Following the disastrous way the Liberal Democrat administration ran schools and services for young people, a new community interest company was formed with Richmond called Achieving for Children (AFC). AfC was contracted by Kingston and Richmond to run children’s’ services. This means that just as the Liberal Democrats avoided direct accountability for educational services through the ballot box, so too have the Conservatives now running Kingston Council.

AFC overspent by £1.5million and is also having the amount of money in the contract reduced. So AFC  is having to make savings. But is cutting Searchlight, a part of the Youth Service that serves Norbiton with pockets of the most deprived families in Kingston, the right thing to do? Or is this an example of making cuts that affect the people most in need but least able to fight back?


 Searchlight, which has served generations of young Norbitonians, is due to be closed by the council, with young people encouraged to use the Dickerage Lane Adventure centre instead nearby.

 A petition to save the centre has been started by local residents, and as of this week had gained more than 200 signatures.

 Searchlight has been running for more than 30 years, providing youth club nights, as well as advice and help for young people.

 But Norbiton Labour councillor Linsey Cottington said: “I am very pleased to see local residents signing the petition on to save our long established Searchlight Youth Centre in the heart of Norbiton.

“The Council wants to take away one of the very few facilities we have in this area and there are no promises to replace it with a new facility.

“I would urge all parents, grandparents and their neighbours to sign the petition so the Council understands loud and clear the strength of local feeling about our valued local facility.”

 Cllr Cottington pointed out that Norbiton has pockets of severe deprivation amongst young families and children – and young people need the continuing support of their local youth centre.

 Children and young people need a place of their own, which is the whole point of youth centres.

 She added: “There are no proposals for replacing Searchlight within the local Norbiton community, and using general purpose local facilities is not a satisfactory solution.”

Local councillors have also successfully got grant funding from the Council recently for sporting activities and an after school club for years 6 and 7 at Searchlight.

Sign the petition against the closure of Searchlight here


Bombing Syria: the Kingston & Surbiton View

Kingston & Surbiton members discussed the bombing of Syria at its December all member meeting. Unsurprisingly there were a variety of views put forward, informed by some very knowledgeable people with very direct experience of the middle east situation. Unlike the Tories, whose leader tried to smear people who voted against extending the bombing as “terrorist sympathisers”,  Labour Party members understand that different views should be respected. We are disappointed that our local Tory MP made no effort to consult with his wider constituents, and has certainly, so far,  failed to explain his position. 

This is the agreed motion and position of the CLP.

Kingston & Surbiton CLP disagrees with the decision of Parliament to extend the bombing of ISIL into Syria. It believes that there are more effective economic and diplomatic means through which to work towards the resolution of a complex situation.

This CLP acknowledges that on matters of war there are strong arguments to allow a free vote in Parliament for MPs of all political parties after consulting their local party organisations and their wider constituents. It also acknowledges that some members of the Labour Party felt on balance that they should vote for an extension of bombing into ISIL held areas of Syria.

This CLP calls on all Labour MPs, members and supporters to work towards a speedy end to the bombing campaign in Syria, and towards an economic and diplomatic solution to the situation in the country, seeking stable, inclusive and democratic governance under which all sections of the community may live in peace and prosperity.

The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement: has he been convinced by Jeremy Corbyn on Tax Credits?

In his Autumn Statement, in reality yet another budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has scrapped plans to abolish Tax Credits immediately and has decided that he can no longer stand  in front of Jeremy Corbyn’s condemnations of the way he is making the poor poorer. But is it all it seems?

This is what, the fifth budget in 15 months? What are we to make of it?

First it is difficult to describe it as a plan for the economy. How short a time is it since George Osborne was telling us that without getting rid of tax-credits the economic sky would fall in and people would stop looking for any, more or better work?

It was the concerted voice of the Labour Party that said cutting the income of the poorest, who rely on Tax Credits to make their own budgets meet, while at the same time increasing the income of the richest, was driving this country towards a society so inequitable that it would be looked upon as a revival of the ethics of the Victorian work-house. Many Tory back-benchers agreed. The Lords, usually the bastion of conservatism, followed the Labour line.

Now the Chancellor has agreed through his Autumn Statement. Has he been convinced by the Labour Party?

Plans for which there were no alternatives have suddenly been discarded. And why?

The answer is simple: because it is a budget for the Tory leadership contest not for the good of the country. It is aimed at Tory MPs who will decide who the leadership contestants are in Toryland. George Osborne appears in the House of Commons fashion parading Jeremy Corbyn’s clothes and he believes the universal condemnation for hitting the poorest hardest through the abolition of tax-credits ceases. In the eyes of Tory MPs, George is a clever boy: shall we make him Prime Minister?

So how was the Chancellor able to do this? Quite simply it is based on fortuitously finding a note tucked down the back of a treasury sofa which said “Dear Chancellor, Things are going to be better than ever next year, mate. Reckon the country is good for an extra £27 billion in the Treasury purse. Yours with love, Office for Budget Responsibility.”

Now the Office for Budget Responsibility, George Osborne’s invention for enabling him to blame someone else when things go sour, has a track record of getting its forecasts wrong, so suddenly coming up with unbridled optimism is hardly re-assuring. To quote John Kenneth Galbraith “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”.

Then of course there is the small print rather than the headline speech. Take a look at to see that once again the reality is not all it seems. There are already bits of the tax credit system designed by Labour being dismantled, and the Universal Credit is calculated to make the poor poorer.

Do we really believe that George Osborne has adopted the Labour  value of a more equal society?  Do hedge-fund managers and bankers eat gruel and drink tap-water?

What is clear is that the Tory government could not stand up to the united voice of the Labour Party.

Fight the Trade Union Bill November 2015

Liz Meerabeau, Vice Chair of Kingston & Surbiton CLP, writes about the Anti Trade Union Bill Rally and a meeting with James Berry MP at which CLP members – including trade union leaders – described the real effects the Bill might have on employer – employee relationships. We were pleased that James Berry MP took the time to come to 160 London Road to listen to the briefing prior to the Report  and Final Stage of the Bill which takes place 10th November 2015.

Having passed a motion at the All Member CLP meeting (see below), the local Party has taken action to put the motion into practice

At least five members of Kingston and Surbiton CLP- Greta Farian, Johnnie Byrne, John McGhee, Tony Kearns and Liz Meerabeau- attended the anti-Trade Union Bill rally in Central Hall, Westminster on 2nd November and heard many inspiring speakers. The hall was packed, with many trade unionists having to wait outside.

Although we were not able to see our MP, James Berry, on that date, Greta Farian and Simon Ayre met him previously to discuss the Bill and four of us (JB, JM, TK and LM) met him on 9th November. At that meeting, we gave detailed examples of how the current system works, how the proposals in the Bill will cut across this, souring the good working relationships that currently exist, and how employer bodies have expressed concerns. We reminded James Berry that there are already restrictions on the number in a picket, and that the government seem to have confused pickets and demonstrations. We also referred to the criticisms of the Bill from human rights organisations.

Among the many outrageous aspects of this Bill is the fact that it is simply being railroaded through – the next reading will be on 10th November, the day after the consultation ends. How can consultation that ends on the 9th November be incorporated into a Bill before Parliament for its Report Stage and Final Stage on 10th November? Clearly no value is being put on consultation.

The Trade Union Bill, if it becomes law, will further damage the work of unions, already affected by the 2014 Lobbying Act which puts onerous burdens on trade unions to ensure their membership records are pristine and restricts the right to lobby during election times (but fails to regulate lobbying from business interests). It will:

  • Make it harder to vote for industrial action, particularly in essential services and in the public sector. The government is setting a threshold much higher than in other voting situations, and is refusing to allow secure electronic balloting. Since abstentions will be counted as votes against, non-voters will have an undue weight
  • Require 14 days’ notice of planned industrial action
  • Allow employers to use agency staff to cover strikes. In many sectors this will be unsafe
  • Require individual members to pay their subs directly to the union (it will be illegal for public sector organisations to operate the check-off, or payroll deduction), thus increasing bureaucracy. Precise wording on this was made available only in the last two weeks
  • Restrict campaigning, e.g. by requiring 14 days’ notice of social media campaigns
  • Increase police supervision of picket lines and the risk of blacklisting for picketing, as stewards and picketers will be more identifiable
  • Cap facilities time and require detailed accounting for it. The former chief executive of NHS Employers has said how much money the NHS saves through the current work of its union reps. At the rally, Matt Wrack of the FBU reminded us that facilities time had been needed to investigate what went wrong in a catastrophic fire in which firemen died.

Speakers at the rally included Frances O’Grady, Paul Maloney (Southern Region Secretary, GMB), Sheila Hassan (President, Society of Radiographers), Jon Skewes (Director of Policy, RCM- the RCM is a recent affiliate, and midwives went on strike in 2014/15 for the first time in 130 years), Jill Barker (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy), Matt Wrack (General Secretary, FBU), Dave Ward (General Secretary, CWU and a K&S CLP member), Barbara Plant (GMB member), Natalie Linder (RCM member featuring in the new TUC poster campaign), Joanne Harris (Unite member), Eleanor Smith (Unison member), Liz Snape (Unison and TUC President), Len McCluskey (GS, Unite), Sally Hunt (GS, University and College Union), Christine Blower (GS, NUT), Mark Holding (Assistant GS, ATL), Jim Quigley (AGS, NASUWT), Megan Dunne (President, NUS), Dave Prentis (GS, Unison) and John Hannet (USDAW). Andy Vickers from the Police Federation was also present, although they are not affiliated to the TUC.

Shami Chakrabarti reminded us that Liberty was founded in 1934 after hunger marchers were attacked by the police, and said that we should be alert to attempts to divide and rule- ‘unions versus the public’.

Stephen Cavalier, from Thompsons Solicitors, stated that the Bill is unlawful, unwarranted, and unworkable, and the proposal on agency workers breaches ILO provisions. In a recent YouGov poll, 65% of respondents did not support it, nor does the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC), the industry body representing employment agencies. The Regulatory Policy Committee, made up of economists, has said that it is not fit for purpose.

Even the Financial Times has criticised the government for ‘crossing the road to pick a fight with the unions’, and several speakers referred to David Davis’s view that the restrictions on picket lines were worthy of Franco’s government. Vince Cable has said that the Bill is unnecessary, and it has been condemned by Amnesty International for infringing human rights.

Frances O’Grady (Observer, 1.11.2015) believes that women will be disproportionately affected by the Bill, since nearly three quarters of the workforce in the ‘important public services’ with the highest strike ballot thresholds is female.

Lastly, Andy Parsons of ‘Mock the Week’, an Equity Member, suggested that if it is so important for Sajid Javid to know unions’ social media plans two weeks in advance, we should all let him know what we plan to write on social media, at #sajidjavidwantstoknow. And let him know what we are emailing. And leave a message on his voicemail. And if he wants to know who is calling, the answer- of course- is ‘Spartacus’.

Trade Union Bill

The Tory government’s Trade Union Bill is an attempt to put even more restrictions on trade unions. The Tories seem to believe (or they want the public to believe) that trade unions are just about random strikes that disrupt the public. Any trade unionist will tell you that nobody wants to strike: a strike is the result of a failure in talks and is a last resort. Much of the work of trade unions is helping individuals, communication between employers and employees and helping the workplace to function smoothly. This Bill is designed to make these key functions that much more difficult.

Trade unions have to ballot their members on strike action already. The government wants to make it more difficult to do so. It is refusing to allow ballots by social media and phone (the way Tories hold elections for their London mayoral candidate for example) and are imposing threshholds which are not even met in the national Parliamentary elections. Once a strike is called they are putting all sorts of restrictions on picket lines – restrictions found nowhere else in the world.

This is why Kingston and Surbiton CLP passed the following motion.

 Trade Union Bill

This constituency believes the Trade Union Bill’s Second Reading on 14th September shows this Government is determined to shackle the voice of working people via its attack on the trade unions.

This constituency further believes strikes are a last resort but the requirement of a minimum 50% turnout amongst members entitled to vote and a further 40% yes vote threshold (i.e. 80% of those who vote) in ‘important public services’ are an attempt to silence working people.

This constituency now believes the right to strike is under threat and draconian measures seeking the names of pickets and restrictions on social media usage are a fundamental attack on human rights.

We are concerned that allowing the use of agency workers to break strike action will lead to staff carrying out work they are not trained for and potentially lead to unsafe workplaces and services.

We believe facility time arrangements for local union reps and the deductions of subscriptions through payroll are matters between employers and recognised unions in the public sector and are the basis for good industrial relations and it is counterproductive for the Government to stop or restrict these arrangements.

This constituency condemns the attacks on unions’ political funds as a shabby attempt to undermine their public campaigning voice and the traditional relationship between many unions and Labour.

This constituency calls on the Labour Party, locally and nationally, to:

1)     campaign against the Bill;

2)     organise and join local protests against the Bill;

3)     to work with trade unions to oppose the Bill;

4)     build support for the TUC lobby of Parliament on 2nd November.