Letter: Save adult single ticket books!

 Lothian_Bus

Dear NEN

As an organisation responsive to the needs of vulnerable people I thought that you might be concerned by the decision of Lothian Buses to stop selling books of adult single tickets.

These tickets are bought by a number of services including many hostels, day centres and food banks. These tickets are used to enable individuals to get to health appointments and engage with vital services.

This decision by Lothian Buses restricts the ability for services to offer such provision. Lothian buses say that paper tickets bought in advance make up less than 1% of total sales. However, these less than 1% are made up of some of the most vulnerable people in our city.

Please sign if you agree with this petition by clicking the link below:

Please circulate around your networks. If you have any questions about this then please email me.
Also, if your service is impacted by this then please let me know how.

Many thanks,

Paul Stevenson

Email: mrpaulstevenson@gmail.com

 

Letter: Crocodile tears over EU exit

euro flags

Dear Editor

Tory politicians and others who the UK to leave the EU are extremely vocal about being able to trade as usual after leaving: they know, of course, how many people depend on this trading for their jobs, so seek to assure them.

If this is so, what other reasons do they have for wanting to leave – and more importantly whose interests are they concerned about?

Their main unspoken objective is to abolish all EU regulations dealing with working and social conditions, health and safety regulations and the environment – all of which have been of great benefit to people working in the UK.

On working conditions, for example:

  • A maximum working week of 48 hours
  • A minimum break of 11 hours rest between working days
  • A minimum break of 24 hours from work in seven days, in addition to the daily 11 hours rest
  • Annual leave entitlement of four weeks minimum
  • Night work of eight hours maximum in 24 hours
  • Equal opportunities for women and men
  • Pregnancy, maternity and parental leave
  • Prohibition of discrimination on sex, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation grounds

So what do they object to – and why?

These regulations can always be improved by the UK Government; the same applies to health and safety and environmental reguations and others that have been of great benefit to the people of the UK.

But this is not their intention, of course – quite the reverse! This is why they want to get out, while shedding tears over how much they care!

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

 

 

Letter: Bring back free special uplifts

Dear Editor

A major problem facing people in Edinburgh is how to dispose of or recycle large unwanted household items. The absence of a free council-run collection service as part of normal recycling leads to the serious issue if dumping.

The scheme currently in place – a charge of £21 to collect up to six items – is unbelievable in it’s lack of understanding people’s ability to pay, or hwo to tackle the problem of disposal if they cannot.

The City of Edinburgh Council must immediately start a free collection service for unwanted household items: this will not only benefit it’s citizens but protect the reputation of Edinburgh as a city worth visiting.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: who cares?

hands

Dear Editor

By the middle of 2016 all patients who have limited life time left will receive palliative care treatment.

In the past there have been other ideas; for example the ‘Liverpool Pathway’ treatment which is now seen as bad practice and was stopped.

A full public explanation of palliative care is urgently needed to give assurance that this latest scheme is based on enhanced individual care, carried out by adequatel numbers of staff fully trained in enhanced caring.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: False economy of funding cuts

NEDAC to close (2)

Dear Editor

Cuts in funding local authority services are happening again this year and will affect every person in varying degrees and add to the contraction in public services: services that are necessary and needed.

There are also other services provided daily by other organisations, mostly run by volunteers with some financial help from the council: these too are facing drastic cuts. Day Care clubs, lifelong learning and literacy classes, mentla health support,, befriending, support and information services, classes of all kinds and -very importantly – community transport to and from activities.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are helped out of isolation every week with all the benefit – both mental and physical – stemming from these services. Curtailing existing funding to these organisations is not only false economy but will see a deterioration in the health of those people affected, causing a far greater expenditure in other health and care costs.

The councils must rethink their attitude to these services – and, above all, their attitude to PEOPLE.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: look beyond the label

Dear Editor

Anyone who proposes a solution to a work/life problem from a trade unionist or socialist point of view is rapidly given the label of ‘trouble-maker’ or ‘agitator’. This tactic is far easier to use than advancing an opinion on the issue.

Industries and businesses want to make as much profit as possible, employees want decent wages and conditions of employment and it is inevitable that a dispute will arise at some point over these issues.

Sensible employees have a trade union organisation to speak for them while the employers normally belong to an organisation that supports them. Sometimes no agreement is reached, and the only option left for the employee is the withdrawal of labour which, as a free person and not a slave, he/she is fully entitled to do.

This is where the tactics of giving labels is stepped up by some media to isolate the strikers in the eyes of the general public. This negative approach is used not only in disputes but across a wide range of issues that affect all our lives.

Despite this, however, much progress has and can be made if one looks beyond this divisive tactic and realise that next time, it could be you.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Give us the power!

Dear Editor

There can be very few households in the UK who are not worried by their gas and electricity bills. The advice usually given is to shop around for lower tariffs, but this is no permanent solution. The absolute necessity for everyone to afford adequate fuel supplies is overwhelming but it seems that a few major suppliers have a near monopoly on the industry – and have been making millions of pounds profit.

Just a few examples:

£139 million Scottish Gas, February 2015

£549 million SSE, November 2015

£528 million British Gas (first six months 2015)

£860 million EDF, February 2014

£1.5 BILLION Southern Electric, Jan 2014

And yet there are perhaps millions of people who cannot afford adequate heating!

By any measure, this situation cannot go on like this in the 21st Century. As an essential necessity energy supplies MUST become  publicly-owned industries, working in the interests of everyone; profits made not for private individuals or groups of investors but used to reduce prices and to maintain efficient industries.

Energy supplies must be seen as important to the people of the UK as the NHS has proved to be. Maximum unity of working people is needed to press for these vital public services: it is up to us.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens 

Letters: a community response to Edinburgh’s Budget Challenge

CaltonHill

On the final day for comments on the city council’s budget proposals, local Power to the People group made the following submission:

Dear Gillian Tee

Members of North Edinburgh Power to the People group have prepared the following response to Edinburgh’s Budget Challenge.  We would like to begin by saying that we welcome Edinburgh Partnership’s commitment  to engagement and its acknowledgement that “the Partnership’s vision can only be fulfilled  by involving people and communities in decisions that affect them”.  We would like to point out however that consultation processes must be conducted in ways which the community finds meaningful  and  which take place within a realistic timescale.

We felt that the online  consultation  process  was an unacceptable way  to engage with local communities on  such serious matters.   We believe we have the right to be actively  engaged   in  decision making processes and that there should be opportunities  for  people in local communities to come together to discuss and respond  to these issues collectively.

We are unhappy that  the Council has chosen yet again to conduct a major consultation exercise  in the run up to the  Christmas holidays.  The last set of proposals were only made public at the end of November.   We would also like to point out that being allowed to decide what cuts we want to make to our local services is not community empowerment.

We believe that the majority of people in Edinburgh  are not aware of  the seriousness of the crisis facing the Council and do not appreciate the impact these proposals will have on essential public services.  

The proposals are very vague and lack the necessary detail in order to make  informed decisions.  If the Council genuinely want to hear people’s views, more detailed information is required which should be presented in an accessible manner.

With regard to the recommendations  relating to Community Learning and Development,   it is our belief that the reductions in budgets and staffing    will undermine universal provision and will result in the privatisation of  many important services.  We also feel that the loss of provision which will result from the cuts will   have a  greater impact on more disadvantaged communities such as ours where people are already experiencing significant hardship as a result of the present Government’s welfare reforms.

We would like  to draw your attention to Edinburgh People’s Survey which highlights a high level of dissatisfaction among  residents in the Forth Ward.  These findings  would suggest that more resources should be allocated to  our area  not less.

Most of our members are retired and we are concerned  that CLD’s work with adults does not appear to be a priority despite  this being a priority of the Scottish Government and the Council.  Cuts to workers, grants and changes to funding criteria will make Adult Education and Community Capacity  Building  work  almost impossible.    These proposals do not take into account  the needs of local people ie where they live, their ability to access services, what they want to learn about and get involved in.  This undermines universal provision, reduces choices for certain groups who are not seen as a priority  and goes against community empowerment.

We believe education (for adults as well as children) is an investment.

It achieves better outcomes for individuals, families and communities.  Reducing the  opportunities for adults to get involved in learning opportunities is short sighted and will have a negative impact on people’s life chances in poorer communities   We would like to remind you about  the Scottish Government’s pledge concerning Adult Education.  Their  Statement of Ambition recommends  the Adult Learning  should be Learning centred, Lifelong and Lifewide.   The Statement of Ambition also recommends that “Every adult in Scotland will have the right to access learning to meet their educational needs and their aspirations”.  We look forward to receiving your assurances that the Capital Coalition are committed to delivering this pledge.

Members of our group  are all actively involved in either managing community centres, helping to develop or participate  in the provision which takes place in centres.

We therefore  feel qualified  to make the following comments in relation  to the impact  of the proposals  on our centres:

Our  community centres in North Edinburgh  serve  a very large population.  We feel strongly that  work needs to be done to bring  more people into our centres and to encourage and develop community involvement.  We need more resources to do this effectively not less.

Our community centres  provide valuable  meeting spaces for the community to get together.  Valuable community  space will be lost  if centres become stuffed full of organisations and agencies who are competing for the same space. 

Centres play an important role  in prevention and early intervention and not just in relation to children.  They contribute to the health and well being of adults by reducing social isolation, providing opportunities for people to get involved,  to socialise  and develop networks and friendships.

Centres also play an important role in helping to promote community integration and cohesion.  They provide a safe space for  new people who move into the area to come to  and to integrate and feel a sense of belonging  We are actively involved in developing areas of work which we hope will help to promote multi-cultural understanding  and intergenerational work.  

Properly managed and adequately staffed centres, which are accessible to all sections of the community, provide significant social and financial benefits to the Council.  Community centres should be seen as an  important asset not a liability.

We would like make  the following recommendations as an alternative to the budget savings being proposed by Council officers:

  • The extension to the tramline should not proceed until  the findings   of the Inquiry into the tram fiasco has been published and lessons learned.
  • Councillors and officials should renegotiate the loan deal which is costing the city millions of pounds in interest payments which could be spent on our public services. The public should be told why this has not happened to date.
  • A Tourist Tax should be introduced in the city which  would raise a significant amount of income which could be used to  subsidise local services.
  • We understand that 25% of secondary school pupils  in Edinburgh attend private schools.  We believe that these schools should not have charitable status and be subsidised by the  tax payer.  It is our view that private schools should pay the same taxes and rates as our state schools.
  • Representatives from the Capital Coalition should make strong representations to the Scottish Government to abolish the council tax and replace it with a fairer  and more progressive tax which will enable local authorities to generate the necessary income to fund essential  public services.
  • Representatives from the Capital Coalition should  work with Scottish Government Ministers to make the case  for  a debt repayment holiday to ease the immediate financial burden on the city.  Our politicians should also be making the case for local authorities to keep more of the cash they raise through local taxes.
  • It is our view that a redistribution of wealth is required in order to address poverty and inequality in our communities and to ensure that public services are properly funded and available to all our citizens.

We look forward to hearing from you at the earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely

Anna Hutchinson, Linda Garcia and Cathy Ahmed

On behalf of North Edinburgh’s Power to the People Group

Letters: Something better change

Dear Editor

capitalism

For too long the working population has been told that decision-making on investment is the province of the wealthy and very well off, and it is they who create the nation’s wealth. The arrogance and stupidity of such a claim shows the value they place on the working population’s contribution to that wealth.

Listed below are a few respective contributions:

Investors: It takes minimum effort and little time of one day to move money around through financial markets seeking a higher rate of profit.

Workers: If employed full-time, spend the best part of one whole day working and getting to and from work.

Investors:  Their investment is usually short-term, then switching to maximise profit.

Workers: Their investment is life-long commitment to work.

Investors: Having the power of decision-making to hire and fire and even closing down places of work, showing no responsibility for workers or country.

Workers: Have lifetime commitment to home and provision for the family in all respects.

Investors: Employ tax lawyers to seek ways of reducing amounts due; alternatively hide their money in offshore tax havens avoiding tax altogether.

Workers: Income tax is taken from their wage packets, VAT on products and services.

Further, the political representatives of the wealthy have continued to starve local councils of funds to maintain community life, forcing savage cuts to all services. They now have the audacity to tell local councils to sell public assets of all kinds, buildings and land. This is where investors will step in to make a killing out of the people who created and paid for their public services, buildings and land, maintenance of parks, gardens, sports areas and open spaces.

Can all this be justified? The answer can only be NO, the way things are done must change, because if not there will be no end to the endless cycle of unemployment, hardship and unhappiness.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: a decent life for all

global-world

Dear Editor

Throughout history, systems under which people worked and lived have changed not automatically, but after long struggles.

The capitalist system, under which we now live, has changed from a national to an international one, where massive amounts of money are moved around the world daily, seeking the highest rate of profit, closing down industries regardless of where they are and the devastating effect on peoples’ lives.

International investors owe allegiance to no one, people or the planet: both are suffering in the name of ‘free markets’ (which is their slogan for ‘we are free to do what we like, anywhere we like’.) This global capitalism is incapable of solving problems; it is greedy and selfish, working only for the benefit of already wealthy people.

There is no law or rule that says things can never change: history has shown only people of nations can do that.

We here in the UK have made efforts over many years to show there is a better way, where the resources – both material and human – are used not to create wealthy individuals here or abroad but to create a decent life for all, and to leave a guaranteed future for coming generations.

Socialism can replace capitalism, because it is a system that works for all people, not just the few.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens