THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE of Solidarity Trade Union has condemned the £81bn package of spending cuts announced by Con-Dem Chancellor of the Exchequer,
George Osborne.

In later articles we will comment on the specific cuts as and when they happen.

However, we feel that these cuts – announced on ‘Axe Wednesday’ (20/10/2010) – represent an attack on the most vulnerable people in Britain.  The elderly, weak, young, unemployed and others will find themselves worse off than ever before.

The situation will be made even worse with nearly half a million public sector workers (who provide key services) loosing their jobs.

Solidarity cannot understand why Osborne has targeted the public sector in such a way.  After all, it was the private sector – the banks and the speculators – that got us into this mess in the first place.  We feel that sorting out the whole banking system is the key to the problem.

STU General Secretary, Pat Harrington, said:

“On a national level, we will be opposing the cuts.  In fact, once again, we’re calling for a broad front campaign to fight the cuts.  We first mentioned this a year ago.  As well as the trade union movement, we need to involve all political parties, community groups, the churches and any other interested groups or individuals.

On a local level, we will be providing advice and defending our members who find their livelihoods under threat.

However, we have a gut feeling that the problems we face lie much deeper than the recent ‘credit crunch’.  Britain is supposed to be the sixth richest country in the world, yet it seems to have to endure endless cycles of boom and bust.  We need to find out why.  And we need to examine why we have poverty in the midst of plenty.” 

Mr. Harrington noted that Solidarity has already announced its intention to examine any and all ideas relating to the banking system. As well as this, we will also be looking into practical alternatives to the banks.

Returning the question of the scale and scope of the cuts, he said:

“On a personal level, I would also query why foreign aid has been increased by 37 per cent and ring-fenced.  Many folks would say that, in these difficult circumstances, we should live by the concept that ‘Charity Begins at Home’.  At the very least there needs to be some sort of national debate on this subject.

I’d also like to know how much it is costing for Britain to maintain a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Let’s put aside the fact that, to my mind, these were immoral, illegal, and imperialist wars.  What is the cost – in pounds and pence on a daily basis – of Britain’s subservience to the US military industrial complex war-machine?”
 

Comments

Jostply

+3

 

 

Foreign aid is being increased by 37% because that's what most people voted for at the last election, whilst any parties (such as the BNP) who opposed this measure were comprehensively defeated. I just wish we had a different form of democracy, in which people were held more accountable for their own actions (so that, for example, those individuals who voted for the Lib-Lab-Con establishment would have to pay for the foreign aid themselves, and be conscripted into the armed forces to fight in Afghanistan) as I think that this would result in fairer policies.

Monday 25 October 2010, 18:13

NOPOLITICALLEVY

+3

 

 

I think you're absolutely spot on. When people argue that "we" need to be in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran next; just tell them:- "not we,you.You go and fight if you beleive this jive talk about keeping Britian's streets safe. Sell up take your family and money and go fight your "enemy" in any way you can".That usually shuts them up when it's their lives on the line and not some 19 year soldier's life.

Wednesday 27 October 2010, 14:03

Toiler2010

+4

 

 

The foreign aid budget should be cut. Many of the countries in receipt of our donations have plenty of natural resources and could perhaps be more willing to develop their economies if the feeding bottle of our taxpayers' money was withdrawn. That the leaders of many "impoverished" countries enjoy luxury lifestyles tells its own story.

Why should there be payment to help out foreigners while even just one single Briton remains in need?

Pat Harrington's questions regarding the cost of our continued involvment in the messes of Iraq and Afghanistan are spot-on and deserve answers from our craven politicians who swan about their comfy clubs and sunny holiday homes while our troops die for a cause that is none of Britain's business.

Bring the troops home now!

Monday 25 October 2010, 19:08

NOPOLITICALLEVY

+2

 

 

Your comment is spot on. Career politicians eager to gain promotion within politics should go and fight in Afghanistan because when they say that:- "we need to be over there to make our streets safer" that "we" includes them. Besides that the real enemy is already within this country and on our streets.

Thursday 28 October 2010, 10:11

rizla

+3

 

 

In light of the massive cuts the British tax payer will have to endure, the foreign aid budget is an absolute disgrace,the vast majority of British tax payers do not want their money spent on educating kids in India. Cuts and hardship for the givers and massive subsidies for their weapons platforms and space programs.

Stop foreign aid. Stop mass uncontrolled immigration. Withdraw from Afghanistan and pull out of the single EU State.

81 Billion is not so hard to find.

Tuesday 02 November 2010, 13:50

Shoreditch

+3

 

 

I’ve heard from a ‘friend of a friend’ that there’s some strange goings on in the Civil Service in Northern Ireland.

Apparently their Planning Service is undergoing a bit of a shake up. It appears that whilst AA/AO grades aren't classed as mobile, everyone else is. This means that the Civil Service can move (or ‘transfer’) staff anywhere they feel like.

There’s a feeling that staff are being deliberately ‘offered’ really inconvenient moves – thus someone living in Belfast could be transferred miles away to Coleraine. Staff are allowed to turn down one transfer, but it’s said that if they turn down the second they are effectively making themselves unemployed!!

It’s even been alleged that some in the Planning Service believe that the staff names were put in a hat to see what order they were leaving in!

(There also seems to be disquiet about the role of the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance – NIPSA – which is the ‘trade union representing members across the civil and public service and the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland.’)

I wonder if this is part of some government scheme to slash public-sector jobs? Also, is it confined to Northern Ireland or is it UK-wide? Are their any Civil Servants out there who can shed any light on this?

Monday 08 November 2010, 18:50

Please login to post comments or replies.