Monday, July 26, 2021

Prof Prem Sikka: Pandemics destroy lives but neoliberalism is deadly too


UK politics is increasingly framed by markets, corporate profits and tax cuts rather than concerns about humanity, compassion and care, says Prem Sikka


Prem Sikka 23 July, 2021 

Most of the Covid-lockdown restrictions have been lifted, at least for the time being. Sadly, the lives of many have been torn apart by the loss of their loved ones.

There have already been nearly 153,000 officially acknowledged Covid-related deaths in the UK. Many more have died because their hospital treatment was postponed. The death-toll is more than double the number of civilians that died during the Second World War.

An independent public inquiry is needed to scrutinise the handling of the pandemic in all four home nations. It also needs to scrutinise the politics, economic and social policies which have delivered the high death-toll.

UK politics is increasingly framed by markets, corporate profits and tax cuts for a select few rather than concerns about humanity, compassion and care. This is signified by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s reluctance to tighten Covid restrictions because ‘Covid was only killing 80-year-olds’. Some 83,000 over 80s died. Such callous politics will bring more deaths and misery.

Cutting investment in public services has become a neoliberal dogma. The National Health Service (NHS) has been starved of resources and was in a poor shape to handle the pandemic. An indication is provided by the number of beds.

As we entered the pandemic, the UK had 2.4 beds per 1,000 of the population, compared to 5.4 in France, 7.9 in Germany and 12.8 in Japan. In April 2020, NHS England had 118,510 beds to serve a population of 56 million, compared to 299,000 in 1988.

Due to low-pay and poor working conditions 38,000 nursing posts were unfilled. The lack of NHS capacity is the outcome of deliberate government decisions, which prioritised tax cuts for corporations and the rich over investment in the NHS and support services.

The pandemic has shown that poverty and inequalities destroy lives. The poor, including individuals from ethnic minorities, have figured disproportionately in the Covid death-toll. This includes hospital staff, care home workers, transport staff, retirees, zero hour contract workers and many more. People with low incomes can’t afford good food, housing, healthcare and personal space for self-isolation, and are therefore more vulnerable to disease and pandemics.

Nobody is born poor. People are made poor by political institutions. In 1976, workers’ share of gross domestic product, in the form of wages and salaries, was 65.1%. By the end of 2019, it shrank to 49.5%, a decline unmatched by any other industrialised nation. Successive governments used anti-trade union laws, zero hour contracts and austerity programmes to erode wages. The average wage had been stagnant in the decade preceding the pandemic.

Unsurprisingly, 14.5 million people, including 8.1 million in working families and 4.5 million children live in poverty. Even people in work rely upon foodbanks to make ends meet. Too many people are unable to access good food, healthcare and housing and become easy victims of disease and pandemics.

Many people tested positive for Covid but could not afford to take time off work. They also lacked a safe place to isolate as they live in cramped accommodation because they are poor. Government policies have weakened people’s resilience to pandemics.

During the current pandemic, care homes became the dumping ground as hospital managers sought to free-up beds. Local authorities in England are responsible for providing social care, but since 2010, central government grants have been cut by 38% in real terms.

This accelerated privatisation and cash extraction. In private equity owned care homes, 10.83% of the revenues vanish in servicing contrived debt. Private equity also expects a return of 12-14% on its investment. So 20-25% of the revenues disappear, leaving less for frontline services.

Care home workers have been squeezed. Of the 1.52 million workers in care homes, 50% are full-time employees. Nearly 24% are on zero hour contracts. Almost 42% of the domiciliary care workforce is on zero-hour contracts. Staff turnover is over 30%. In March 2020, the real-term median hourly pay of staff was £8.50 per hour.

In these circumstances, it is very difficult for carers to get to know patients and provide personalised care. Low-paid staff are also vulnerable because they can’t easily access good food, housing and healthcare. They can’t easily isolate or take time off to recover.

The financialisation of care homes enabled companies to pay massive dividends. Executive pay has soared to more than 120 times the pay of frontline staff, even though it delivered death and misery. Over 39,000 people have died from Covid in care homes. It is hard to recall any privatisation which has been accompanied by its impact on people’s lives or the country’s ability to resist pandemics and disease.

Pandemics destroy lives and political ideologies are deadly too. The UK’s high Covid death-toll is facilitated by neoliberal ideologies which prioritised neglect of public services, tax cuts for the few, low wages, high corporate profits, unrestrained executive pay and privatisation of healthcare.

There are no signs that such ideologies will change anytime soon. We have to demand that all government policies be accompanied by an analysis of their impact on the lives of the people.





Pink offers to pay EHF fine on Norwegian women's beach handball team

UK
Labour asks own staff to apply for redundancy as party launches employment rights charter

It comes as Labour moderates oust Corbynistas to seize key London leadership roles.

 by Joe Mellor
26 July 2021 02:07
in Politics


Labour has defended asking its own staff to apply for voluntary redundancy as Angela Rayner launched an employment rights charter described as a “fork in the road”.

It comes as the right of the party have taken control of key leadership positions in the capital after ousting a number of Corbynista members.

Campaigners declared the party is “on the mend” as largely centre-left candidates won 13 out of 16 posts that represent Constituency Labour Parties [CLPs] on the London regional board.

New deal for working people

The party’s deputy leader visited the Impact Hub co-working space in central London on Monday to unveil a “new deal for working people” which promises to “fundamentally change” the economy as the party seeks to win back traditional voters who have switched to the Conservatives.

She said Labour’s plan for workers is “the minimum” they could expect after working through the pandemic.

But she was forced to admit that the party is asking its own staff to consider taking voluntary redundancy due to a lack of funds.


The Labour List website reported last week that party reserves are down to one month’s worth of payroll, and said general secretary David Evans had told the National Executive Committee: “We don’t have any money.”

Asked about the situation, Ms Rayner said: “We are in the devastating circumstances where we have lost general elections and we have lost resources as a result of that, and our organisation has to change.

“At the moment we are asking people to take voluntary redundancy and change the way we do our work like any organisation that goes through those times.”

She said Labour will “never support or endorse or take fire and rehire as an acceptable process” and added: “It is very worrying for our staff who are going through that process. But we want to make sure that the Labour Party is in a very lean, fit position to go forward to win the next general election.

“We have got to be honest about the change that needs to happen. We can’t go through the defeats we have gone through succession after succession and not make any changes.”
Self-isolation

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was due to join Ms Rayner on the visit in a display of solidarity following a period of turbulence but has instead been forced into self-isolation.

But ahead of the launch, he pledged to make the nation “the best place to work” and said the pandemic has “exposed the fact that millions of workers don’t have the dignity and security they deserve”.

Over the summer, Labour’s front bench will set out the five principles that its new deal for work is based on: security at work, quality jobs, a fairer economy, opportunity for all, and work that pays.

It includes pledges for a “real living wage” of at least £10 an hour, a “fair and level playing field” on tax between multinationals and local businesses, and to improve workers’ rights while strengthening trade unions.

Speaking to workers during her visit on Monday, Ms Rayner said: “Today the new deal is about… we are at a fork in the road as we come out of this pandemic… is that people in Britain shouldn’t have to go to work and really struggle to feed their families and support themselves in very low-paid, insecure work.

“Today is about making sure that everybody gets rights from day one in employment, can have the right to flexible working, not just for the employer but for the employees as well who have done so much adapting and working from home in this period, and making sure that everybody has at least a minimum of £10 an hour, a real living wage.

“I think that will really boost our economy but also give people some security and respect in work. We think that is the absolute minimum that people should expect.”

She added that the day one employment rights could include getting rid of probationary periods, saying there are “other ways” in which employers can deal with staff who are not “up to the job”.
UK
NHS: Why a 3% pay rise might be the best unions can get

Void of trade union cooperation, and with the Covid exit-wave making industrial action difficult, a 3% pay rise may well be as good as it gets, writes Alex Maguire.



Alex Maguire 
Left Foot Forward
Alex Maguire was a trade union shop steward and is now a union official.

After a farcical process on Tuesday afternoon, the government has finally announced that NHS staff will receive a 3% pay rise. Unlike the 2018 deal on NHS pay – and the 4% recently given in Scotland – this one has been imposed by pay review body and therefore is not one that trade unions can vote to accept or reject.

Most NHS trade unions and professional bodies have condemned this increase. It will however be difficult for them to change the government’s mind.

Different trade union interests

This is partly because of the lack of a unified front from trade unions during the pay review process. All the trade unions and professional bodies in the NHS represent different interests. For example, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) is a closed union in that it only lets nurses and healthcare assistants join it, therefore it represents the interests of these workers above all others.

On the other hand, Union – the public service union – is open to anyone employed in the public sector, and most of its members in the NHS are drawn from between Band One and Band Five on the Agenda for Change payscale.

Other unions such as GMB and Unite, do not have as many members in the NHS, and they tend to be concentrated in certain areas. Most of GMB’s NHS members, for instance, are drawn from the ambulance service.

Consequently, the different unions involved in the NHS have pushed for different deals that would most benefit their members and/or their longer-term interests.

15% pay rise unattainable

For instance, GMB and Unite will have known that the 15% – the highest of all the pay claims – they are calling for is unattainable, but it benefits them to be seen to be campaigning for it, particularly for recruiting members from other unions (GMB have recently tried to off-set their falling membership by retreating from the private sector and into the public sector).

Unison and the RCN, as the two largest unions in the NHS, have more skin in the game, though the RCN’s insistence on 12.5% is surprising, even if, in their submitted evidence to the pay review body, they did provide a fully costed way that the government could provide it.

Of all the proposals, Unision’s £2,000 uplift to every NHS worker on Agenda for Change, or at least a downwardly negotiated variant, was probably the best attainable deal. However, this deal would have needed every union pushing for it, which was always unlikely to happen. The RCN cannot really push for a deal that would see a porter’s salary rise by a substantially greater proportion than a nurse, and therefore erode workplace differentials.

This is the nature of the NHS, multiple professions/occupations are organised alongside each other on the shopfloor and they all have their own rights and interests.

3% is in the ‘sweet spot’

Aside from the issue of trade union cooperation, further complicating securing a rise greater than the government’s is that 3% is in the sweet spot, both in terms of staff striking and public support for the strike. Multiple NHS trade unions have commissioned surveys of the public and they all show support for a pay rise between roughly 3 and 5%. Any higher than this and public support rapidly fades while staff willingness to strike also significantly decreases. Equally, the current Covid exit-wave makes it harder for staff to partake in industrial action, as all NHS industrial action is beset by questions of patient safety.

What happens next?

Do the RCN, emboldened by their success in Northern Ireland from December 2019-January 2020, back up their threat of industrial action? Of all the trade unions/professional bodies they have seemed the most militant and probably have the most resources to support industrial action (they have created an industrial action fund of £35,000,000).

The only way to shift the government’s position would be the industrial action/the real threat of industrial action. However, this does not mean that any industrial action would be likely to succeed, and the consequences of failed industrial action can be catastrophic.

Successful industrial action would probably require both the RCN and Unison and would therefore rely on the two agreeing a position; this is unlikely.

Thus, 3% may well be as good as it gets.

Related Posts:
The Greens have joined calls to increase the NHS pay rise
Honour your living wage promise, unions tell Boris Johnson
Angela Rayner: Labour can win another landslide if it listens to trade unions
Report: How unions are facing down the industrial impact of Brexit at work

 

UK

Competitions & Markets Authority concerned over lack of electric chargepoints ahead of 2030 ban

Image credit: Ross Campbell

The Competitions & Markets Authority (CMA) has set out measures to ensure a national network of electric vehicle chargepoints is in place ahead of the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.


As part of its market study into electric vehicle (EV) charging, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) examined whether the industry can deliver a comprehensive UK charging network that works competitively and that people can trust.

While some parts of this new sector are developing relatively well – including charging at locations like shopping centres, workplaces and people’s private parking (garages and driveways) – the CMA has found that other parts are facing problems which will hinder roll-out. This could impact the Government’s plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and its wider commitment to make the UK net zero by 2050.


In particular, the CMA is concerned about the choice and availability of chargepoints at motorway service stations, where competition is limited; the roll-out of on-street charging by Local Authorities (which many drivers will rely on) is too slow; and rural areas risk being left behind with too few chargepoints due to lack of investment.

In addition, research shows that charging can sometimes be difficult and frustrating for drivers, which could stop people switching to EVs.


Concerns about the reliability of chargepoints, difficulties in comparing prices and paying for charging, risk reducing people’s confidence and trust. The CMA has set out four principles to ensure that using and paying for charging is as simple as filing up with petrol and diesel.


Charging should be as simple as filling up with petrol or diesel:

  1. Working chargepoints must be easy to find – e.g. providing up-to-date availability and working status information.

  2. Charging must be simple and quick to pay for – e.g. people don’t need to sign up and contactless payments are widely available.

  3. The cost of charging must be clear – e.g. standard way of pricing, such as per kilowatt of energy.

  4. Charging must be accessible – e.g. all chargepoints can be used by any type of EV.

The UK has around 25,000 chargepoints currently and, while there is still uncertainty, forecasts suggest more than ten times this amount will be needed by 2030.


Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, said: “Electric vehicles play a critical role in meeting Net Zero but the challenges with creating an entirely new charging network should not be underestimated. Some areas of the roll-out are going well and the UK’s network is growing – but it’s clear that other parts, like charging at motorway service stations and on-street, have much bigger hurdles to overcome.


“There needs to be action now to address the postcode lottery in electric vehicle charging as we approach the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.


“Our recommendations will promote strong competition, encourage more investment, and build people’s trust, both now and in the future. The CMA has also opened a competition law investigation into EV charging along motorways and will continue to work with government and the industry to help ensure electric vehicle charging is a success.”


The CMA’s key recommendations are that:

  • UK Government sets out an ambitious National Strategy for rolling out EV charging between now and 2030. This must sit alongside strategies from the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Governments, building on the work already being undertaken by all governments. Energy regulators should also ensure that it’s quicker and cheaper to connect new chargepoints.

  • Governments support local authorities (LAs) to boost roll-out of on-street charging – including defining a clear role for LAs to manage the roll-out in their area and providing funding for the expertise needed for this to happen.

  • UK Government attaches conditions to its £950m Rapid Charging Fund – which it is planning to use for grid upgrades at motorway service stations – to open up competition so that drivers have a choice of charging provider at each service station.

  • UK Government creates an EV charging sector that people can trust and have confidence in, including tasking a public body with monitoring the sector as it develops to ensure charging is as simple as filling up at a petrol station.