'KITCHEN SINK!': Kier REPORT in the FT

'Kier investors get that sinking feeling as they smell another Carillion'

Editor:  BELOW is a report in the FT published yesterday

and written by Matthew Vincent:

FOR new chief executives, “kitchen sinking” is a business tactic — dishing all the dirt on a company’s falling profit, higher costs and rising debt in one go, in an early trading update. For contractor Kier, kitchen sinking is also a business in itself — fixing domestic plumbing for local authorities, housing associations and private landlords, in one visit, in “responsive repairs”.

In fact, its website features an employee with his hand up a kitchen U-bend. So it was perhaps not surprising that Kier’s chief of seven weeks, Andrew Davies, was also elbow-deep in unpleasantness on Monday: warning that a £40m plunge in profit would mean falling back into debt only months after a £265m fundraising.  Commentators quickly donned the rubber gloves. FT Alphaville called it a “massive kitchen sink profit warning . . . an Olympic sized-bath”. Stifel’s analyst saw it as “a clearing of the decks” if not the draining board. The Independent feared for the crockery: “If he is indulging in kitchen sinking . . . he’s playing a dangerous game”. But it is arguably far worse — because Mr Davies’ sink is so very small. He is only dumping £15m of bad news into it, which is the hit from accelerating his cost-cutting plans. All of the other £25m reduction in profit is from a circa-£250m collapse in revenue from Kier’s day-to-day highway, home maintenance and building operations, which he cannot manipulate with a pair of Marigolds.

If all £40m had been simply kitchen sinking, analysts and shareholders would have not held their noses.  Instead, Liberum downgraded its target share price for the second time in two weeks, from £6 to £4 to £3.20 — and it serves as Kier’s own broker. But investors felt £1.60 was the low water mark, giving the group a market value of only two times its revised earnings. Why? Because, if this is not kitchen sinking, it really stinks. It proves that all of the financial forecasts made at the time of last December’s rights issue — under previous chief Haydn Mursell — were wrong. How else could Kier raise a net £250m of new funds explicitly to strengthen its balance sheet but now warn of a return to net debt by its June 30 year-end? As Brewin Dolphin investment manager John Moore put it: “It has broken trust with investors, which does not bode well.

It also smells horribly like Carillion, the government contractor that collapsed in early 2018, after its debt spiralled as its working capital ran out.  Who would not be concerned when both Liberum and Peel Hunt, Kier’s other corporate broker, estimated a £30m to £40m working capital outflow this year? As Mr Moore added: “Comparisons will be made with the likes of Carillion and, indeed, Kier has lots of complex long-term contracts and individual subsidiaries, which makes for an opaque situation.” Kier is at least less murky than Carillion in three ways. First, it is not reliant on a few huge low-margin construction contracts — it has about 500, and 90 per cent of them are for £10m or less. Second, it is profitable — it will still make £130m this year; Carillion made billion-pound losses. Third, its chief is yet to roll up his sleeves on a new strategy — he will give details on July 30. However, if he cannot cut more costs, and dare not ask investors to back a second rights issue, his strategy will need to be much more straightforward than a kitchen sink U-bend: sell assets to pay down more debt — before investors, or lenders, pull the plug.  Woodford: For Sale sign?

Purplebricks, the struggling online-only estate agent, is trying to persuade reluctant home sellers that they will not have to “do it all themselves”, in TV adverts citing the support it offered to “Sarah and Dom”, “Neil and Glynis” and “Daisy and Chris”. But it seems there is one couple only too happy to arrange a Purplebricks deal entirely on their own: outgoing founders Michael and Kenny Bruce. On Monday, it was revealed that they had sold their respective 11 and 2 per cent stakes directly to Axel Springer, the German media group, which already had a 12.4 per cent shareholding. For Purplebricks’ new management, this DIY deal provides a clean break with the past — and a failed overseas strategy — as well as even more committed backer of digital businesses. For Axel Springer, the DIY deal provides a way to avoid an overhang of stock in the market, and to a send a message that it is doubling its bet on a share price recovery. But for crisis-hit fund manager Neil Woodford, it may provide something even more desperately needed: a buyer for his 29 per cent Purplebricks stake. On the day that the Woodford Equity Income fund had to suspend trading as it scrambles to sell assets and meet redemptions, the Springer deal creates a possible exit. It would now take only one phone call from Springer to Woodford to do a deal for the whole group. If only all estate agent conversations could be so simple.

matthew.vincent@ft.com

****************

Reply to Manchester Cllr. John Leech

by Les May

IT would not be reasonable to expect John Leech to be fully aware of why the response of Councillor Kelly and the other Liberal Democrats to the electoral fraud by Councillor Faisal Rana is considered to be wholly inadequate.   So I will provide some background.

This is what I wrote in the period just before the council meeting which was asked to consider the matter.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-breach-of-trust.html

After I had been informed that he had written to the Chief Executive I wrote.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/10/rochdale-tory-motion-mocks-multiple.html

Writing to the Chief Executive, or in the case of the Conservatives, putting down a motion, is the equivalent of what I would call ‘Resolutionary Socialism’. You pass a resolution and expect it to change the world. It doesn’t, it’s just the lazy way of appearing to do something.

In particular I would like to draw attention to the following passage in what I wrote which was taken from the Pickles’ review into electoral fraud, Securing the Ballot

‘Electoral fraud and corruption is intertwined with other forms of crime as well. Local authorities have a large procurement role.  A group of people who cheat their way to power are unlikely to hold a higher moral standard when handing out public contracts, or when making quasi-judicial decision on planning and licensing. Electoral registration fraud is connected with financial crime

and illegal immigration.’

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/securing-the-ballot-review-into-electoral-fraud

In view of the above the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives ought to be protesting loud and long and often, that a self confessed electoral fraudster has been given any responsibility for finance in the town. They are not.

Unfortunately in Rochdale it isn’t only fellow councillors who turn a blind eye to improper behaviour by one of their number. We have council officers who will do anything to avoid admitting that they turned a blind eye to the fact that Councillor Rana failed to declare his interests within the 28 day period after his election, as he was required to do.

This is what the guidance to councillors from the Department for Communities and Local Government says:

When you are first elected, co-opted, or appointed a member to your council or authority, you must, within 28 days of becoming a member, tell the monitoring officer who is responsible for your council’s or authority’s register of members’ interests about your disclosable pecuniary interests.

Note the word ‘must’, it could not be clearer could it? Rana did not do it, and the Monitoring Officer turned a blind eye. What sort of a town do we live in?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240134/Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf

***************

Manchester LibDem Boss Upbraids NV on Critique

 BELOW John Leech, the leader of the 

LibDems on Greater Manchester Council,

queries Northern Voices, over its criticism of Andy

Kelly and the LibDem opposition on the Labour 

dominated Rochdale Council. 

Dear Brian

I would have thought that this is something you ought to be taking up with Rochdale Labour Councillors, who have given Cllr Rana this role. I am also not sure what you are suggesting in relation to Cllr Andy Kelly. He has an excellent attendance record at Council, and I think has only missed one Council meeting in 8 years. I know from personal experience that it is very tough to attend everything when you are the only Councillor, and I think that Cllr Kelly has done an excellent job of holding the Labour Council to account.

Kind regards

John Leech

Election Fraud Rewarded with Finance Job

Why is 'Two Votes' Rana Welcome on Rochdale Town Council?

Cllr. 'Two Votes' Faisal Rana

LABELLED by Private Eye as a 'Rotten Borough' because of its Council's tolerant acceptance of Cllr. Faisal Rana's mis-doings in helping himself to two postal votes when he was elected in May 2018 local elections, the Rochdale Labour Party has now decided to reward him with the Cabinet position of Assistant Portfolio Holder for Finance.  

It is not the first time that the self-confessed fraud Cllr. Rana has held this position, he was in the job before he accepted a caution from the Greater Manchester Police for election fraud.  As a concession he humbly stood down at that time, and it was argued that he had been punished for his untoward behaviour at the time.

Fortunately the Lib Dem and Conservative opposition to the Labour Party administration on Rochdale Council is about as floppy as a bunch of wet lettuces and are unlikely to refuse to work with the blatant fraudster Cllr. Rana the Councillor for Spotland and Failinge ward.  When a no confidence motion against Cllr. Rana was put to the Rochdale Council, the Labour Councillors, as expected backed the fraudster, but for some reason the leader of the Lib Dems didn't show for the vote.

It should in fairness to Cllr. Rana be pointed out that he has a large property portfolio in Rochdale and beyond,. This may have impressed the council leader Allen Brett and perhaps is the reason he got the assistant Finance portfolio job.

We must await further developments to see if anyone has the guts to oppose Cllr. Rana's new appointment.  Who knows perhaps Rochdale Council will again come to the attention of Private Eye's Rotten Borough's coloumn?.

*************

Tommy Robinson & Blow Up Dolls

by Les May

SOME people live out their erotic fantasies with blow up dolls. Others, if you will pardon the expression, ‘get their rocks off’ by inflating the importance of minor political figures, then having first built them up, they attack them to demonstrate their own impeccable anti-racist/fascist/nazi credentials.

I’m sure Tommy Robinson is grateful for the publicity he gets from this treatment. He’s no fool. He knows that every stunt he pulls will generate predictable outrage from ‘the left’ and so double or triple his news value.  A cool appraisal of his activities shows a lack of coherence.  What I gathered from his election leaflet is that he would make as much trouble as possible in the European parliament if he was elected and he was going to give his salary to the victims of sexual grooming. Get the violins out!

Attacking Robinson by trying to suggest that what he stands for is synonymous with the political systems of Italy and Germany in the 1930s and 40s may give some people the cosy glow that they are ‘fighting Fascism’.  They’re not, they are posturing.

As a child I knew men who really had fought the Nazis.  A childhood friend grew up without the father who had died being part of that fight.  I was educated by a man who became a Quaker after the horror of what he had seen in the war.  In one of my first jobs I worked with a man who had chased the Nazis out of Italy after that country surrendered.   Don’t dishonour these men by posturing.

Next time you hear a man claiming that he is ‘fighting Fascism’ by shouting at Tommy Robinson and his ilk, ask yourself this question; Do I think he would change places with just one of the men who landed on the beaches of Normandy on 6 June 1944?  I wouldn’t; would you?

**********

Does Israel Interfere In UK Politics?

by Les May

HERE’s a little test.  Which of these stories are you prepared to dismiss a priori as untrue a priori?  In other words they must be fabrications because they could not possibly be true.  So here we go.

1. Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election.

2. Russia sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 referendum.

3. Israel sought to discredit the then Deputy Foreign Minister Alan Duncan because he has expressed support for the Palestinian civil rights.

There are plausible reasons for believing the first two.  Whilst Trump has been the focus of media attention in reporting the Special Counsel Investigation the Mueller team indicted thirteen Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency and twelve members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group group known as Fancy Bear .  There are ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum being undertaken by the Electoral Commission and Parliament’s Culture Select Committee.  Data released by Twitter in 2018 identified 3,841 accounts of Russian origin affiliated with the Internet Research Agency.

So what about the third story? Unlike the first two where there is no ‘smoking gun’ we have video evidence that the story is true.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/07/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-caught-on-camera-plotting-to-take-down-uk-mps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pddH2sfNKNY

This is how the Jewish Chronicle reported it

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/regev-apologises-1.430254

and the comments from Al Jazeera the broadcaster responsible for the film

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/israel-lobby-headlines-resignations-calls-probe-170113110120893.html

The ease with which some commentators can turn an attack on an Israeli policy into an attack on British Jews can be seen in this article in the Times of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-jewish-leaders-slam-mp-for-attacks-on-israel-poisonous-slur-against-british-jews

If you have the patience to view all four of the Al Jazeera films about how Israel is seeking to covertly influence UK politics and the way in which the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is discussed you will note that one of the concerns expressed is that new Labour MPs do not feel it necessary to join the Friends of Israel group.  What is of interest is that the Labour MPs referred to were the 2015 intake, in other words long before Jeremy Corbyn was even a twinkle in Momentum’s eye.

The suspension of Peter Willsman from the Labour party is following an all too familiar path.  Tom Watson claims his remarks were ‘offensive’; Stella Creasy tweeted:  ‘Anyone who supported Willsman for the NEC after the first outburst needs to hang their head in shame they indulged this hatred’. I’ve searched to find a recording of what Willsman said and cannot find it.  All I have found is commentary. Have either of these two done any better?

One thing Willsman has been reported as saying is ‘… it’s almost certain who is behind all this anti-Semitism against Jeremy, almost certainly it’s the Israeli embassy.’   Offensive?  Hatred?  On the basis of what we know the Israeli embassy has got form on this one.

As for whether the Labour party has been infiltrated by outside bodies intent on changing its policies. It’s happened before, just think Militant and watch the videos.  You too Mr Willsman.

Cllr. Rana commited the crime, did he do the time?

 

by Brian Bamford & Les May

with help from Carl Faulkner

Last year Allen Brett Rochdale's council leader said Cllr. Rana had ‘stepped away’ from his cabinet responsibilities.

ON the 16th, August 2018 businessman and big time Rochdale landlord, Cllr. Rana, was said to have 'stepped away' from his responsibilities as assistant to the finance portfolio holder Labour leader Allen Brett. It must be a cosy relationship.   In August last year Cllr. Rana was outed as a vote swindler by Carl Faulkner for falsely claiming two postal votes, Council leader Brett was quick to defend Cllr. Rana.   

After expressing initial regret Brett said:  'Naturally I am disappointed in Cllr. Rana's error [but] he is a very talented individual who shares our collective passion to improve our borough.’

Now the landlord Rana, who duped the electorate in 2018, is now comfortably back in the saddle next to the boss-man Brett. 
 
Who says crime doesn't pay?

Cllr. Rana must be very talented to purloin two postal votes for himself out of the British electoral system and to now land a top job helping the Council leader Cllr. Brett to run the town's financial affairs. There are not many of us that could do that and get away with it.

Farooq Ahmed, who was in charge of finance in 2014, was not so lucky as Cllr. Rana; when a fellow Labour Councillorr Neil Emmott claimed he had been the victim of a homophobic remark from Cllr. Ahmed.  Cllr. Ahmed was alleged to have warned him to 'mind his back' in an altercation on Cheetham Street in Rochdale.  Cllr. Emmott was at the time working for the now disgraced Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, who ultimately left the Labour Party under a cloud.   Cllr, Ahmed ended up leaving the Labour Party after he was convicted of a public order offence.

It's a strange world in which someone guilty of a public order offence loses his position as head of Finance, while a self-confessed election fraudster keeps his job.  Perhaps poor Cllr. Ahmed, who is of Bangldeshi origin didn't put his nose in the right place, or maybe he simply didn't own enough real estate in Rochdale.

***********

You Gov shows LibDem in lead

 THE latest YouGov poll shows the pro-EU Remain party in the lead ahead of the Brexit party with the Conservative and Labour in the joint third place.

**********

The People Have Spoken!

 But What Did They Say?

By Les May

WE live in a liberal democracy with representative government. What that means in practice is that every five years we elect an MP we think will best represent our views in Parliament.  That’s the democracy bit.  The liberal bit is that when laws are to be enacted it isn’t just that of the majority which are taken into account, our laws take into account the views of minorities.  We do not insist that Sikhs wear crash helmets and we tolerate ritual slaughter of animals which many people, including me, find an abomination in a civilised society.

It is our acceptance of the idea of liberal democracy which distinguishes us from totalitarian states in which only one view is tolerated and other viewpoints are ignored or suppressed.

Liberal democracy in Britain is under threat and it is under threat from those who should uphold it most strongly, some of our MPs, not a majority of them, but a significant and noisy minority.  They claim legitimacy for ignoring the views of anyone but those who think like them, by telling us that they are seeking to enact ‘the will of the British people’ as expressed in the 2016 referendum.

A week ago ‘the British people’ had another opportunity to express their will. Only 35% of votes were cast for parties which insist that they can ignore the views of the 48% of people who voted not to leave the EU in 2016.  Hardly a ringing endorsement for abandoning the basic principle of liberal democracy.

If we are to continue to live in a liberal democracy then we need to face down those who insist that they, and they alone, have a right to determine how we leave the European Union.   Unless we do this we are allowing them to take the first tentative steps to totalitarianism.  As the saying goes ‘Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

**********

From Outsourcing to Insourcing!

THE GUARDIAN today quotes a report by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) published today, shows that Stoke is far from unusual, with 77% of UK councils planning to bring services back in-house this year. And the report calculates that between 2016 and 2018, at least 220 local government contracts have been brought back into council control.

Labour ‘will ban’ outsourcing of public services to private firms

Outsourcing began under Margaret Thatcher with compulsory competitive tendering back in the 1980s and was embraced wholeheartely by New Labour. Now attitudes seem to be hardening against contracting out. “What we are seeing is a 40-year experiment in public service delivery being put under the microscope,” says Tom Sasse, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government.
The Labour party has pledged that under a Labour government all frontline services would be provided by the public sector, from railways to social care. Even the Conservative government has been forced to look again at outsourcing, renationalising probation services after outsourcing them disastrously failed. And in the NHS, the cervical cancer screening programme for England will be brought back into the health service later this year, after Capita failed to send more than 40,000 women screening invitations and reminder letters to have a smear test.

“A catalogue of failure has shown that private providers have struggled to generate profit and deliver services of the standards that the community expects,” says Paul Evans, director of NHS Support Federation.

“The rise in insourcing shows that commissioners are being forced to recognise this. Not all contracts display problems, but experience now shows that the risk is high.'
For many public sector bodies, bringing services back in-house is increasingly a pragmatic way to cut costs and improve quality. “On its own, it is not an absolute panacea, but there are significant advantages to bringing services back in-house,” says John Tizard, a former Capita executive and now a strategic adviser on public services.

According to today’s report, 78% of local authorities believe insourcing gives them more flexibility, two-thirds say it also saves money, and more than half say it has improved the quality of the service while simplifying how it is managed.

*************

Stockport Abandons Labour Party

 Forwarded by Joe Bailey

WHEN she resigned the Labour whip and left the party to serve as an independent in February, Stockport MP Ann Coffey cited Labour’s Brexit policy as a reason for her departure. The previous month she had conducted a poll of 4,500 households in her Greater Manchester constituency, asking for their views on Brexit.

Advocating a second vote, she said: “What is striking is that of those who responded 71% now feel ‘the people’ should have the final say on the Brexit deal and 72 % said that remaining in the EU should be an option in another referendum. Of those who replied to say they voted leave in 2016, 13% said they would now vote remain.”

With Coffey abandoning Labour after 27 years an MP, it is perhaps little surprise that her constituents followed suit in the European elections. Labour attracted 10,738 in the borough, coming a distant third behind the local victors, the Liberal Democrats (23,135), and the Brexit party, which came a close second (22,462).

The Greens were fourth with 10,705 and the Conservatives fifth with 5,451: a particularly poor show for a party with two out of four of Stockport’s MPs (William Wragg in Hazel Grove and Mary Robinson in Cheadle, both Lib Dem/Tory marginals). Change UK, Coffey’s new party, were sixth, with 2,599.

************

Unite, Len McCluskey & Labour's Squabble

YESTERDAY Len McCluskey accused Labour'a deputy leader, Tom Watson, of being a 'poor imitation of Machiavelli' as alleged rumours were rife of another challenge against Jeremy Corbyn's leadership following Labour's poor showing in the EU elections.

McCluskey's remarks matter because his union is a major paymaster for the Labour Party.  Judging by what he had to say he seemed to suggest that Sir Keir Starmer was likely to be a challenger for the leader's job.


The Unite union's policy agreed by the union’s 2016 policy conference made it clear that the union accepted the result of the 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union.  It also set out our union’s priorities for dealing with the process of Brexit, which included protecting jobs, defending employment rights, and opposing the racist backlash that the referendum campaign unleashed.

In June 2018, Unite even joined the National Shop Steward's Network (NSSN) which has long been dominated by the Socialist Party (formerly Militant).  The ideology of this group has been bitterly anti-EU and has been rooted in a belief in the old-fashion concept of the 'British Road to Socialism'.
The recent affiliation of McCluskey's Unite seems to have been encouraged by a decision by the NSSN in 2018 not to field candidates against the Labour Party in elections. 

By linking up with the hole-in-the-corner anti-EU Trotskyist NSSN must now suggest that Unite, which formerly backed Remain, is stuck in the BREXIT trough.

Sir Keir Starmer has now said a second referendum is the 'only way' to break the Brexit deadlock, after Labour suffered a mauling from voters in the European elections.

 Meanwhile,three former ministers are now daring Corbyn to sack them in solidarity with Alastair Campbell who was expelled yesterday for saying that he voted LibDem in the European elections.

Mr Corbyn's office has thus far refused to say if the trio would be expelled

**********

Politics of prediction: The EU & Brexit

 by Brian Bamford

TONY GREENSTEIN on his Blog last Saturday asked  'The Real Question is Why has Corbyn not Benefited from the Tory Crisis?  Commenting on the poll predictions for EU elections the writes:  

'The victors are, it is predicted the Brexit Party.  The second party is forecast to be the Liberal Democrats. Labour is forecast to be in third place. These are, of course predictions but if they are correct then a number of things need to be spelt out.'

He naturally issued his warning about these results being based on predictions, but now we know that the forcasts were largely spot on in terms of outcomes.  And as I write this, based on these outcomes people like both Nigel Farage and even Joanne Swinson of the Liberal Democrats, have made further predictions which are becoming more like what Karl Popper has called 'unconditional historical prophecies'.*

Tony Greenstein is clearly what is called a 'Remainer'  and on his Blogg he argues:
'Brexit, the desire to withdraw from Europe is not an anti-capitalist project.  People didn’t vote leave because they desired an independent socialist Britain. The primary force behind leave was the Right and far-Right. Euro scepticism of one variety or another is a Europe wide phenomenon.'

Mr. Greenstein warns that 'Corbyn has prevaricated and dodged for far too long' and he suggests on his Blogg is influenced by the old left-wing idea of the  'British Road to Socialism', or as he suggests is rooted in the concept that Tony Benn used to claim when he says Benn had said that 'the Common Market took away British sovereignty, as if workers and the poor had ever had control over their lives'.

I don't believe we can make unconditional historical prophecies about BREXIT or what will follow a 'No Deal Brexit'.  That kind of historism falls into the trap of vulgar Marxism.  Yet I believe we can make negative predictions like for example as when George Orwell suggested that the consequences of the 'Treaty of Versailles' would be bad but we couldn't predict that it would lead to the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler.  I would suggest that while I can't predict in detail what will happen with Brexit but I do believe that it will be bad for most of us.

* Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper (1963)

*********

John Ruskin Matters Exhibition

  'Joy For Ever' 
by Brian Bamford

YESTERDAY, I visited an exhibition at the Whitworth Art Gallery in Manchester:   'This exhibition responds to the 200th birthday of artist, art critic and social reformer John Ruskin with a joyful look at how to use art for social change.'

Part of this exhibition draws on the work of Goya and Hogarth to illustrate a point about their work as 'outsiders to critique and reflect on dysfunctional European society of their time:  'the nationalism, warfare, poverty, homelessness, abuse, corruption,,, all subjects that come under their forensic scrutiny.'

This work is labelled according to the descriptive note 'as conceived as Britain propels towards exit from the European Union' and, it says, that 'this  timely exhibition activates the work of Goya and Hogarth to raise questions of a tortured mind-set of Britain on the eve of Brexit'.

One of the engravings by Hogarth shows his satirical critique of the South Sea Bubble.  This is relevant because the subtitle to the exhibition is 'How to use art to change the World and its Price in the Market'.  

*************

Rochdale Councillor proposes cashless society . . .

  many locals  are there already!

by Anonymous 

24/05/2019  

IN the current edition of Manchester Confidential  the 'economist & Labour councillor' John Blundell argues with some conviction, (and no little irony I feel), that : 

'There is a whole industry involved in the printing, moving and securing of the nation’s cash and hundreds of millions of pounds will be saved by its eradication. Surely this money can be put to better use by helping those excluded from what should be a human right: access to a bank account and access to credit.

Further to this, strict privacy laws must be introduced to stop the government from peering into the accounts of people trying to obtain benefits. This is so that the long term unemployed, those in unstable employment or people without great means can have rainy day funds that aren’t eaten up by the benefits office when signing on, or for any other reason one might need a private cushion.'

A 'private cushion' indeed ?  For too many of our local citizens a hand to mouth existence is little more than soggy piece of cardboard to sit on as their only cushion for the economic reality of a cruel & brutal  economic system .  

'Some Groups', Blundell continues enthusiastically , 'mainly the very young and the old, will find it difficult to adapt and will need greater support. Sweden – that country famed for its uncaring laws and state – expects to go cashless by 2023 and is sorting out the ills of its society now so that the poor, the old and the disadvantaged don’t have to be at the sharp end of cash’s demise.' 

https://confidentials.com/manchester/cash-vs-cashless-daft-and-discriminatory-or-smart-and-inevitable

Councillor Blundell appears oblivious to the fact that for many in Rochdale the  'cashless society' is already a daily reality.  Particularly for those sanctioned by the DWP or in the midst of the interminable six week wait for Universal Credit.  As my contribution to the ongoing debate on the demonization and criminalisation of the Boroughs homeless & vulnerable by elements within Rochdale Labour Party who appear to have little or no clear understanding of the national homeless crisis could I take this opportunity to urge Councillor Blundell to open his eyes and urge his fellow Labour Councillors to affiliate to the national Labour Homeless Campaign an excellent and humane organisation who's web page proudly proclaims , that :

' Labour Homelessness Campaign have met and heard the stories of people on the streets across the country.  In Manchester, we met Jess – pregnant, homeless, and with no access to homeless services. Within 10 minutes we met four more people experiencing rough sleeping. They described being ‘harassed’ by the police and being fined and taken to court under the Vagrancy Act.

Labour Homelessness Campaign are calling for an end to this draconian policy and the criminalisation of homeless people. The mistreatment of homeless people is everywhere. As Labour members, we need to tackle this within our own party, first by working where Labour are already in power to ensure shelter for all.

An inhumane ‘move them along’ mentality is growing. In Westminster, rough sleepers have been moved on from the little warmth they have found, as it is suggested they disturb MPs getting to work. Two policies are in effect to this end: the Vagrancy Act, and Public Service Protection Orders (PSPO’s).

A study by the charity Crisis showed that 73% of rough sleepers experienced criminalisation in the last year. Between 2014 and 2017, 6,518 people were found guilty under the nearly 200-year-old Vagrancy Act and punishments can range from a fine to up to six months’ imprisonment. There is little that feels so blaringly idiotic as fining those who are homeless for being on the street.

Much like this outdated policy, PSPOs also allow councils to fine people. At least 60 councils have them in place. When Manchester City Council recently launched their PSPO consultation Andy Burnham claimed “it’s not about criminalising people who are sleeping rough or people who have got nowhere else to go.” Yet it explicitly identifies “putting up tents, seeking charity and other behaviour associated with rough sleeping” as reason to be served a PSPO – behaviour that is inevitable for many experiencing homelessness.

Slapping fines on people experiencing homelessness is never the answer. Rather than driving people out of city centres with PSPOs, Labour local authorities should be defending the rights of rough sleepers to exist in public spaces like anyone else. As the Labour Homelessness Campaign, we advocate for an approach of care, not criminalisation.

Empty properties serve no value to society. We should be helping lives, not landlords. Homeless people need homes and the right to exist in public spaces. What is really damaging society after all: a tent for temporary accommodation, or 597 homeless people dying on our streets whilst houses stay empty? 

Perhaps  John and his fellow 'socialists ' in Rochdale CLP can after listening to informed opinion finally show some solidarity with the  Borough's homeless & dispossessed victims of over a decade of Tory Austerity and add their names to the Labour Homeless Campaigns Open Letter ? Which states :

End the criminalisation of the homeless

As Labour Party members, and supporters, we welcome the announcement by the Labour leadership that it will repeal the 1824 Vagrancy Act once the Labour party is in government, but more needs to be done to end criminalisation of homelessness. The Vagrancy Act makes it a crime to sleep 'in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart of waggon, not having any visible means of subsistence'. People can be fined up to £1,000 and given a two-year criminal record under an act which specifically targets the most marginalised in our society, and thousands face arrest every year. 

The Vagrancy Act is just one segment of a system of criminalisation of people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) can make it illegal to beg or sleep rough within a given area. A raft of other ‘anti-social behaviour’ measures, from Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) to dispersal orders, give police and councils powers to move rough sleepers on, or give them a hefty fine. A study by the charity Crisis showed that 73% of rough sleepers experienced some kind of criminalisation in the last year. People experiencing homelessness can be intensely vulnerable. Too often these measures trap people in a cycle, faced with fines they cannot pay and with a growing mistrust of those official council services they should be turning to for help. 

No more can we threaten to fine people who have nothing. No more can we accept legislation which targets rough sleepers as criminals, when they are far more likely to be victims of harassment, violence and abuse. We're calling for an end to the Vagrancy Act, and for councils and police forces to cease using all measures which ban begging and rough sleeping or target those experiencing homelessness. 

Homelessness is effectively a criminal offence. We’re demanding a different approach.'  

On the day that Britain's 'Plastic Thatcher' was forced from office the history books will recall no doubt less the crocodile tears of a failed PM but the shaming statistics published within hours of the Premiers resignation speech ,stating : 'child homelessness has increased by a staggering 80% since the Conservative Party came to power in 2010 ' (The Independent ) and that:

'Thirteen of the 15 local authorities worst affected by homelessness are run by Labour.

 'Labour councils are faced with an enormous challenge but also an opportunity for radical, empowering, socialist homelessness policies. This is an opportunity to show what socialism in power can mean.' (The Fabian ).  

History is as we know an unruly and at times unpredictable student. However their can be little doubt that the future - if there is to be one - will not look back with grace or particular favour on the outdated attitudes and actions of many within our local political class who will be held up to critical scrutiny & opprobrium for their inoffensive & insensitive views on the homeless in the same way we look in contempt with those in the past who were apologists for the hated means test , the Workhouse and the dumping of the poor or the infirm on the other side of the County Parish Boundary. It really is time Rochdale Council got with the programme and heeded calls from progressive voices such as Labour Councillor Shaista Aziz who wrote in the latest edition of The Fabian :  
'The Labour Homelessness Campaign is a grassroots group of Labour members who are acting in solidarity with people experiencing homelessness. We’ve seen the incredible work that’s being done on the ground by overstretched homelessness services. But we’ve also identified a problem: for many experiencing homelessness, there has been a breakdown of trust with officialdom.

As a Labour councillor, it has been saddening for me to speak to rough sleepers who do not believe their Labour council or official homelessness services are on their side.  It has been maddening to talk to grassroots homelessness campaigners around the country who have found themselves campaigning against the policies of their Labour council.  While I know as well as anyone the incredible pressure austerity has put on council budgets, it’s time for us to start listening to these voices.

People on the streets are often treated like criminals, all too often by Labour councils.  The 1824 Vagrancy Act means rough sleepers or those begging can be fined up to £1,000, imprisoned and given a criminal record.  Thousands of people are prosecuted under the act every year – most for ‘aggressive begging’.  The definition of ‘aggressive begging’ in some local authorities includes begging within 10 metres of an ATM.

In addition to this, a raft of antisocial behaviour legislation is used against people experiencing homelessness. Public space protection orders (PSPOs) can make it illegal to sleep rough or beg in certain areas.  We’ve worked with people handed community protection notices (CPNs) threatening £20,000 fines for sleeping rough.  Criminal behaviour orders (CBOs) and dispersal orders can also be used by councils and police to drive rough sleepers out of certain areas. Seventy per cent of criminalisation experienced by rough sleepers isn’t formal application of these criminal orders but rather informal ‘moving-on’ or threats of further action.  When we use these orders we are driving the very people who have nowhere else to go out of our public spaces.

This is why the Labour Homelessness Campaign is campaigning for an end to all forms of homelessness criminalisation.,

When we wonder will the penny finally ever drop with Rochdale Councillors like Blundell and those like him ?

*****************