28,000 who gets the benefit… but the hospital consultant who leaves on a final salary of £110,000. Indeed, in some instances, for every £100 they put in their pension, higher earners can get twice as much out. Is this fair? No. It’s not. So again, in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Hutton, we are proposing to replace the final salary scheme with a Career Average scheme. This would mean that the lowest-paid do not subsidise those individuals who jump to higher salaries in the last few years of their career."

Uniform at Work Day

Me at this morning's
Health and Public Services Committee

Rather than wearing a suit to City Hall today I'm in the uniform of a major in the Royal Regiment of Artillery.  Today is Uniform to Work Day, part of the build up to Armed Forces Day on Saturday. I, like many members of the UK's reserve forces accross the country, will be wearing my military uniform to do my usual day job.

I got a few funny looks on the train into work this morning.

The Left think we're evil and we think they're stupid

Conservativehome has a very illuminating article listing some of the anti-Tory rhetoric spouted by left wing political commentators.  In private conversations that I have with left wingers it is clear that on a one-to-one basis they are not all filled with hate, yet there is a group dynamic that takes over when they get together or when they speak to the media.  They go all angry and hate filled.

I'm not sure how much of this is driven by genuine outrage at Conservative policies and how much is faux-outrage generated for purely party political reasons but it is both pradictable and relentless.


Click if you want to show
 how much you hate hatred

 I hear people saying that Conservatives hate poor people, or hate single mothers, or hate black people, or hate children etc. etc. etc.  I struggle to understand how anyone can really believe this to be true.  Do the left think that people get into Conservative politics thinking it is the best vehicle for screwing over the poor, or do they think that we get into politics with good intentions but that experience mutates us?

Their criticisms would make more sense if they said "the Tories are doing this because they think it will help the country but, in fact, this will really hurt the poor" but we almost never hear that.  What we hear is "the Tories are doing this to hurt the poor".  I heard one person say, on Radio4's any questions, that Iain Duncan-Smith's welfare reforms would see out of work people "literally thrown of a cliff", either they don't know what the word literally means or they think IDS is a very unpleasant person.

Now, don't think that my party is immune from having a blind spot when it comes to a proper assessment of our political opponents.  The most common view of the Left amongst Conservatives is that they are stupid, well intentioned but inept.  Blinded by their belief in big government as a force for good, big spending as a means to economic and social improvement and big taxation and borrowing as a means to pay for it all.

Heart in the right place but with their heads up their backsides.

Obviously I don't buy in to either of these stereotypes.  Conservatives want to improve people's lives just like those on the left do but we will disagree about the means to do it.  Clearly to get into politics, either Labour or Conservative, requires a degree of intelligence or they would fail to be successful in what is a fiercely competitive process.

It would be nice if we could accept that there will be big differences between political ideologies, that our methods will vary but that people entering public service do so for good reasons and are not stupid. 

Except the Lefties, who are all stupid!

Strikes, austerity and the Greek economy

On the news yesterday the headline about the proposed strikes this Summer was followed by the one about the riots in Greece.

The financial markets lost confidence in Greece's ability to manage their own economy and their international credit rating crashed, the cost of insuring themselves against a credit default (known as credit default swaps) has soared and further increased their cost of borrowing.

The EU and IMF have bailed them out but set some very tough criteria on the loans and the Greek people are really feeling it.  Public sector jobs are being cut and salaries are being slashed, their are riots in the streets. 

The Greek parliament is is tatters and the current Prime Minister cannot form a coalition large enough to get a working majority to pass his budget.  If it isn't passed Greece will default on their loan and run the risk of having some of the IMF money pulled, tipping them into deeper problems.

Meanwhile we have unions threatening to strike because they can't be bothered to wait for a legal process to run it's course (the RMT) and our own national bedt means that very generous public sector pensions will have to be a little less generous in the future (the teaching unions and PCS).

When I look at the Greek collapse and the relatively modest savings that the government have had to make to bring our economy back on track I genuinely wonder what planet some of the union leadership are on.

I'm glad Mike Tuffrey is standing to be Lib Dem Mayoral candidate

Nice jumper Mike!

If I say anything positive about either candidate it may well be seen as some kind of Machiavellian double bluff to scupper their chances, but there isn't much I can do about that.

I have got to know Mike Tuffrey over the last three years and he is a thoroughly decent man and a serious politician.  I disagree with him on a number of issues but we're from different political parties, so you would expect nothing less.

Lembit Opik's website today

Lembit Opik is not a serious politician. I don't know if I agree with his plans for London or not, I don't have a clue what they are.  His website holds no clues, it contains just a rather naff picture and a list of phone numbers for PR enquiries, political enquiries and comedy enquiries. Says it all really.

Mike will bring some interesting ideas to the London Mayoral elections and I can't see him getting up to any of the dirty tricks during the campaign that some Lib Dems have indulged in in the past.

I hope that Mike gets the nomination, obviously I hope he doesn't then go on to win.

Operation School Bike

I've just finished speaking at the launch of Operation School Bike in Charles Darwin School in Bromley.

This is a great scheme and one that shows some real joined up thinking by the school, the police and the local community.  The partnership have got hold of bicycles which have been abandoned or recovered by the police, they are refurbished by a local company and loaned to the school's students to encourage them to cycle to school.

This make good use of otherwise useless bikes, encourages cycling, helps fight childhood obesity, reduces congestion and disorder on the local buses in the morning and afternoon rush and helps to build a good relationship between the students and the local police.

All good.

Regular readers (using the plural, who am I kidding!) may well recognise the name Charles Darwin School, I was at the opening of their Anti Knife Pledge Wall back in 2008 and hosted them a City Hall in 2009.

Not sure what's more shocking at 7AM

20 or 30 police officers raiding your flat or Boris Johnson saying that he's come for you?

Yesterday morning the Met raided the addresses of a number of suspected criminals across London.  Boris joined the team at one of the raids to see how a police raid operates and was greeted by a suspected drug dealer with the words: 'What the f*** are you doing here?'

I work with Boris every day and I have to confess it would give me the willies if he came crashing into my bedroom first thing in the morning.

Labour Assembly members back Livingstone's vile slur on Edward Lister

At this morning's London Assembly plenary meeting Boris's new Chief of Staff answered questions on his plans and record in local government.  The tone was both professional and friendly.

At the end of the session I proposed a motion welcoming him to City Hall and calling on members to disassociate themselves from the comments made by Ken Livingstone last week in Bromley comparing him to Ratko Mladic who currently stands accused of war crimes and genocide.

The wording of the motion was:

That the Assembly notes the answers to the questions asked and welcomes the appointment of Edward Lister to the role of Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor, Planning. The Assembly believes his long and distinguished experience in local government will benefit all of London and calls on all Members of the Assembly to disassociate themselves from the disgusting personal attacks made by a member of the public comparing him to a mass murderer and war criminal.

I was pleased that the Lib Dems on the Assembly (with whom we don't always see eye-to-eye) felt that they could support the motion but I was both surprised and disappointed that the Labour members and Jenny Jones would not.

We were very careful with the wording of the motion, we weren't calling on anyone to condemn either Livingstone or his comments, we were asking that members simply distance themselves from the comments.

I was particularly shocked when firstly John Biggs and then Val Shawcross stood and tried to make light of the comments, with Val Shawcross claiming that it was little more than a "bad joke".

The proposal of the motion and the debate that followed can be viewed here, starting at the 2 hour 24 minute point.

UPDATE:

Jenny Jones has contacted me about this post to make it clear that she and Darren did not in any way condone Livingstone's comments about Edward Lister and I am happy to recognise the fact that they did in fact criticise him when they spoke during the debate, unlike the Labour members.  I am still disappointed that they couldn't bring themselves to support a motion recognising Edward's decades of public service and putting he criticism of Livingstone on record and I was surprised when Jenny voted with the Labour members.

I have amended the title of this post and apologise for saying that the greens backed Livingstone's comments when they did not.  The Labour group did, both in their voting and in their comments from the floor.

Livingstone, Bromley and police numbers

In my disgust at Livingstone's personal attack on Eddie Lister I failed to pull him up on the wider point he was trying to make.  He was in Bromley last week trying to get people excited about the "loss of police numbers" in the borough.  The problem for Livingstone is the numbers just don't add up (for him).

In April 2008, just before Boris became Mayor, Bromley had 488.6 Police officers (FTE – Full Time Equivalent) as of May this year the Borough has 505.26 Police officers (FTE).  In addition to this the borough has 128 Special Constables and 147 PCSOs.

Because of the move to single patroling the borough also enjoys around 3,000 extra police patrols per year and the fact that the borough also has the largest number of police cadets in the city should ensure a healthy supply of new recruits for the future too.

Livingstone also seems to have overlooked the expansion of the the Safer Transport Teams meaning Bromley has 5 sergeants, 9 PCs, 17 Specials and 31 PCSOs and the 50 strong British Transport Police team based on Bromley South railway station paid for by TFL.

Like the Labour groups failed attack at last month's MQT, Livingstone has scored a huge own goal bringing up policing in Bromley as a campaign issue.

Bad news for Balls

It must be terribly frustrating for Ed Balls.  He keeps attacking George Osborne's economic strategy, "too fast, too deep" etc, while the rest of the world keep praising the Chancellor's plans.

The latest positive comment is from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which said that the Government's programme of spending cuts to eliminate the UK's structural deficit "remained essential".

Ed Balls is becoming increasingly isolated in his economic position, he needs to change his position, in fact he needs a plan B.

Livingstone, insulting as ever in Bromley

Having spent most of his political career either ignoring or attacking Bromley residents, Livingstone now realises he needs the borough's votes to win.  On Tuesday he broke the habit of a lifetime and condescended to visit my constituency.

Livingstone was on traditional form when he compared Boris's new Chief of Staff to the mass murderer and war criminal Ratko Mladic, what do you expect from a man who described a Jewish reporter as a Nazi and Trevor Philips as a racist and Barack Obama as a mobster?

In many respects Livingstone hasn't changed, if anything his time out of office has made him a bit more extreme.  The last time he was in office he had a concerted campaign against drivers including plans for a congestion zone in the very town centre he visited on Tuesday.  Now he plans to hit holiday makers.

In his Tell Ken event he said that businesspeople should take up the current air capacity and that ordinary people should holiday in the UK even though he said the UK tourist industry was rubbish.  How many people can you alienate in one statement?  Here is the offending quote:

"I think Western nations have got to live within their existing airline capacity.... If it is about prioritising so that it is biased towards business use, I'm happy with that, just so long as you say to people we'll have to have more holidays in England.

"That would actually require England's domestic holiday industry to up its game in many areas as it is pretty miserable a lot of it."

The BBC is seriously out of touch

I like the BBC, a lot.  I'm addicted to Radio4 although as Glen Cullen would say "I'm considerably younger than their core demographic".  However the BBC does have one major flaw.  It tries far too hard to be "fair".

I've discussed in the past what a vacuous word "fair" is.  It is so subjective that it makes it's usage in almost all contexts meaningless, despite this the BBC is driven by a desire to be fair.  The great irony is that in attempting to be fair it has allowed itself to become anything but.

The findings of a recent BBC survey showed that the corporation was viewed to be both biased and discriminatory. The BBC clearly doesn't see this because of the groups that are discriminated against typically groups who have traditionally had power or wealth; Christians, older people, white people, dare I say it .... posh people.

I don't subscribe to a "smash the BBC" attitude but it does need to stop overcompensating and start reflecting society as it is, not how the people at the top of the BBC would like it to be.