We got badly squeezed at the end when people thought (rightly) we risked a Tory government and so voted Labour even though they did not like them as they (rightly) thought Liberal Democrats would do a deal with Tories and let the the Tories in

Lots of our ‘definite’ voters changed their minds in last few days .

But we did get to know lots of really good people. We did put argument there is an alternative and we do not need cuts and can fight to defend jobs and services.

We definitely need to build this alliance now Tories look likely and are much better placed after election campaign in Gorton to do this.

Right to work conference in London on 22nd may is one start for this

So thanks again and we will keep in touch.

Election 2010: Manchester Gorton
Qassim Afzal (LD) 12,508
Tim Dobson (PP) 236
Justine Hall (Grn) 1048
Peter Harrison (CP) 254
Caroline Healy (Con) 4224
Gerald Kaufman (Lab) 19,000 plus
Karen Reissman (TUSC) 337
Mohammed Zulfikar (Respect) 507
Turn out 50.7%

Karen Reissmann spoke to activists as the polls closed in Manchester.

I must admit I have enjoyed the campaign, its been great! Meeting so many people, all those who have been out helping with the campaign. A big thank you to everyone!

Fighting in elections is part of fighting back. You can be sat at home miserable and frustrated in front of the TV, or be out taking the arguments about fighting back to people on the door steps. That is what is so enjoyable. Whatever the result, our campaign has already been successful. It has brought so many people together. We have met dozens of new people who want to get involved, who want to be part of resisting.

The new government, whoever they are, will bring in cuts that even we will be shocked by. We have seen what the fightback against cuts looks like in Greece. When the cuts come people will remember that one of us knocked on their door and talked about resisting. That is what our campaign was about.

We have not got a national profile like the other parties. This seat has moved from ‘safe’ Labour to a ‘marginal’ and two new arguments have now come up. People say that they agree with what we say about fighting the cuts, but if we get the Lib Dems then they will do a deal with the Tories – and so I am voting Labour to keep the Tories out. The other is that by voting Lib Dem we will get a hung parliament and then proportional representation will help people like us. There are more people who agree with us than will vote for us. People are thanking us for standing.

There is one more thing. Immigration has come up on the door step. We have taken the anti racist arguments head on. You have to put down a marker. It was not good enough for Gordon Brown to shout ‘biggot’. What about the fight for jobs and housing, for that we need to be united.

Election Special Question Time for staff, users and the public.

It was a well-organised event held in the friendly venue of The Cleveland in Crumpsall. MUN had invited a number of candidates to attend and it was pleasing to see some had accepted that invite in order to respond to questions about mental health– an area frequently under-prioritised in election campaigning. On the panel were Qassim Afzal, Liberal Democrat PPC for Manchester Gorton, James Edsberg, Conservative PPC for Blackley and Broughton, Caroline Healy, Conservative PPC for Manchester Gorton, Marc Ramsbottom, Liberal Democrat PPC for Manchester Central, Karen Reissmann, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition PPC for Manchester Gorton and Graham Stringer, Labour PPC for Blackley and Broughton.

Would candidates consider holding a local referendum in the cases of sacked health workers who had been ‘honest’ about the NHS?

A wonderful Question Time banner, made by school student Bobby Dowding, hung behind the candidates, and this contribution had been matched by an anonymous donation of £40 to support the meeting’s cost. The highly- skilled Chair, Paul Evans, having introduced the format – introductions, written questions and questions from the floor, asked the audience to take a minute’s silence to remember those MUN members not with us today. The questions were serious and excellent, covering both Manchester issues and wider points about mental health and the NHS. Candidates were, in the main, well-prepared, though had different views on how mental health services and issues could be solved and contextualised in a wider backdrop of public sector cuts and their own party policies. There were also some challenges to each others’ political positions and some passionate points from the audience members. Paul Evans gave the candidates equal and ample time to give their answers and the meeting ran smoothly throughout.

The words fair, fairness and change cropped up many times – with the main parties, in particularly, using these phrases as an attachment to their approaches. A summary of some their answers gives a small flavour of the candidate’s views.

Questions:

The first question asked how candidates would ensure that MUN groups could have a voice, given that Foundation Hospitals ‘personally select’ users to assess services?

The Conservative, James Edsberg, felt that how people have access to services was important and that consistency across the country was needed. They would address the issue of equal access to mental health services. Edsberg moved to a broader context, speaking of the ‘battle between Labour and the Tories,’ and that we needed a ‘clear result on Friday’ to make sure the NHS was not under threat. He added that there needed to be a better balance between the public and private sectors, contending that the private sector was a ‘wealth creator’ that supplied jobs. His colleague, Caroline Healy also mentioned the concept of the Big Society, arguing that the state could not provide everything. Lib Dems, Marc Ramsbottom and Qassim Afzal offered two points. Firstly, that users should be included in commissioning not just assessment of services and, secondly, that the Lib Dems favoured equality, fairness and empowerment. Karen Reissmann, TUSC, argued that trade unions elect their own representatives and the same should be true of users – they should be the determining voice. But she also remarked that people who speak out are often very vulnerable and are often afraid of any consequences of doing so – as such, she said, politicians have a serious responsibility to ensure they could speak out as they wished and must support them at each and every step. Graham Stringer, Labour, told us that if, in practice, discrimination existed then an MP would need to listen and take this up with the NHS – whether a Foundation hospital or not.

Question 2 posed this provocative point: would candidates consider holding a local referendum in the cases of sacked health workers who had been ‘honest’ about the NHS?

The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives said no, but felt that workers should be able to speak out; and that existing mechanisms, such as trade unions and tribunals assisted with that process. Reissmann contended that staff are not confident of speaking out about any problems in the NHS and that, for example, the Royal College of Nursing had reported that 67% of staff would not risk their livelihoods by speaking out. She spoke about the need for an open discussion by staff and users about the NHS without any ‘blocks’ or ‘fear.’ Stringer felt a referendum was a ‘bad idea’ and there were wider issues for the NHS. He believed people should be encouraged to expose problems, but the word ‘fear’ was too ‘glib’ a response from Reissmann.

Question 3 referred to how patients at Park House are being discharged, with debt, without access to a welfare rights officer. This service had been cut without consultation –would candidates support this service?

Reissmann declared yes, absolutely, she would support it – welfare rights officers should be a mandatory part of the service. The ‘myriad’ of benefits needed specialist and expertise support and that could only be done by a WRO. She said what was happening was a ‘disgrace’ as the service had been well-used in the past. She argued that a lack of access to such a service had the potential to put people who are unwell at risk. The Conservatives agreed in the main. Healy felt strongly that too many people were ‘tipped out’ of public services. She proposed that a better bridge between institutions and community are needed. Stringer added his approval, but remarked that it does not matter who provides the services, the state or the voluntary sector, while the Lib Dems felt that any elected MP should liaise with service providers, users and organisations to ensure full access to this service was given.

Then, an in-patient asked this: given suicide rates in Manchester had increased by 1/3rd over the last year, what changes in mental health services could help stop this dangerous situation?

The Conservative candidates prioritised reducing the stigma of mental illness, particularly in work settings. Edsberg argued that employers needed better training to ensure ‘fairness’ as many employees were worried they’d be passed over for promotion if they declared mental illness.

Afzal spoke about his work at the Roby Centre, the vitality of such services and further the need to address mental illness in the BME community. Ramsbottom pointed out the link between debt and suicide and the necessity of early intervention around access to support and benefits to help circumvent this problem. Stringer contended that other panellists were, however, ‘over-claiming’ what MPS can do. He proposed that statistics needed careful analysis in order to identify gaps in services and target accordingly, possibly introducing bespoke services where needed. Reissmann offered the point that suicide can occur when people feel hopeless about their future and that in spite of an increase to mental health funding, more was still needed. However, she argued that this needs to be matched by a deep consideration of the various contexts that create such despair – whether this is unemployment or the low level of benefits. She also pointed out that Labour had already announced nearly £1 billion worth of cuts to Greater Manchester NHS and that people need to band and work together to fight these cuts after the election.

Another questioner explained he was a ‘revolving patient’ and what did the parties’ manifestos say about guaranteeing Disability Living Allowance for the over 65s?

The Lib Dems replied that they had no plans to reduce any benefits but would have a review of public sector spending. They wanted to protect essential benefits and would use money earmarked for ID cards and a like-for like replacement of Trident, for example, as well as closing tax loopholes, to carry that pledge through. Stringer proposed that cuts were inevitable as there is a gap in the country’s finances. He did say, as a rejoinder to the Lib Dems, that he had voted against Trident and the Iraq war and had a very good record on these issues .He promised to fight to keep benefits as they are and provide pathways for employment

Healy said the Conservatives would be keeping Disability Living Allowance and would also offer a week’s respite for carers, who are often overlooked by the government. Reissmann recalled the 1980s when DLA was almost impossible to claim in terms of mental illness. She congratulated MUN on the way they had fought their corner to gain recognition. She argued that there appeared to be a systematic attack by government against people who are sick and a political choice about where to get money from, and who to give it to, was driving this attack. She contended that £130 billion went missing in unpaid taxes and loopholes, for example and it appeared the government would rather ‘bankrupt the working class than’ begin to fill the deficit by collecting those taxes.

The next questioner asked this: Could the panel discuss the idea that people in this country are not given recourse to public funds and services if their citizenship status was uncertain – and is this civilised?

Stringer said he had worked with Christian groups and had signed the Sanctuary Pledge. His conclusion was that the Asylum system was ‘inefficient’ and while his ‘instinct’ was to agree that the system was uncivilised he would have to say no: there were some ‘villains and worse’ in the system so citizenship needed granting first. Edsberg put forward the point that it was uncivilised because it took too long to determine status. He was very proud of the country being a ‘beacon of hope’ for asylum seekers but said the system was unfit for purpose. Reissmann argued that Asylum seekers are desperate, fleeing from countries like Iran, Afghanistan, the Congo and Iraq – often the trauma of persecution resulted in mental illness which requires an immediate response. She pointed out there were political contradictions in policy that enabled our engagement with war in countries from which people were fleeing, while saying they were not fully welcome here; not only should we be giving proper recourse to services, but we should also allow asylum seekers to work. The Lib Dems agreed on this last point, arguing that this was a serious issue and that in a civilised society asylum seekers would not be dependent upon charity. Ramsbottom declared that the Tories were being inconsistent as they wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act. Healy rejoined this by remarking that the EU’s Common Asylum Policy, supported by Labour and the Lib Dems, means the UK has little say over Asylum polices.

Another questioner, a nurse said she was deeply worried about cuts after the election. She said in the NHS there was a saying that voting for the Tories would be like ‘Turkeys voting for Christmas’ but that ‘voting for Labour’would be like’ voting or Easter – the cuts came a tad later’. What would candidates do to oppose cuts and privatisation in the NHS? Would the candidates pledge to keep beds – as people die without beds – and would they ensure NHS patients did not get ‘crumbs from the high table?’

The Conservatives responded by saying, firmly, that the Tories had made a pledge, unlike the other parties, in increase health spending and if we don’t stick to it ‘ you can kick us out.’ An efficiency review would, however, need to take place. Stringer told us not to elect the Tories – and not to trust them. He told the nurse she had a ‘rum view’ given Labour had increased the NHS budget. He argued that it would be ‘absurd’ to promise a guarantee over bed numbers, as treatment needs and solutions were always changing. He said we had to accept some change and that not every hospital closure was a bad thing, given new hospitals such as the MRI had opened.

Reissmann said that Stringer was indeed right in terms of the amount of money put into the NHS, but argued that the market mechanisms introduced under Thatcher and increased under successive governments meant that such new hospitals were paid for through the Private Finance Initiative. She stressed that this costs significantly more than building hospitals through the NHS. The Lib Dems agreed with Stringer about positive change, but said that it should never be incumbent on individuals to campaign for the NHS. Democratic structures were needed in the service to ensure that users had a real say over changes or closures.

The last three points were raised and responded to in conjunction. One man reported that he had been shocked to receive a bill for £1000 after being in a care home on temporary basis – this, he said, had affected his health. Another was worried that the Department for Works and Pensions was ‘pushing’ people back to work and that users were being assessed by ‘unqualified professionals.’ Finally, another man reinforced the query about charges for social care, reminding the panel that 82% of users in Manchester had been landed with huge bills by the Local Authority. What will the candidates do, therefore, about the poor and the vulnerable in such situations?

Stringer said that care contracts should ‘speak upfront’ to users about the cost. He was already taking up the issue of charging with the Local Authority and while it seemed the legal basis was sound he did not think charges should have been introduced. In terms of benefits and the back-to-work agenda, he believed in a sensitive approach so that those who could work were fully supported. He remarked that sometimes ‘people are talked into feeling they are unfit for work’ and if they want to work they needed support to do so. The Conservatives proposed that money should travel with individuals and that they would end a separation of health and social care budgets, adding that it was not the ‘right ethos’ for Stringer to say the contract should have ‘spoken upfront to the user.’ In terms of work, the candidates said those that are able should be fully supported into work but if they can’t they should not be forced and that is ‘fairness’.

Reissmann argued that no charges should exist for ill people. The NHS and Social Care should not be run on the basis of the ability to pay. She explained that there should indeed be a range of services in place to ensure those who wanted to work and could work were able to do so – but pointed out that being off sick can be a disciplinary offence. As such, those with mental health issues, who might have to take time off sick, need stronger employment rights – as did all workers. She claimed that every ‘ounce’ was being squeezed out of public sector workers and thus here was another set of contradictory responses from candidates who had spoken so far: that mental health services were a priority, but that workers with mental health problems were simply not. The Liberal Democrats position was to ensure constituents were able to access MPs who would fight for their rights – and added that charges seemed ‘unfair.’ Employers should support those with mental illness and that the level of work taken by people must be appropriate to their capacity and fitness. Further, poorly managed local authorities, such as Manchester City Council, exacerbated the problem.

With questions over, candidates summarised their beliefs, policies and ideas. Stringer offered the continued improvement of the NHS as a sign of Labour’s commitment to mental health services. Ramsbottom, for the Lib Dems, said the principles of freedom, rights and liberty remained at the heart of his party’s approach. He would fight discrimination and ensure equality. Reissmann contended that mental health services and users were often forgotten and she would continue to add to her 30 years as an activist and nurse to work with others to fight that corner and fight back against the cuts. .The Conservatives ended by saying that real change could come if people voted for David Cameron’s party and that a new Tory government would address all the issues raised today; they would not pay lip services but ensure a better NHS.

There was no doubt that the candidates had faith in their own policies and approaches. But what did the MUN members think? Alan Hartman, a founding member of the MUN said he felt ‘Karen Reissmann would prioritise mental health the most.’ He said he was ‘disappointed that some candidates, such as Sir Gerald Kauffman had not come today’ and hoped that further hustings – vital for every election – would see candidates giving mental health a priority in their schedule. Alan also remarked that there did seem to be ‘cross-party agreement over the need for a welfare rights officer at Park House,’ which he thought was encouraging. But he also said that MUN members had felt ‘intimidated’ because senior management from the Trust had appeared at this ‘political meeting to take notes.’ Politicians should take serious, serious note of Alan’s words and the shape of this Hustings. Some members could not come today because they are in-patients – yet rooms in hospitals are hard to book as service providers take up much space on a regular basis. When politicians talk about access and equality they might well want to think carefully about the resources needed to even begin to make that possible. They should also note that the word ‘intimidation’ stands in stark contrast to the frequent pledges of fairness. One thing is for certain: The MUN understands, as a group, that it their commitment that has raised and will continue to raise the deeply important debate about mental health in Manchester: politicians must match that commitment with more than words.

‘Already in Manchester they have announced a 16% cut in the health budget over the next 4 years. There is no alternative – we have to fight back” asys Karen Reissmann. “Pay, penisons, conditions services all face cuts.’

“When they say – cut back!     We say – fightback!’

Karen Reissmann marched with trades unionists, refugees, anti racist and anti war campaigners on the protest organised by Manchester Trades Council and the refugee support group RAPAR.

Nahella Ashraf, as chair of Manchester Stop the War Coalition, spoke, ‘We all need to stand together and say enough is enough!’   Watch here.

Union support for Karen Reissmann’s election campaign has been growing. The Fire fighters union and the Rail Workers unions, the Civil Servants Union leader have all backed Karen. Read the trades union endorsements. Fire fighters. Rail Workers Civil Servants

Watch Karen’s Election Launch speech here

speaking out on Market St Manchester

“When my niece and nephew would come to stay we always went to the Gorton Tub, they loved it.”

“Over the last twenty years I have been helping the people in this area.

“As a nurse,  in my trade union, I have always been there for people. Over many years we have campaigned to save the local services. There have been so many protest against war, and we have had to stand together against racism.

“In this election I am carrying on doing what I have always done, Fighting to make things better.

“Every door we knock on we ask people to sign a petition, to get involved with the campaign against the health cuts – £950 million cuts to Manchester NHS have already been announced.

“With all the parties promising cuts after all the election we will need to build a big fight back. Look at what is happening in Greece.

‘There was a serious discussion about the cuts, and what we should do in response,’ she said. ‘It was a very positive meeting.’ With public sector workers threatened with cuts Karen’s ‘Make the bankers pay!’ demand provides a practical answer to the deficit threat.

‘We were all excited to be honest. No one has ever been to speak to us!’, said one council worker.

Nick Clegg tells RCN conference.

‘Though I clearly didn’t make much of an impression as she’s now standing for another party.’

Karen Reissmann is the candidate for the Trades Unionists and Socialist Coalition in the Manchester Gorton Constituency.

After leading strikes that stopped cuts to the NHS, and for speaking out about privatisation of the NHS, Karen was sacked from her job. ‘Thanks to the support I received I am now back working in the NHS.’ says Karen. ‘One reason I decided to stand in this election is to pay back the all people who supported me. The other is to help shape resistance to the cuts. Already Manchester NHS have announced £950 million cuts and the women’s services ward at Hope hospital is to be axed.’

Karen’s election campaign is striking a chord with many who are confused or disillusioned with the main parties – all of whom offer big cuts to the public sector if they win.

‘She is the only one who made any sense’, was the verdict of one mother after hearing Karen speak at hustings in Gorton last night. ‘Karen’s message is simple. She gave a straight answer to the question of what to do about the ‘deficit’.’

‘No cuts – make the bankers pay! Bring the troops home!’

‘Most people agree with us on this’, explained Karen. ‘We are pushing out the message that there is an alternative that is about standing together and fighting back, and that voting can be part of that.’

One nurse involved in Karen’s campaign said, ‘We are getting out the caravan we used in the last strike to act as a base for the election campaign.’

www.votekarenreissmann.org

‘The figures are astonishing – the 1,000 richest people in this country increased their wealth by £77 billion last year bringing their total wealth to £335.5 billion – a thousand people have amassed wealth equal to more than one-third of the national debt.

‘At a time when the rest of us are told to prepare to “tighten our belts – no matter who wins the general election” – the number of billionaires has risen from 43 to 53, with nine seeing their wealth rise by £1 billion or more during the past 12 months.’

Craig Johnston,
RMT National Executive Member, Manchester and North West England

Craig has endorsed Karen Reissmann as TUSC candidate in Manchester Gorton.

Support the Headteachers Boycott of the Sats Tests.

Headteachers  have voted to boycott the divisive Sats tests for 11 year olds, which 600,000 students are scheduled to take from 10 May, straight after the general election.

There is deep anger against these tests at the highest levels in schools. Heads in the NAHT, and the National Union of Teachers, are asking for your support in their campaign to scrap these tests.

They say the SATs are bad for children, bad for teachers, bad for education and bad for communities because they:

• are stressful for children, parents and teachers;
• are inaccurate – teacher assessments are more reliable;
• undermine the morale of too many children;
• encourage narrow teaching to the test
• squeeze out time for creative subjects and sports;
• are used to create divisive league tables of schools

More Teaching – Less Testing.
Sats turn children off education by drilling them repeatedly with practice tests. They also distract from the role that poverty and under-funding play in damaging children’s education by blaming individual teachers and children for low scores.

These pointless tests have bored children to distraction and put some under extreme stress. They have weakened the place of creativity, exploration, curiosity and reading for pleasure in our schools.

There are no Sats in Scotland or Wales. There are many other ways to assess children. The Sats should be abolished here too.

Please add your name to the ‘End Sats Petition’ and support the teachers’ boycott.

“Testing and targets have now been brought into the NHS. As a nurse I am interested in the quality of the care I deliver to my patients – not whether I have reached targets set on form filling and the number of patients seen. League tables and targets are just more pressures that undermine our NHS. It is the same in schools. That is why I will be giving my full support to the head teacher’s boycott of the Sats.”

Karen Reissmann. TUSC Candidate for Manchester Gorton