I am baffled by the inactivity of workers in the Welfare to Work sector.
Weeks ago I predicted redundancies would fall into the thousands and that providers would try and rewrite the script regarding TUPE regulations and redundancy law. With just a week to go for the start of the new Work Programme my words have tragically become reality.
Many providers who were unsuccessful in securing prime or subcontract work for the new scheme have been forced to shed staff and workers who had previously been working on contracts such as Pathways to Work or NDDP have found themselves superfluous to requirements.
If that wasn’t bad enough, some companies have tried to avoid their responsibilities regarding redundancy pay, forcing some workers to seek legal advice from barristers. Understandably I have not named the company in question because I do not want them to have the chance of preparing a ‘defence’ for their immoral and apparently illegal actions. No doubt the imminent legal action will most probably yield some financial gain to those affected, but in the long term that will be cold comfort when the mortgage or rent needs paying, the kids need new clothes and the ordinary working people, who gave so much to this sector find themselves without jobs.
Other employers have blatantly lied to staff by suggesting they were ‘being auditioned’ by potential employers under TUPE regulations. Apparently no-one told the top management of the company that new providers cannot cherry pick their staff under TUPE rules.
So, workers in the sector, like frogs placed in a saucepan of cold water are sitting there, doing nothing whilst management systematically turn up the heat and boil them alive. The government has remained silent and has done nothing to protect jobs as Boards of Directors systematically culled hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the industry. No-one complained! No-one said this is wrong – in fact there were some in the industry who actually argued it was right that the sector should be streamlined.
It is a tragic state of affairs and it is unlikely to get any better. More redundancies will follow, more companies will either close or substantially downsize and more people will find themselves joining the unemployment queues after having given so many years to this industry. But however wrong it may be, it will not change until workers in the sector are willing to face facts and radicalize.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about organizing some kind of revolution – it simply isn’t going to happen. No, this is far more fundamental and requires workers in the sector to recognize they are working for employers who don’t give a toss for their welfare and will dismiss them without a thought when times are hard. The only defence against such oppression is to combine and unite under the common banner of the trade union movement.
This isn’t about trying to take things back to the 1960s and ‘taking on’ the government. This is about bringing workers rights into the 21st century and showing employers that staff in this sector will not be bullied and abused. They will not accept illegal redundancies and they will not tolerate the misuse of TUPE regulations.
This is what the industry needs, but the danger is the water has already started to boil and the frog may be dead.
Tuesday 24 May 2011
Friday 20 May 2011
Too many on the Left are continuing to promote Islamist extremists
This October will see the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street, when a coalition of local left-wing and anti-fascist groups prevented Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts from marching through the East End. Mosley has gone, but others have taken his place, tailoring their message to a modern audience.
A Searchlight report published in February this year revealed that 52 per cent of British people believe that Muslims “create problems in the UK”, and that around 60 per cent believe immigration has been generally bad for the country.
It should be no surprise then that, where Mosley’s British Union of Fascists were obsessed with Jews, their modern day equivalents in the BNP are more concerned with immigration and Muslims.
The result of modern fascists’ targeting of Muslims can be seen all around. Earlier this week, a man was convicted in Gainsborough of racially aggravated behaviour for harassing a group of Muslims meeting to plan the creation of a new mosque. Just a few weeks ago, vandals smashed up Muslim graves in High Wycombe.
It is to the Left’s credit, then, that it now stands against anti-Muslim hatred just as it has always stood against anti-Semitism, homophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry. However, some groups are exploiting the Left’s principled stance for their own ends.
This weekend, a group calling itself the ‘Enough Coalition‘ will hold a conference at the London Muslim Centre, adjacent to East London Mosque in Whitechapel, on ‘Confronting Anti-Muslim Hatred in Britain and Europe’. The event will be well attended by academics and left-leaning politicians and journalists such as Tony Benn and Mehdi Hasan.
But they will not be the only ones speaking. Joining them will be three individuals with whom they are likely to profoundly disagree with on a number of key issues.
Kamal el-Helbawy, Azad Ali and Daud Abdullah are all UK-based Islamists whose stated views are antithetical to much that the Left holds dear.
Kamal el-Helbawy is a prominent spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood; in the past, el-Helbawy came to prominence after justifying the killing of innocent Israeli children on the grounds that they are “future soldiers”.
More recently, he took part in a discussion on the website onislam.net about Osama bin Laden’s death. He called bin Laden “a great mujahid [one who fights jihad]” and said:
“First of All, I ask Allah to have mercy upon Osama Bin Laden, to treat him generously, to enlighten his grave, and to make him join the prophets, the martyrs, and the good people…
“We appreciate him as a rich man living in KSA who left this luxurious life and moved to a hard life in mountains and caves. He helped his Afghan brethrens and
participated in Afghan jihad effectively…
“I think that what the Americans claim about September 11th was a trick and a bait they accused Al-Qaeda of. All evidences and indications refer that the Americans are the ones who planned this matter, not the Afghans who have weak resources. The plot of 911 story was not tight. It should be reviewed closely and all parties should be listened to.”
The discussion is no longer online, but screenshots of it were saved by the blog Harry’s Place.
El-Helbawy is joined by Azad Ali, an activist with the group ‘Islamic Forum Europe’ and who has praised Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. When the Mail on Sunday accused Ali of having endorsed the killing of British troops in Iraq, he tried to sue them for libel.
However, Justice Eady ruled that he:
“Was indeed… taking the position that the killing of American and British troops in Iraq would be justified.“
Eady declared that Ali’s case had about it “an absence of reality” and was bound to fail, so he threw it out.
Daud Abdullah came to prominence in 2009 after rowing with Hazel Blears, then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. During the Gaza crisis of that year, Abdullah signed a declaration endorsing violence against Israel and:
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as in effect a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation, that must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”
Abdullah signed his support for this declaration after Gordon Brown had stated that British naval units might be sent to the Israel/Palestine coast.
Blears said that these articles justified attacks both on Jews around the world and on British troops. She announced that she would therefore not be treating Abdullah and any organisation he was part of as though it represented British Muslims. Abdullah’s subsequent threat to sue her has never materialised.
Of course, just like the BNP and EDL, these individuals have a right to their opinions within the law. However, before members of the Left ally with them to fight anti-Muslim bigotry, they should ask whether doing so might be counter-productive.
A key anti-Muslim trope is that Islam is inherently extreme and therefore all Muslims hold extreme views.
Sharing a platform with, and thereby helping to raise the profile of, the extremely small minority of Muslims who are 9/11 truthers, who eulogise Osama bin Laden and/or who support attacks on British troops is therefore badly counter-productive.
Of course, it would be a different matter if this were a debate and Mehdi Hasan had an opportunity to challenge el-Helbawy’s views (with which he does not agree). This does not look likely to happen given the advertised topic of the event.
There is, however, another dimension to the ‘Enough Coalition’ event. Robert Lambert, a former policeman who now works at the Islamist-funded ‘European Muslim Research Centre’ at Exeter University, will also be speaking. His latest report, ‘Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies’ does two main things.
On the one hand, it documents genuine and disturbing examples of anti-Muslim prejudice and violence. On the other, it uses allegations of Islamophobia to smear critics of Islamism.
For example, the report contains more references to Ed Husain, a prominent British Muslim critic of Islamism, than Nick Griffin. It even mentions another Islamist turned critic, Shiraz Maher significantly more than the noted anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
Lambert’s report previously contained one section about politics in East London which was so libellous about Jim Fitzpatrick MP and various Labour Tower Hamlets councillors that Exeter University had it removed and issued an apology to them. In this way, Islamists and their allies use the concept of Islamophobia to argue that Islamists must not be criticised because doing so feeds the anti-Muslim atmosphere in the UK.
By appearing at events with prominent left-wing journalists and politicians, Islamists can then present themselves as part of the mainstream, despite their publicly stated views. This then further reinforces the idea that their critics are motivated by hatred of all Muslims, not perfectly rational concerns about their publicly-stated views.
The Muslim Brotherhood (in Arabic, Ikhwan al-Muslimeen‘), the world’s largest and oldest Islamist group, has even launched a website called ‘Ikhwanophobia‘ which argues that the Brotherhood’s critics are inspired by bigotry, not by rational disagreements with the organisations goals and beliefs.
The Left must no longer allow our proud history of anti-fascism to be hijacked in this way. Alliances with Islamists do nothing to help genuine victims of bigotry. All they do is strengthen the hands of extremists on the Islamist and racist far-right.
A Searchlight report published in February this year revealed that 52 per cent of British people believe that Muslims “create problems in the UK”, and that around 60 per cent believe immigration has been generally bad for the country.
It should be no surprise then that, where Mosley’s British Union of Fascists were obsessed with Jews, their modern day equivalents in the BNP are more concerned with immigration and Muslims.
The result of modern fascists’ targeting of Muslims can be seen all around. Earlier this week, a man was convicted in Gainsborough of racially aggravated behaviour for harassing a group of Muslims meeting to plan the creation of a new mosque. Just a few weeks ago, vandals smashed up Muslim graves in High Wycombe.
It is to the Left’s credit, then, that it now stands against anti-Muslim hatred just as it has always stood against anti-Semitism, homophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry. However, some groups are exploiting the Left’s principled stance for their own ends.
This weekend, a group calling itself the ‘Enough Coalition‘ will hold a conference at the London Muslim Centre, adjacent to East London Mosque in Whitechapel, on ‘Confronting Anti-Muslim Hatred in Britain and Europe’. The event will be well attended by academics and left-leaning politicians and journalists such as Tony Benn and Mehdi Hasan.
But they will not be the only ones speaking. Joining them will be three individuals with whom they are likely to profoundly disagree with on a number of key issues.
Kamal el-Helbawy, Azad Ali and Daud Abdullah are all UK-based Islamists whose stated views are antithetical to much that the Left holds dear.
Kamal el-Helbawy is a prominent spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood; in the past, el-Helbawy came to prominence after justifying the killing of innocent Israeli children on the grounds that they are “future soldiers”.
More recently, he took part in a discussion on the website onislam.net about Osama bin Laden’s death. He called bin Laden “a great mujahid [one who fights jihad]” and said:
“First of All, I ask Allah to have mercy upon Osama Bin Laden, to treat him generously, to enlighten his grave, and to make him join the prophets, the martyrs, and the good people…
“We appreciate him as a rich man living in KSA who left this luxurious life and moved to a hard life in mountains and caves. He helped his Afghan brethrens and
participated in Afghan jihad effectively…
“I think that what the Americans claim about September 11th was a trick and a bait they accused Al-Qaeda of. All evidences and indications refer that the Americans are the ones who planned this matter, not the Afghans who have weak resources. The plot of 911 story was not tight. It should be reviewed closely and all parties should be listened to.”
The discussion is no longer online, but screenshots of it were saved by the blog Harry’s Place.
El-Helbawy is joined by Azad Ali, an activist with the group ‘Islamic Forum Europe’ and who has praised Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. When the Mail on Sunday accused Ali of having endorsed the killing of British troops in Iraq, he tried to sue them for libel.
However, Justice Eady ruled that he:
“Was indeed… taking the position that the killing of American and British troops in Iraq would be justified.“
Eady declared that Ali’s case had about it “an absence of reality” and was bound to fail, so he threw it out.
Daud Abdullah came to prominence in 2009 after rowing with Hazel Blears, then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. During the Gaza crisis of that year, Abdullah signed a declaration endorsing violence against Israel and:
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as in effect a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation, that must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”
Abdullah signed his support for this declaration after Gordon Brown had stated that British naval units might be sent to the Israel/Palestine coast.
Blears said that these articles justified attacks both on Jews around the world and on British troops. She announced that she would therefore not be treating Abdullah and any organisation he was part of as though it represented British Muslims. Abdullah’s subsequent threat to sue her has never materialised.
Of course, just like the BNP and EDL, these individuals have a right to their opinions within the law. However, before members of the Left ally with them to fight anti-Muslim bigotry, they should ask whether doing so might be counter-productive.
A key anti-Muslim trope is that Islam is inherently extreme and therefore all Muslims hold extreme views.
Sharing a platform with, and thereby helping to raise the profile of, the extremely small minority of Muslims who are 9/11 truthers, who eulogise Osama bin Laden and/or who support attacks on British troops is therefore badly counter-productive.
Of course, it would be a different matter if this were a debate and Mehdi Hasan had an opportunity to challenge el-Helbawy’s views (with which he does not agree). This does not look likely to happen given the advertised topic of the event.
There is, however, another dimension to the ‘Enough Coalition’ event. Robert Lambert, a former policeman who now works at the Islamist-funded ‘European Muslim Research Centre’ at Exeter University, will also be speaking. His latest report, ‘Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies’ does two main things.
On the one hand, it documents genuine and disturbing examples of anti-Muslim prejudice and violence. On the other, it uses allegations of Islamophobia to smear critics of Islamism.
For example, the report contains more references to Ed Husain, a prominent British Muslim critic of Islamism, than Nick Griffin. It even mentions another Islamist turned critic, Shiraz Maher significantly more than the noted anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
Lambert’s report previously contained one section about politics in East London which was so libellous about Jim Fitzpatrick MP and various Labour Tower Hamlets councillors that Exeter University had it removed and issued an apology to them. In this way, Islamists and their allies use the concept of Islamophobia to argue that Islamists must not be criticised because doing so feeds the anti-Muslim atmosphere in the UK.
By appearing at events with prominent left-wing journalists and politicians, Islamists can then present themselves as part of the mainstream, despite their publicly stated views. This then further reinforces the idea that their critics are motivated by hatred of all Muslims, not perfectly rational concerns about their publicly-stated views.
The Muslim Brotherhood (in Arabic, Ikhwan al-Muslimeen‘), the world’s largest and oldest Islamist group, has even launched a website called ‘Ikhwanophobia‘ which argues that the Brotherhood’s critics are inspired by bigotry, not by rational disagreements with the organisations goals and beliefs.
The Left must no longer allow our proud history of anti-fascism to be hijacked in this way. Alliances with Islamists do nothing to help genuine victims of bigotry. All they do is strengthen the hands of extremists on the Islamist and racist far-right.
Thursday 19 May 2011
The Ultra-Blairites are calling for Labour to surrender
by Owen Jones
When I read an article by Labour’s former General Secretary, Peter Watt, calling on the party to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda wholesale, I was reminded about how much this has all been turned around. You could say: “The Tories move Britain towards more neo-liberalism, New Labour stands pat; and the next Tory Government moved the country a little further right. New Labour loosened the corset of neo-liberalism, they never removed it.” If the likes of Watt have their way, that is what will happen if Labour win the next election.
Watt is a curious individual. He was, frankly, a terrible General Secretary, but he was treated badly by Gordon Brown and his undoubtedly bullying henchmen. He was effectively made a fall-guy for Labour’s donors’ scandal, and that was wrong.
That did not in any way excuse his subsequent behaviour: right-wing Tory Iain Dale published Watt’s insider account in January 2010, full of all sorts of hugely damaging revelations about the behind-the-scenes workings of the Brown regime. Watt presumably felt he was entitled to get his revenge against his unscrupulous former employer: but all he did was feed the right-wing press (who were delighted) and contribute – in however small a way – to the defeat of Labour in May 2010. Why anyone in the Labour Party would have any dealings with such an individual ever again is completely beyond me.
Watt says a lot about the loyalty (or lack thereof) many Blairite ultras have towards the Labour Party. They led repeated attempted coups – based on personality, not policy – against Brown; which the left, so often accused of disloyalty, had nothing to do with. Indeed, I remember a debate at Poplar and Limehouse CLP in which Blairite rebel Charles Clarke (hic) suggested left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell leave the Labour Party because of his disloyalty. Clarke lost his seat in 2010; McDonnell increased Labour’s majority. Now Labour is out of office, the likes of John Hutton and Alan Milburn are working as advisors to the Tory-led Government.
The Blairite ultras were demoralised by the defeat of David Miliband in Labour’s leadership election: but don’t kid yourself, they’re still kicking about alright, and they’re waiting in the wings for Ed Miliband’s failure, which they both anticipate and desire. As far as they are concerned, only a pure Blairite formula can deliver electoral success, and they do not wish this narrative to be disproved.
Peter Watt is far from alone among Blairite ultras in calling for Labour to accept the Tories’ spending plans. The Great Leader himself, Tony Blair, effectively called for Labour to accept the Tories’ economic policies in his memoirs; he even advised Cameron to resist the Lib Dems’ ‘Old Labour’ tendencies. The likes of Dan Hodges – who edits the Labour Uncut website, and is a committed opponent of Ed Miliband – have similarly called for Labour to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda.
There are Blairite maneuverings against Ed Miliband at the top of the Party, too. Both Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy are positioning themselves behind the scenes. Miliband has few real allies in the Shadow Cabinet: they effectively boil down to Peter Hain, Hilary Benn, John Denham and Sadiq Khan. So much of the policy vacuum can be explained by the continued strength of the Blairite right, and the failure of countervailing pressure from the left that would provide a support base for a genuinely progressive agenda.
Have no doubt: Blairite ultras like Peter Watt want us to capitulate to the Tories. In his article, Watt says “the first thing that we should do is just accept the Tory spending plans as set out in the spending review”. It would, he believes, “be bold and brave and, at a stroke, we will give ourselves permission to be heard again on the economy.”
Why we would be heard on the economy if we’re just parroting the line of the Government is a bizarre stance. Labour might as well second its press officers to George Osborne.
Indeed, if Labour were to take Watt’s advice, it should just shut shop and be done with it. What would be the point of it if it was backing the centrepiece of the Tories’ domestic agenda, the most sweeping cuts for nearly a century? Our differences would purely managerial: over issues like competence. But, frankly, we could do that from within the confines of the Conservative Party.
Blairite ultras like Peter Watt put socialists like myself in a curious position, because they force us to defend New Labour’s economic record against, well, New Labour. Blairite ultras buy into the myth that the deficit was caused by Labour’s overspending, rather than by a financial crash which caused a collapse in tax revenues and increased benefit payments to those thrown out of work.
In doing so, they become useful idiots for the Tory party. As the Conservative Party press team gleefully tweeted: “Ex-Labour Gen Sec Peter Watt implores his party 2 ‘stop fighting the cuts’ + ‘start talking bout the future’…ouch” The Tories use the siren voices of ultra-Blairism to vindicate their ideological offensive against the welfare state: ‘even sane people in the Labour Party agree with us’, they say. And, above all, they are a block on Labour developing a genuine coherent alternative to the Tory cuts agenda.
I don’t know where the political journey of the Blairite ultras will take them. It’s worth looking at the history of the neo-conservatives in the US: they started out as Democrats. Even as they became disenchanted with the Democrats, they couldn’t bring themselves to join the Republicans for cultural reasons: many were from working-class backgrounds and had grown up regarding them as the political wing of the wealthy. They eventually got over it, though, and became the most ardent Republicans around.
I’m not that interested about whether some Blairite ultras end up jumping ship or not. But they are – inarguably – allied to the Tories’ economic agenda, and they are more committed to ensuring Ed Miliband fails than helping Labour to succeed. They must be defeated, and be seen to be defeated, if Labour is to offer a genuine alternative to this horrendous government.
When I read an article by Labour’s former General Secretary, Peter Watt, calling on the party to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda wholesale, I was reminded about how much this has all been turned around. You could say: “The Tories move Britain towards more neo-liberalism, New Labour stands pat; and the next Tory Government moved the country a little further right. New Labour loosened the corset of neo-liberalism, they never removed it.” If the likes of Watt have their way, that is what will happen if Labour win the next election.
Watt is a curious individual. He was, frankly, a terrible General Secretary, but he was treated badly by Gordon Brown and his undoubtedly bullying henchmen. He was effectively made a fall-guy for Labour’s donors’ scandal, and that was wrong.
That did not in any way excuse his subsequent behaviour: right-wing Tory Iain Dale published Watt’s insider account in January 2010, full of all sorts of hugely damaging revelations about the behind-the-scenes workings of the Brown regime. Watt presumably felt he was entitled to get his revenge against his unscrupulous former employer: but all he did was feed the right-wing press (who were delighted) and contribute – in however small a way – to the defeat of Labour in May 2010. Why anyone in the Labour Party would have any dealings with such an individual ever again is completely beyond me.
Watt says a lot about the loyalty (or lack thereof) many Blairite ultras have towards the Labour Party. They led repeated attempted coups – based on personality, not policy – against Brown; which the left, so often accused of disloyalty, had nothing to do with. Indeed, I remember a debate at Poplar and Limehouse CLP in which Blairite rebel Charles Clarke (hic) suggested left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell leave the Labour Party because of his disloyalty. Clarke lost his seat in 2010; McDonnell increased Labour’s majority. Now Labour is out of office, the likes of John Hutton and Alan Milburn are working as advisors to the Tory-led Government.
The Blairite ultras were demoralised by the defeat of David Miliband in Labour’s leadership election: but don’t kid yourself, they’re still kicking about alright, and they’re waiting in the wings for Ed Miliband’s failure, which they both anticipate and desire. As far as they are concerned, only a pure Blairite formula can deliver electoral success, and they do not wish this narrative to be disproved.
Peter Watt is far from alone among Blairite ultras in calling for Labour to accept the Tories’ spending plans. The Great Leader himself, Tony Blair, effectively called for Labour to accept the Tories’ economic policies in his memoirs; he even advised Cameron to resist the Lib Dems’ ‘Old Labour’ tendencies. The likes of Dan Hodges – who edits the Labour Uncut website, and is a committed opponent of Ed Miliband – have similarly called for Labour to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda.
There are Blairite maneuverings against Ed Miliband at the top of the Party, too. Both Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy are positioning themselves behind the scenes. Miliband has few real allies in the Shadow Cabinet: they effectively boil down to Peter Hain, Hilary Benn, John Denham and Sadiq Khan. So much of the policy vacuum can be explained by the continued strength of the Blairite right, and the failure of countervailing pressure from the left that would provide a support base for a genuinely progressive agenda.
Have no doubt: Blairite ultras like Peter Watt want us to capitulate to the Tories. In his article, Watt says “the first thing that we should do is just accept the Tory spending plans as set out in the spending review”. It would, he believes, “be bold and brave and, at a stroke, we will give ourselves permission to be heard again on the economy.”
Why we would be heard on the economy if we’re just parroting the line of the Government is a bizarre stance. Labour might as well second its press officers to George Osborne.
Indeed, if Labour were to take Watt’s advice, it should just shut shop and be done with it. What would be the point of it if it was backing the centrepiece of the Tories’ domestic agenda, the most sweeping cuts for nearly a century? Our differences would purely managerial: over issues like competence. But, frankly, we could do that from within the confines of the Conservative Party.
Blairite ultras like Peter Watt put socialists like myself in a curious position, because they force us to defend New Labour’s economic record against, well, New Labour. Blairite ultras buy into the myth that the deficit was caused by Labour’s overspending, rather than by a financial crash which caused a collapse in tax revenues and increased benefit payments to those thrown out of work.
In doing so, they become useful idiots for the Tory party. As the Conservative Party press team gleefully tweeted: “Ex-Labour Gen Sec Peter Watt implores his party 2 ‘stop fighting the cuts’ + ‘start talking bout the future’…ouch” The Tories use the siren voices of ultra-Blairism to vindicate their ideological offensive against the welfare state: ‘even sane people in the Labour Party agree with us’, they say. And, above all, they are a block on Labour developing a genuine coherent alternative to the Tory cuts agenda.
I don’t know where the political journey of the Blairite ultras will take them. It’s worth looking at the history of the neo-conservatives in the US: they started out as Democrats. Even as they became disenchanted with the Democrats, they couldn’t bring themselves to join the Republicans for cultural reasons: many were from working-class backgrounds and had grown up regarding them as the political wing of the wealthy. They eventually got over it, though, and became the most ardent Republicans around.
I’m not that interested about whether some Blairite ultras end up jumping ship or not. But they are – inarguably – allied to the Tories’ economic agenda, and they are more committed to ensuring Ed Miliband fails than helping Labour to succeed. They must be defeated, and be seen to be defeated, if Labour is to offer a genuine alternative to this horrendous government.
Graham Lloyd - Farewell comrade
It was with some considerable sadness that we learned of the tragic and untilely death of Graham Lloyd, who has blogged at Harry’s Place for a number of years. He passed away on Saturday after months of serious illness.
Throughout his illness, and punishing treatments, Graham remained mentally undiminished, and could still argue the case for Ken Livingstone with the best of them – even when seriously incapacitated. Those whose lives have been enriched by knowing Graham, will find the world a little more grey today.
In recent years, Graham undertook academic studies of the history of British Fascism at the University of Sheffield, and would often pop up with an arcane point of relevant information in discussions. All of Harry’s Place contributors will miss Graham.
Our thoughts are with Graham’s family and friends.
- – - –
An example of Graham’s writing is his review of Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda by Michael Burleigh. Heaven is a Place on Earth – Part I, Part II, and Part III.
Throughout his illness, and punishing treatments, Graham remained mentally undiminished, and could still argue the case for Ken Livingstone with the best of them – even when seriously incapacitated. Those whose lives have been enriched by knowing Graham, will find the world a little more grey today.
In recent years, Graham undertook academic studies of the history of British Fascism at the University of Sheffield, and would often pop up with an arcane point of relevant information in discussions. All of Harry’s Place contributors will miss Graham.
Our thoughts are with Graham’s family and friends.
- – - –
An example of Graham’s writing is his review of Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda by Michael Burleigh. Heaven is a Place on Earth – Part I, Part II, and Part III.
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Encouraging job figures – but not for women or the over 50s
The number of people in employment, 29.24 million, and the employment rate, 70.7 per cent, in January-March, were up from October-December, by 118,000 and 0.2 points respectively. This is the third successive quarter-on-quarter increase and employment is now 416,000 higher than it was twelve months ago; this is very similar to last month’s figure:
ILO unemployment in January-March stood at 2.455 million; this was down 37,000 from October–December and the unemployment rate was down 0.2 points, to 7.7 per cent. Youth unemployment was down, only by 1,000 for 16 and 17 year olds (well within the statistical margin of error), but by a more substantial 29,000 for 18–24 year olds.
Unemployment is 56,000 lower than in January–March 2010; this is not as impressive as the increase in employment and the current level is still 841,000 above the April 2008 figure – just before unemployment started rising:
In the past year, decent monthly employment figures have sometimes been the result of an increase in ‘atypical’ employment – part-time and temporary jobs and self-employment. But this month the number of employees working full-time grew by 146,000 – more than the total increase in employment.
The number of self-employed people actually fell and the increase in the number of full-time workers was almost four times as great as the increase for those working part-time:
There was, however, an increase in the number of temporary workers of 48,000 and the proportion of workers who are in temporary jobs also rose – from 6.2 to 6.3 per cent. On the other hand, involuntary atypical work declined – the proportion of temporary workers who are in these jobs because they couldn’t find permanent work fell from 37.6 to 36.0 per cent and the proportion of part-time workers in the same position also fell slightly, from 15.3 to 15.2 per cent.
Another cause for concern in the past year is what’s been happening to women’s employment. In recent months, good overall results have sometimes disguised the fact that what has happened to men and women have been very different stories; in particular, women’s unemployment has risen while men’s has fallen. That is less true this month, though there are still worrying differences between what is happening to men and women.
The increase in women’s employment is very welcome, but the fall in unemployment is quite anaemic and it is still true that, despite overall declines in joblessness, women’s unemployment is 57,000 (0.3 percentage points) higher than it was a year ago.
The claimant count measure of unemployment did not move in a positive direction. For the second month running, this measure – the number claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) – rose while the ILO measure fell. This probably has a great deal to do with the increasing numbers of lone parents having to switch from Income Support to Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Lone parents whose youngest child is aged over 7 have had no benefit alternative to JSA since October last year; previously the age limit was 10. The number of lone parents on the claimant count whose youngest child is over 7 and under 10 has risen in that period from 2,570 to 39,055.
The number of women on the claimant count rose by 9,300 – three times the increase for men and the claimant count for women is at its highest level for 15 years.
The policy of progressively moving lone parents onto JSA began under the Labour government. Whatever the merits this policy may originally have had, it was designed in response to debates that were current before the global financial crisis, the rise in unemployment and the spectre of public sector job cuts.
There must be a question mark about its relevance to a situation where women’s unemployment is still high and the forthcoming cuts will hit employment opportunities for women especially hard.
There are other aspects of today’s figures that suggest we are not out of the woods yet.
While youth unemployment came down, the number of unemployed people aged over 50 to 64 rose by 14,000. This is rather worrying, as older workers have not previously been as hard hit in this recession. In previous recessions, older workers were more likely to be made redundant and then found it harder to get back into employment, it would be very worrying if that were to happen again.
Long-term unemployment continues to rise – the number of people unemployed over 12 months rose by 20,000 and the number unemployed over 24 months by 47,000.
And there are still major unemployment blackspots where there are 20 or more unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Anjum Klair has produced a list of the ten worst in this month’s figures – more than two thousand unemployed people and just 63 job vacancies in Merthyr Tydfil!
Probably the most worrying item in today’s figures is the falling number of job vacancies: the provisional figure for January–April is just 469,000, a decline of 30,000 from the November-January figures. Although the overall picture today is quite encouraging this is a worrying marker for the future.
Most major recent reports suggest large-scale public sector job losses are in prospect:
• The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development’s Labour Market Outlook (pdf) reports that “near-term and medium-term employment prospects remain uncertain and subdued compared with pre-recession levels” and “together with the onset of public sector cutbacks, the risk of an employment slowdown appears finely balanced”.
• The Bank of England’s Agents’ summary report (pdf) describes “steady” employment growth in manufacturing and “gradual” growth in business services, but elsewhere, a great deal of uncertainty related to the prospects for household incomes and public sector cuts.
• Markit’s Report on Jobs is probably the most positive, but even they describe a “two-speed jobs market”, and are unable to say “whether the private sector can create enough jobs to offset the expected job losses in the public sector”.
Previously, I have suggested that last month’s overall good results were a blip. It’s still a finely-balanced question.
ILO unemployment in January-March stood at 2.455 million; this was down 37,000 from October–December and the unemployment rate was down 0.2 points, to 7.7 per cent. Youth unemployment was down, only by 1,000 for 16 and 17 year olds (well within the statistical margin of error), but by a more substantial 29,000 for 18–24 year olds.Unemployment is 56,000 lower than in January–March 2010; this is not as impressive as the increase in employment and the current level is still 841,000 above the April 2008 figure – just before unemployment started rising:
In the past year, decent monthly employment figures have sometimes been the result of an increase in ‘atypical’ employment – part-time and temporary jobs and self-employment. But this month the number of employees working full-time grew by 146,000 – more than the total increase in employment.The number of self-employed people actually fell and the increase in the number of full-time workers was almost four times as great as the increase for those working part-time:
There was, however, an increase in the number of temporary workers of 48,000 and the proportion of workers who are in temporary jobs also rose – from 6.2 to 6.3 per cent. On the other hand, involuntary atypical work declined – the proportion of temporary workers who are in these jobs because they couldn’t find permanent work fell from 37.6 to 36.0 per cent and the proportion of part-time workers in the same position also fell slightly, from 15.3 to 15.2 per cent.
Another cause for concern in the past year is what’s been happening to women’s employment. In recent months, good overall results have sometimes disguised the fact that what has happened to men and women have been very different stories; in particular, women’s unemployment has risen while men’s has fallen. That is less true this month, though there are still worrying differences between what is happening to men and women.
The increase in women’s employment is very welcome, but the fall in unemployment is quite anaemic and it is still true that, despite overall declines in joblessness, women’s unemployment is 57,000 (0.3 percentage points) higher than it was a year ago.
The claimant count measure of unemployment did not move in a positive direction. For the second month running, this measure – the number claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) – rose while the ILO measure fell. This probably has a great deal to do with the increasing numbers of lone parents having to switch from Income Support to Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Lone parents whose youngest child is aged over 7 have had no benefit alternative to JSA since October last year; previously the age limit was 10. The number of lone parents on the claimant count whose youngest child is over 7 and under 10 has risen in that period from 2,570 to 39,055.
The number of women on the claimant count rose by 9,300 – three times the increase for men and the claimant count for women is at its highest level for 15 years.
The policy of progressively moving lone parents onto JSA began under the Labour government. Whatever the merits this policy may originally have had, it was designed in response to debates that were current before the global financial crisis, the rise in unemployment and the spectre of public sector job cuts.
There must be a question mark about its relevance to a situation where women’s unemployment is still high and the forthcoming cuts will hit employment opportunities for women especially hard.
There are other aspects of today’s figures that suggest we are not out of the woods yet.
While youth unemployment came down, the number of unemployed people aged over 50 to 64 rose by 14,000. This is rather worrying, as older workers have not previously been as hard hit in this recession. In previous recessions, older workers were more likely to be made redundant and then found it harder to get back into employment, it would be very worrying if that were to happen again.
Long-term unemployment continues to rise – the number of people unemployed over 12 months rose by 20,000 and the number unemployed over 24 months by 47,000.
And there are still major unemployment blackspots where there are 20 or more unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Anjum Klair has produced a list of the ten worst in this month’s figures – more than two thousand unemployed people and just 63 job vacancies in Merthyr Tydfil!
Probably the most worrying item in today’s figures is the falling number of job vacancies: the provisional figure for January–April is just 469,000, a decline of 30,000 from the November-January figures. Although the overall picture today is quite encouraging this is a worrying marker for the future.
Most major recent reports suggest large-scale public sector job losses are in prospect:
• The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development’s Labour Market Outlook (pdf) reports that “near-term and medium-term employment prospects remain uncertain and subdued compared with pre-recession levels” and “together with the onset of public sector cutbacks, the risk of an employment slowdown appears finely balanced”.
• The Bank of England’s Agents’ summary report (pdf) describes “steady” employment growth in manufacturing and “gradual” growth in business services, but elsewhere, a great deal of uncertainty related to the prospects for household incomes and public sector cuts.
• Markit’s Report on Jobs is probably the most positive, but even they describe a “two-speed jobs market”, and are unable to say “whether the private sector can create enough jobs to offset the expected job losses in the public sector”.
Previously, I have suggested that last month’s overall good results were a blip. It’s still a finely-balanced question.
Tuesday 17 May 2011
WCA is simply not fit for purpose
A major component of the ‘New Labour’ government and the current coalition government’s radical welfare reforms has been the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) for disabled people. But the assessment has been made much more stringent, with people with often multiple impairments being found ‘fit to work’ through the test. This has led to much debate about the efficacy of the WCA and today the Work and Pensions Select Committee will hear evidence from Atos Origin on the very subject. Members of the Select Committee might like to take a moment and read this short article before the cross examine their witness.
From now until Spring 2014 all those who are receiving Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support paid on the grounds of illness or disability will be assessed for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), undergoing a stringent Work Capability Assessment (WCA) carried out by the French Company Atos who are contracted by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
First introduced in 2008, the much criticised WCA has become even more punitive since changes in the 2011 edition of the training manual for assessors. Pilots in Aberdeen and Burnley have raised more criticisms of the process adding to the raft of criticisms from the British Medical Association, GPs, Citizens Advice Bureaus (CABs), Members of Parliament and disability organisations.
Those going through the test can be put into one of three groups: ESA Support Group not required to undertake work-related activity – but will be reassessed continuously; ESA Work Related Activity Group, for those deemed fit for work with support and preparation. It will be limited to just 12 months before ESA is stopped, and also may be subject to reassessment in the 12 month period; or Fit for Work, not entitled to ESA but transferred to a lower amount on Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Case studies have repeatedly shown the inhumanity of a system based on government targets and the pain and misery of the increasing stringency of these tests. One example from the 2010 Citizens Advice Bureau’s report on ESA and WCA testing procedures highlights the experiences that someone considered ‘fit for work’ through WCA might endure:
She was in a great deal of pain in her muscles and joints and had extreme fatigue. At times her balance was affected and she could not walk without someone to support her. Sometimes she lost sensation in her legs, and on her worst days she could not walk at all. Any exertion such as walking 40 or 50 metres led to days in bed. She had had a bad reaction to some of the treatment and an ECG showed her heart muscle had been damaged. Her husband had to come home from work each lunchtime to help her. Her immune system was weakened, so she had to be careful when mixing with others.
She claimed ESA but was given six points in the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and found capable of work. Her doctor supported her claim and she is currently appealing, but under Incapacity Benefit she would probably have been exempt and would have avoided this process.
There are many other stories like this. There are also increasing stories of suicides committed by people left without any means of income fighting and winning appeals, only to find they are called for WCA reassessments shortly after. As part of the recognition of the increasing trend of those going through assessments to take their own lives Job Centre Plus staff have been issued with guidelines on how to deal with people who they think might be suicidal because of the WCA testing.
One estimate claims that up to 500,000 people have been wrongly denied Incapacity status. In the Guardian, Amelia Gentlemen reminds us that since its rollout people with terminal illness have been found ‘fit for work’, those with mental health issues have said the system cannot appreciate complexities of mental health, and others that the tick box system is unable to cope with any nuances of long term impairments or illness.
Citizens Advice Scotland reported that under incapacity benefits, 37 per cent were found ‘fit for work’. Under Work Capacity Assessment, the figure had soared to 66 per cent. In 2008 The DWP and Atos were severely criticised by Robert Martin, the President of the Appeals Tribunal Panel, a position now abolished:
Criticism was made of ATOS Healthcare medical practitioners who did not appear to pay sufficient attention to the appellant at the medical examination and who produced findings in medical reports based on observations that were inconsistent, or recorded in the medical report findings that were contradictory
In a later 2010 independent review of the WCA tests Professor Harrington concluded:
There is strong evidence that the system can be impersonal and mechanistic, that the process lacks transparency and that a lack of communication between the various parties involved contributes to poor decision making and a high rate of appeals.” and that “evidence has consistently and regularly highlighted problems with each stage of the WCA process, which limit both the assessment’s fairness and effectiveness.
Moreover Atos’s own staff have said the assessments are too harsh. Prospect, the trade union who represent 135 Atos doctors, has also stated that the target of seeing ten or more people a day is unrealistic and will lead to wrong assessments, especially in complex cases.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that WCA was not working, Atos were awarded a further 3 year contract by the DWP at the end of 2010, with a contract for £300 million based the perceived expertise of a software system LiMA, which comprises the central part of the WCA testing.
There has been a 56 per cent increase in ESA appeals with figures up from 25,700 in the second quarter of 2009/2010 to 52,000 in the same quarter of 2010/2011. Almost half of cases are overturned at appeal. Paul Hoggarth of Burnley Citizens Advice said that as many as 80 per cent of those supported in their claims to overturn a ‘fit for work’ decision win. Figures from the DWP show that of those declared ‘fit for work’ by the WCA system, just 13 per cent are in employment. The ‘fit for work’ myth does not convert into any form of reality.
A representative survey carried out by Ipsos MORI and reported in ‘Employment and Support Allowance: findings from a face to face Survey’ commissioned by the DWP, found that nearly a third of those going through the WCA process were described as having ‘literacy problems’. A further six per cent ‘problems speaking English’ and 11 per cent had ‘numeracy problems’. Twenty two percent were described as in one or more disadvantaged groups including those with mental health issues, ex-offenders, and those with perceived learning difficulties.
An overwhelming 69 per cent of those going through the WCA process had ‘multiple health conditions’, with 81 per cent of people receiving medical treatment for their condition and 38 per cent waiting for treatment or additional treatment in all ESA groups. These statistics do not present us with a set of fraudsters pretending to be sick or disabled, nor a set of individuals who have been languishing on incapacity benefits for years; in fact 71 per cent of applicants to ESA were new claimants making their first ever claim.
The WCA is not really about assessing fitness for work, nor supporting people into work. The ‘capability’ tests were always part of a mutual interdependence between successive Governments’ need to reduce social claims on the state and business identifying financial benefit in such a process. The misery it causes is deemed irrelevant by all parties.
The 2011 manual issued by the DWP to Atos provided new regulations including:
…infrequent loss of consciousness would not substantially impact on a person’s ability to work and therefore only those experiencing weekly or monthly episodes of loss of consciousness will be awarded scoring descriptors.
Thus if you spontaneously lose consciousness once every five weeks, you will be assessed as ‘fit for work’. This is one example of the non reality of new WCA ‘fit for work’ standards. It undermines the logic, and the economic and social realities of any reasonable employment criteria. The WCA is presented under the guise of state and market efficiency. It serves neither criterion.
From now until Spring 2014 all those who are receiving Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support paid on the grounds of illness or disability will be assessed for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), undergoing a stringent Work Capability Assessment (WCA) carried out by the French Company Atos who are contracted by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
First introduced in 2008, the much criticised WCA has become even more punitive since changes in the 2011 edition of the training manual for assessors. Pilots in Aberdeen and Burnley have raised more criticisms of the process adding to the raft of criticisms from the British Medical Association, GPs, Citizens Advice Bureaus (CABs), Members of Parliament and disability organisations.
Those going through the test can be put into one of three groups: ESA Support Group not required to undertake work-related activity – but will be reassessed continuously; ESA Work Related Activity Group, for those deemed fit for work with support and preparation. It will be limited to just 12 months before ESA is stopped, and also may be subject to reassessment in the 12 month period; or Fit for Work, not entitled to ESA but transferred to a lower amount on Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Case studies have repeatedly shown the inhumanity of a system based on government targets and the pain and misery of the increasing stringency of these tests. One example from the 2010 Citizens Advice Bureau’s report on ESA and WCA testing procedures highlights the experiences that someone considered ‘fit for work’ through WCA might endure:
She was in a great deal of pain in her muscles and joints and had extreme fatigue. At times her balance was affected and she could not walk without someone to support her. Sometimes she lost sensation in her legs, and on her worst days she could not walk at all. Any exertion such as walking 40 or 50 metres led to days in bed. She had had a bad reaction to some of the treatment and an ECG showed her heart muscle had been damaged. Her husband had to come home from work each lunchtime to help her. Her immune system was weakened, so she had to be careful when mixing with others.
She claimed ESA but was given six points in the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and found capable of work. Her doctor supported her claim and she is currently appealing, but under Incapacity Benefit she would probably have been exempt and would have avoided this process.
There are many other stories like this. There are also increasing stories of suicides committed by people left without any means of income fighting and winning appeals, only to find they are called for WCA reassessments shortly after. As part of the recognition of the increasing trend of those going through assessments to take their own lives Job Centre Plus staff have been issued with guidelines on how to deal with people who they think might be suicidal because of the WCA testing.
One estimate claims that up to 500,000 people have been wrongly denied Incapacity status. In the Guardian, Amelia Gentlemen reminds us that since its rollout people with terminal illness have been found ‘fit for work’, those with mental health issues have said the system cannot appreciate complexities of mental health, and others that the tick box system is unable to cope with any nuances of long term impairments or illness.
Citizens Advice Scotland reported that under incapacity benefits, 37 per cent were found ‘fit for work’. Under Work Capacity Assessment, the figure had soared to 66 per cent. In 2008 The DWP and Atos were severely criticised by Robert Martin, the President of the Appeals Tribunal Panel, a position now abolished:
Criticism was made of ATOS Healthcare medical practitioners who did not appear to pay sufficient attention to the appellant at the medical examination and who produced findings in medical reports based on observations that were inconsistent, or recorded in the medical report findings that were contradictory
In a later 2010 independent review of the WCA tests Professor Harrington concluded:
There is strong evidence that the system can be impersonal and mechanistic, that the process lacks transparency and that a lack of communication between the various parties involved contributes to poor decision making and a high rate of appeals.” and that “evidence has consistently and regularly highlighted problems with each stage of the WCA process, which limit both the assessment’s fairness and effectiveness.
Moreover Atos’s own staff have said the assessments are too harsh. Prospect, the trade union who represent 135 Atos doctors, has also stated that the target of seeing ten or more people a day is unrealistic and will lead to wrong assessments, especially in complex cases.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that WCA was not working, Atos were awarded a further 3 year contract by the DWP at the end of 2010, with a contract for £300 million based the perceived expertise of a software system LiMA, which comprises the central part of the WCA testing.
There has been a 56 per cent increase in ESA appeals with figures up from 25,700 in the second quarter of 2009/2010 to 52,000 in the same quarter of 2010/2011. Almost half of cases are overturned at appeal. Paul Hoggarth of Burnley Citizens Advice said that as many as 80 per cent of those supported in their claims to overturn a ‘fit for work’ decision win. Figures from the DWP show that of those declared ‘fit for work’ by the WCA system, just 13 per cent are in employment. The ‘fit for work’ myth does not convert into any form of reality.
A representative survey carried out by Ipsos MORI and reported in ‘Employment and Support Allowance: findings from a face to face Survey’ commissioned by the DWP, found that nearly a third of those going through the WCA process were described as having ‘literacy problems’. A further six per cent ‘problems speaking English’ and 11 per cent had ‘numeracy problems’. Twenty two percent were described as in one or more disadvantaged groups including those with mental health issues, ex-offenders, and those with perceived learning difficulties.
An overwhelming 69 per cent of those going through the WCA process had ‘multiple health conditions’, with 81 per cent of people receiving medical treatment for their condition and 38 per cent waiting for treatment or additional treatment in all ESA groups. These statistics do not present us with a set of fraudsters pretending to be sick or disabled, nor a set of individuals who have been languishing on incapacity benefits for years; in fact 71 per cent of applicants to ESA were new claimants making their first ever claim.
The WCA is not really about assessing fitness for work, nor supporting people into work. The ‘capability’ tests were always part of a mutual interdependence between successive Governments’ need to reduce social claims on the state and business identifying financial benefit in such a process. The misery it causes is deemed irrelevant by all parties.
The 2011 manual issued by the DWP to Atos provided new regulations including:
…infrequent loss of consciousness would not substantially impact on a person’s ability to work and therefore only those experiencing weekly or monthly episodes of loss of consciousness will be awarded scoring descriptors.
Thus if you spontaneously lose consciousness once every five weeks, you will be assessed as ‘fit for work’. This is one example of the non reality of new WCA ‘fit for work’ standards. It undermines the logic, and the economic and social realities of any reasonable employment criteria. The WCA is presented under the guise of state and market efficiency. It serves neither criterion.
Royal shame in Ireland
This afternoon the United Kingdom will enter a new dimension of shame and disgrace when Mrs Windsor inflicts herself on the Irish people and lays a wreath in the Garden of Remembrance - a quiet place for people to reflect on those Republican martyrs who gave their lives fighting centuries of British oppression.
Royalists in favour of the visit have argued the Queen’s arrival on Irish soil will underline the peace process. Rather sad then that Mrs Windsor will arrive at Casemont Aerodrome – an airfield named after Sir Roger Casemont, an Irish Republican who was hung for treason for trying to bring the Germans alongside the rebel movement in 1916.
Tomorrow, the Royals will visit Croke Park, the place where British machine guns opened fire on innocent Irish sports fans, killing 14 as they fired indiscriminately into the unarmed crowd. Their ‘crime’ was simple – they were Irish! After the visit, the Queen will attend Dublin Castle, the infamous seat from where Britain ruled Ireland for over 800 years. There she will enjoy Irish hospitality at a banquet in her honour.
Is it any wonder dissident Republicans want to blow the old battleaxe to pieces?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not in favour of any kind of violent act against the old bat. The hard reality is that any act of violence against any human being is an atrocity against us all and should be condemned by any right thinking person. But I do understand the anger these dissidents feel when they look over the border at the Six Counties and ask the question – What do we have to do to reunite our country? How much more pain do we have to suffer before we can be free of the yoke of British rule?
Besides, blowing up the old thing won’t do any good. Sure you can get rid of one Royal, but they breed like gerbils and as fast as you get rid of one, six more come in behind. Charlie, Will, Harry … the list is endless.
On top of that, public reaction would harden against the Republican cause and even some of those inclined towards a free Ireland would be likely to swing the other way if you kill off the regal pensioner.
No, the way forward must be for democrats to expose the dishonesty of the British regime and show the world how two-faced British ‘diplomacy’ has been over the years. When Michael Collins came with his team to negotiate a settlement the option of a free Ireland was never on the cards and since those days the option of reuniting the Six Counties has never been on the agenda.
With the Royal visit taking place and members of the UDA being invited to the sticky bun fight we see again how Britain continues to turn its back on the legitimate rights of all Irish people. Rather than endorsing Protestant terrorists, the Queen should have been apologizing for the atrocities committed by the black and tans back in 1916, or by the ‘paras’ during the Troubles.
The Queen should be going to Ireland and mourning the deaths of the men and women who went on hunger strike or ‘on the blanket’ and died for Irish freedom.
Bobby Sands
Terence MacSwiney
Conor McElvaney
John and Peter Crowley
Thomas Donovan
Michael Burke
Michael O'Reilly
Christopher Upton
John Power
Joseph Kenny
Seán Hennessy
Just a few of the many names who gave their lives fighting British oppression.
James Connolly once said: If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”
Well, the British military and Westminster combined did just that, but despite all their best efforts they could not suppress the legitimate rights of a people. As the Queen, the head of British government sets foot on Irish soil later today, she will do well to remember that.
Let us leave the final word of this entry to the great James Connolly. His words endure and have as much meaning today as they did when he first spoke them. May his memory endure and his words carried as a battle cry by all socialists.
“Ireland, as distinct from her people, is nothing to me; and the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for "Ireland," and can yet pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and the suffering, the shame and the degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland—yea, wrought by Irishmen upon Irish men and women, without burning to end it, is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart, no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements he is pleased to call Ireland.”
Royalists in favour of the visit have argued the Queen’s arrival on Irish soil will underline the peace process. Rather sad then that Mrs Windsor will arrive at Casemont Aerodrome – an airfield named after Sir Roger Casemont, an Irish Republican who was hung for treason for trying to bring the Germans alongside the rebel movement in 1916.
Tomorrow, the Royals will visit Croke Park, the place where British machine guns opened fire on innocent Irish sports fans, killing 14 as they fired indiscriminately into the unarmed crowd. Their ‘crime’ was simple – they were Irish! After the visit, the Queen will attend Dublin Castle, the infamous seat from where Britain ruled Ireland for over 800 years. There she will enjoy Irish hospitality at a banquet in her honour.
Is it any wonder dissident Republicans want to blow the old battleaxe to pieces?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not in favour of any kind of violent act against the old bat. The hard reality is that any act of violence against any human being is an atrocity against us all and should be condemned by any right thinking person. But I do understand the anger these dissidents feel when they look over the border at the Six Counties and ask the question – What do we have to do to reunite our country? How much more pain do we have to suffer before we can be free of the yoke of British rule?
Besides, blowing up the old thing won’t do any good. Sure you can get rid of one Royal, but they breed like gerbils and as fast as you get rid of one, six more come in behind. Charlie, Will, Harry … the list is endless.
On top of that, public reaction would harden against the Republican cause and even some of those inclined towards a free Ireland would be likely to swing the other way if you kill off the regal pensioner.
No, the way forward must be for democrats to expose the dishonesty of the British regime and show the world how two-faced British ‘diplomacy’ has been over the years. When Michael Collins came with his team to negotiate a settlement the option of a free Ireland was never on the cards and since those days the option of reuniting the Six Counties has never been on the agenda.
With the Royal visit taking place and members of the UDA being invited to the sticky bun fight we see again how Britain continues to turn its back on the legitimate rights of all Irish people. Rather than endorsing Protestant terrorists, the Queen should have been apologizing for the atrocities committed by the black and tans back in 1916, or by the ‘paras’ during the Troubles.
The Queen should be going to Ireland and mourning the deaths of the men and women who went on hunger strike or ‘on the blanket’ and died for Irish freedom.
Bobby Sands
Terence MacSwiney
Conor McElvaney
John and Peter Crowley
Thomas Donovan
Michael Burke
Michael O'Reilly
Christopher Upton
John Power
Joseph Kenny
Seán Hennessy
Just a few of the many names who gave their lives fighting British oppression.
James Connolly once said: If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”
Well, the British military and Westminster combined did just that, but despite all their best efforts they could not suppress the legitimate rights of a people. As the Queen, the head of British government sets foot on Irish soil later today, she will do well to remember that.
Let us leave the final word of this entry to the great James Connolly. His words endure and have as much meaning today as they did when he first spoke them. May his memory endure and his words carried as a battle cry by all socialists.
“Ireland, as distinct from her people, is nothing to me; and the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for "Ireland," and can yet pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and the suffering, the shame and the degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland—yea, wrought by Irishmen upon Irish men and women, without burning to end it, is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart, no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements he is pleased to call Ireland.”
Monday 16 May 2011
A silent and illegal culling
I am disturbed by the number of reports I am receiving of situations where people in the welfare to work sector are facing redundancy and management are, either through lack of understanding, or intentionally are treating unaffected staff unfairly.
In one group of cases brought to my attention an employer is trying to force staff to accept either reduced hours or redundancy. Clearly, people affected are in something of a “Catch-22” situation because if they accept the former then later they are made redundant, the payment will be based on the reduced hour’s income and not their original full-time salary. On the other hand, if they go for redundancy today they lose any potential income between now and the end of the FND contract and may find themselves separated from any future TUPE considerations that may apply.
Fortunately for them the company is acting illegally under the Employment Rights Act, 1996 as they cannot force staff to make such a choice and the reduced hour’s option can only be adopted if ALL the staff agree.
The second situation involved a small to medium sized provider who, once they heard they had lost all their contracts set about implementing a high-powered campaign to place as many of their clients in jobs as possible. Caseworkers, job matchers and employer engagement staff were all encouraged to treble their efforts on the grounds it would make them more attractive to a new employer.
As staff became increasingly more unsettled the hierarchy set about visiting various locations “reassuring” staff they would all be considered by the new provider for TUPE. Then they committed the ultimate “no-no” – first they told all staff their jobs were safe and that everyone would be TUPE’d over to the new provider. This is factually inaccurate, but not illegal. The reality is that the new provider will inform the old one of how many staff they will require and these will be selected from those on the TUPE list. Selection is usually determined by simple factors such as proximity to the new place of work, or the match between the old job and the new one.
The second “no-no” was more alarming. Here the employer advised staff to increase their efforts as TUPE’d staff would be selected according to performance and those with poor results would not be transferred over to the new employer. This is both factually wrong and illegal. The new provider is not allowed to “cherry-pick” staff in this way and if they attempt to and reject certain staff, the people concerned could bring a case of unfair dismissal against both the old and the new provider.
Finally, there has been the broad lack of information that has and continues to pervades the sector – the “Will I or won’t I be transferred under TUPE regulations” question that has bounced around the sector for weeks. New and old providers have used a variety of cons to avoid answering this question, ranging from the lack of information coming from DWP, through to the uncertainty of what programmes are eligible for TUPE transfer.
Much of this had been decided weeks before and the fact that employers failed to advise staff is disturbing. Most providers knew many weeks ago that ESF funded projects, Pathways to Work and NDDP would not be eligible for consideration under the TUPE guidelines, yet it has taken until very recently for most employees to be aware of their position. Why has it taken so long when the information was known to management weeks ago?
The there has, and remains the issue of who will, or will not be TUPE’d. Now, primes will be aware of their staffing requirements to run the new project as this will have been factored in during their bid writing exercise. Similarly, nearly all of their supply chain will have been put in place when the bid was submitted and mf these will have had to calculate their expected staff requirement. Therefore it follows that in each CPA successful providers know how many staff they have and how many more they need. Now, if new providers know that in a certain CPA they require 100 new staff, it follows most of these will be accessed under TUPE transfer. Unfortunately, this information is not being made available and so staff are being left hanging in the hope they will be selected, but with the uncertainty there may not be any job to transfer into.
New employers could have outlined their requirements and shortfalls – they did not. Why? Were they frightened that frontline staff would suddenly see the extent of the disparity between the staff requirement for FNF and the new Work Programme. Were they trying to hide the fact that hundreds have and will be made redundant as a result of this new provision?
The way staff in the sector have been treated over the past few weeks is an absolute disgrace and has frequently crossed the boundaries of legality. Certainly there have been a number of occasions where employers have stayed within the law, but crossed the borders of morality by using redundancy law for their own ends in order to reduce the period of notice.
It is a disgrace and it has scarred the sector for many years to come. If there is any justice providers will be facing weeks and months of litigation as they try to resolve the increasing number of complaints of unfair dismissal.
What is also disturbing is the extent of silence amongst politicians. They have said nothing about the scale of the redundancies and done little to lobby the minister. By the time something is done it will be too late and hundreds will already be signing on – many will never secure work in the sector again.
One thing is clear, after behaving towards staff in such an inappropriate, inconsiderate and sometimes illegal way, no-one left in the sector should be under any illusion about their bosses. The evidence of the past weeks has shown how many of them pay lip service to ‘caring’ for their staff, whilst looking for the cheapest way to get rid of them when times are hard.
Proving once again – you just can’t trust bosses!
In one group of cases brought to my attention an employer is trying to force staff to accept either reduced hours or redundancy. Clearly, people affected are in something of a “Catch-22” situation because if they accept the former then later they are made redundant, the payment will be based on the reduced hour’s income and not their original full-time salary. On the other hand, if they go for redundancy today they lose any potential income between now and the end of the FND contract and may find themselves separated from any future TUPE considerations that may apply.
Fortunately for them the company is acting illegally under the Employment Rights Act, 1996 as they cannot force staff to make such a choice and the reduced hour’s option can only be adopted if ALL the staff agree.
The second situation involved a small to medium sized provider who, once they heard they had lost all their contracts set about implementing a high-powered campaign to place as many of their clients in jobs as possible. Caseworkers, job matchers and employer engagement staff were all encouraged to treble their efforts on the grounds it would make them more attractive to a new employer.
As staff became increasingly more unsettled the hierarchy set about visiting various locations “reassuring” staff they would all be considered by the new provider for TUPE. Then they committed the ultimate “no-no” – first they told all staff their jobs were safe and that everyone would be TUPE’d over to the new provider. This is factually inaccurate, but not illegal. The reality is that the new provider will inform the old one of how many staff they will require and these will be selected from those on the TUPE list. Selection is usually determined by simple factors such as proximity to the new place of work, or the match between the old job and the new one.
The second “no-no” was more alarming. Here the employer advised staff to increase their efforts as TUPE’d staff would be selected according to performance and those with poor results would not be transferred over to the new employer. This is both factually wrong and illegal. The new provider is not allowed to “cherry-pick” staff in this way and if they attempt to and reject certain staff, the people concerned could bring a case of unfair dismissal against both the old and the new provider.
Finally, there has been the broad lack of information that has and continues to pervades the sector – the “Will I or won’t I be transferred under TUPE regulations” question that has bounced around the sector for weeks. New and old providers have used a variety of cons to avoid answering this question, ranging from the lack of information coming from DWP, through to the uncertainty of what programmes are eligible for TUPE transfer.
Much of this had been decided weeks before and the fact that employers failed to advise staff is disturbing. Most providers knew many weeks ago that ESF funded projects, Pathways to Work and NDDP would not be eligible for consideration under the TUPE guidelines, yet it has taken until very recently for most employees to be aware of their position. Why has it taken so long when the information was known to management weeks ago?
The there has, and remains the issue of who will, or will not be TUPE’d. Now, primes will be aware of their staffing requirements to run the new project as this will have been factored in during their bid writing exercise. Similarly, nearly all of their supply chain will have been put in place when the bid was submitted and mf these will have had to calculate their expected staff requirement. Therefore it follows that in each CPA successful providers know how many staff they have and how many more they need. Now, if new providers know that in a certain CPA they require 100 new staff, it follows most of these will be accessed under TUPE transfer. Unfortunately, this information is not being made available and so staff are being left hanging in the hope they will be selected, but with the uncertainty there may not be any job to transfer into.
New employers could have outlined their requirements and shortfalls – they did not. Why? Were they frightened that frontline staff would suddenly see the extent of the disparity between the staff requirement for FNF and the new Work Programme. Were they trying to hide the fact that hundreds have and will be made redundant as a result of this new provision?
The way staff in the sector have been treated over the past few weeks is an absolute disgrace and has frequently crossed the boundaries of legality. Certainly there have been a number of occasions where employers have stayed within the law, but crossed the borders of morality by using redundancy law for their own ends in order to reduce the period of notice.
It is a disgrace and it has scarred the sector for many years to come. If there is any justice providers will be facing weeks and months of litigation as they try to resolve the increasing number of complaints of unfair dismissal.
What is also disturbing is the extent of silence amongst politicians. They have said nothing about the scale of the redundancies and done little to lobby the minister. By the time something is done it will be too late and hundreds will already be signing on – many will never secure work in the sector again.
One thing is clear, after behaving towards staff in such an inappropriate, inconsiderate and sometimes illegal way, no-one left in the sector should be under any illusion about their bosses. The evidence of the past weeks has shown how many of them pay lip service to ‘caring’ for their staff, whilst looking for the cheapest way to get rid of them when times are hard.
Proving once again – you just can’t trust bosses!
TUPE to be reviewed as part of law shake-up
Reprinted from an article by Claire Churchyard - People Management
The government has announced plans to review Tupe regulations, as well as collective redundancy and discrimination compensation, as part of its efforts to reduce the burden of red tape.
The three newly-targeted areas were highlighted by Ed Davey, Minister for Employment Relations, in a speech to the Institute for Economic Affairs. He said that Tupe (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) regulations which protect employees’ pay and conditions when an organisation is transferred from one owner to another, were being reviewed because some businesses think these rights are “gold plated” and overly bureaucratic.
Discrimination compensation could also be slashed as employers criticised the unlimited and unpredictable levels of award given by tribunals and said that large payouts could encourage ‘vexatious claims’.
Collective redundancy rules will be reviewed as employers have said that the 90 day minimum consultation period is “hindering their ability to restructure efficiency and retain a flexible workforce”. Employers in financial strife said they worry about how long they will need to go on paying staff after it is clear they need to let them go.
Davey said: “The areas we are reviewing are priorities for employers. We want to make it easier for businesses to take on staff and grow.
“We will be looking carefully at the arguments for reform. Fairness for individuals will not be compromised – but where we can make legislation easier to understand, improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy we will.”
Steve Radley, director of policy at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, welcomed the review but added: “We also need to see a change in culture from government with significantly less use of regulation to achieve its aims.
“With another consultation due next week on new flexible rights for employees, the government must be careful that it is not giving business more flexibility with one hand and taking it away with the other.”
But Unite’s general secretary Len McCluskey criticised the plans as an “onslaught on working people” and called for “the bonfire of employee rights” to be extinguished.
Ben Willmott, CIPD senior public policy adviser, questioned what scope the government would have to reform these laws given they are underpinned by European legislation.
He said that on the issue of compensation for discrimination claims, for example, there was an European Court of Justice ruling (1993) that said fixing an upper compensation limit wouldn’t adhere to the equal treatment directive.
“In light of this it’s difficult to see any scope for imposing a limit on discrimination compensation claims.”
Willmott said the CIPD supported current collective redundancy legislation.
He also supported “simplification” of the “extremely complex” TUPE regulations but explained that while there might be scope for improving the guidance, the legal framework underpinning it was from Europe so it might be harder to make the actual law simpler.
The government has announced plans to review Tupe regulations, as well as collective redundancy and discrimination compensation, as part of its efforts to reduce the burden of red tape.
The three newly-targeted areas were highlighted by Ed Davey, Minister for Employment Relations, in a speech to the Institute for Economic Affairs. He said that Tupe (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) regulations which protect employees’ pay and conditions when an organisation is transferred from one owner to another, were being reviewed because some businesses think these rights are “gold plated” and overly bureaucratic.
Discrimination compensation could also be slashed as employers criticised the unlimited and unpredictable levels of award given by tribunals and said that large payouts could encourage ‘vexatious claims’.
Collective redundancy rules will be reviewed as employers have said that the 90 day minimum consultation period is “hindering their ability to restructure efficiency and retain a flexible workforce”. Employers in financial strife said they worry about how long they will need to go on paying staff after it is clear they need to let them go.
Davey said: “The areas we are reviewing are priorities for employers. We want to make it easier for businesses to take on staff and grow.
“We will be looking carefully at the arguments for reform. Fairness for individuals will not be compromised – but where we can make legislation easier to understand, improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy we will.”
Steve Radley, director of policy at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, welcomed the review but added: “We also need to see a change in culture from government with significantly less use of regulation to achieve its aims.
“With another consultation due next week on new flexible rights for employees, the government must be careful that it is not giving business more flexibility with one hand and taking it away with the other.”
But Unite’s general secretary Len McCluskey criticised the plans as an “onslaught on working people” and called for “the bonfire of employee rights” to be extinguished.
Ben Willmott, CIPD senior public policy adviser, questioned what scope the government would have to reform these laws given they are underpinned by European legislation.
He said that on the issue of compensation for discrimination claims, for example, there was an European Court of Justice ruling (1993) that said fixing an upper compensation limit wouldn’t adhere to the equal treatment directive.
“In light of this it’s difficult to see any scope for imposing a limit on discrimination compensation claims.”
Willmott said the CIPD supported current collective redundancy legislation.
He also supported “simplification” of the “extremely complex” TUPE regulations but explained that while there might be scope for improving the guidance, the legal framework underpinning it was from Europe so it might be harder to make the actual law simpler.
Sunday 15 May 2011
Not in my name
Did anyone else hear about the Rally against Debt last Saturday? It seems about 350 people demonstrated in support of Government cuts and that it would be immoral to leave the debt to future generations.
It believed in substantial spending cuts sooner rather than later to avoid seeing more taxes going on debt interest, not paying for services.
Protesters held placards bearing messages including "Drowning in debt", "No more EU bailouts" and "Stop spending money you don't have".
Some of the crazies on this ‘demo’ included known Conservative activist, Matthew Sinclair, who attended under the banner of the Taxpayer's Alliance and said the cuts are essential:
"The country's facing a choice. It's facing a choice between racking up more and more debt and spending decades with taxpayers' burden and with the economy dragged down by that incredible debt. Or we start to take action to cut spending, to deliver better value and to start to rebuild our economic fortunes."
Other notable right-wingers attending included UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, who said: "We want to make it clear that not a penny more of British taxpayers' money should be spent on Euro bail-outs...and we regard giving £40m a day to Brussels for our membership of this union is giving us bad value for money. So from that little lot you get a fairly big shopping list of real, good, sensible cuts that could be made and we could perhaps keep a few more local libraries open."
With so few people attending you would have thought they would have been too embarrassed to call it a rally, wouldn’t you? But no, these are die-hard Tories we are talking about and they wanted to show those who attended the TUC demonstration earlier this year (yes, the one with half a million protesters) that there was an alternative voice.
Now let me get this right – this band of nutters think a fiasco in London can stand alongside one of the greatest demonstrations against government policy since the time of the Poll Tax resistance. Could I just remind them they were outnumbered on a ration of 1:1428!!!!
If this is the best the Tories can do then we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, they are usually far better organised and far more capable of causing bedlam to our society.
As we speak, hundreds of welfare to work staff are facing redundancy as they wait to hear if they will have a job for the next five years. Many won’t and will be forced to become clients of the new Work Programme themselves. Throughout, the government have been notable only by their silence and Chris Grayling, the architect of this demise has failed to answer accusations that he has watched whilst Rome burns.
The new Work programme will operate with fewer staff, yet will be expected to achieve better results than its predecessor, Flexible New Deal. As one writer recently said:
“… the delivery model is basically the same for A4e except we are being told to push the customers harder and not allow being on programme to become the easy option.”
But this isn’t just an A4e problem, it is across the entire sector and the government have failed to invest correctly, resulting in a programme that will be unable to achieve any better result than those before it, and at a cost of substantial redundancies for those who have been working in the sector for many years.
This lack of investment and strategic ineptitude was further exposed last week when the Department for Work and Pensions abandoned plans to introduce a system to automate the processing of all benefit claims. The DWP said that the system would still require "human intervention". In other words, they hadn’t thought it through, spent a fortune trying to get it to work and then found it wasn’t suitable.
The same disaster is set to hit the NHS as Citizen Dave continues his plans to “reform” the service. Unfortunately, some of those nasty discontents in the Lib Dems seem likely to put a spanner in the works and slow down or stop any of his plans. This won’t be enough to stop Citizen Dave – he is a man on a mission, even though the British Medical Association and some Labour MPs have expressed concern that the plans will allow private health firms to get a stronger foothold in the NHS.
The critics argue that the bill will allow competition law to be applied to the health service and lead to a much greater involvement, which in turn could undermine local NHS hospitals. The BMA has even likened it to the privatisation of utility industries.
But Citizen Dave, like the 350 who attended the “rally” in London last week refuse to listen to reason – they are Tories after all. Their venom is constantly being spat out and regurgitated by the media. Take the fact that the national media bothered to report the rally in the first place. It is another significant coup for the right because it tries to show how they represent the views of the majority.
Well, I refuse to have my name associated with the tragedy happening to the welfare to work sector. I do not wish to see changes to the NHS so that the private sector can cream off millions of pounds in profit.
When the Tories destroy our society, let the message be clear – they are not doing it in my name.
It believed in substantial spending cuts sooner rather than later to avoid seeing more taxes going on debt interest, not paying for services.
Protesters held placards bearing messages including "Drowning in debt", "No more EU bailouts" and "Stop spending money you don't have".
Some of the crazies on this ‘demo’ included known Conservative activist, Matthew Sinclair, who attended under the banner of the Taxpayer's Alliance and said the cuts are essential:
"The country's facing a choice. It's facing a choice between racking up more and more debt and spending decades with taxpayers' burden and with the economy dragged down by that incredible debt. Or we start to take action to cut spending, to deliver better value and to start to rebuild our economic fortunes."
Other notable right-wingers attending included UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, who said: "We want to make it clear that not a penny more of British taxpayers' money should be spent on Euro bail-outs...and we regard giving £40m a day to Brussels for our membership of this union is giving us bad value for money. So from that little lot you get a fairly big shopping list of real, good, sensible cuts that could be made and we could perhaps keep a few more local libraries open."
With so few people attending you would have thought they would have been too embarrassed to call it a rally, wouldn’t you? But no, these are die-hard Tories we are talking about and they wanted to show those who attended the TUC demonstration earlier this year (yes, the one with half a million protesters) that there was an alternative voice.
Now let me get this right – this band of nutters think a fiasco in London can stand alongside one of the greatest demonstrations against government policy since the time of the Poll Tax resistance. Could I just remind them they were outnumbered on a ration of 1:1428!!!!
If this is the best the Tories can do then we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, they are usually far better organised and far more capable of causing bedlam to our society.
As we speak, hundreds of welfare to work staff are facing redundancy as they wait to hear if they will have a job for the next five years. Many won’t and will be forced to become clients of the new Work Programme themselves. Throughout, the government have been notable only by their silence and Chris Grayling, the architect of this demise has failed to answer accusations that he has watched whilst Rome burns.
The new Work programme will operate with fewer staff, yet will be expected to achieve better results than its predecessor, Flexible New Deal. As one writer recently said:
“… the delivery model is basically the same for A4e except we are being told to push the customers harder and not allow being on programme to become the easy option.”
But this isn’t just an A4e problem, it is across the entire sector and the government have failed to invest correctly, resulting in a programme that will be unable to achieve any better result than those before it, and at a cost of substantial redundancies for those who have been working in the sector for many years.
This lack of investment and strategic ineptitude was further exposed last week when the Department for Work and Pensions abandoned plans to introduce a system to automate the processing of all benefit claims. The DWP said that the system would still require "human intervention". In other words, they hadn’t thought it through, spent a fortune trying to get it to work and then found it wasn’t suitable.
The same disaster is set to hit the NHS as Citizen Dave continues his plans to “reform” the service. Unfortunately, some of those nasty discontents in the Lib Dems seem likely to put a spanner in the works and slow down or stop any of his plans. This won’t be enough to stop Citizen Dave – he is a man on a mission, even though the British Medical Association and some Labour MPs have expressed concern that the plans will allow private health firms to get a stronger foothold in the NHS.
The critics argue that the bill will allow competition law to be applied to the health service and lead to a much greater involvement, which in turn could undermine local NHS hospitals. The BMA has even likened it to the privatisation of utility industries.
But Citizen Dave, like the 350 who attended the “rally” in London last week refuse to listen to reason – they are Tories after all. Their venom is constantly being spat out and regurgitated by the media. Take the fact that the national media bothered to report the rally in the first place. It is another significant coup for the right because it tries to show how they represent the views of the majority.
Well, I refuse to have my name associated with the tragedy happening to the welfare to work sector. I do not wish to see changes to the NHS so that the private sector can cream off millions of pounds in profit.
When the Tories destroy our society, let the message be clear – they are not doing it in my name.
at
22:30
0
comments
Labels:
A4e,
Citizen Dave,
Conservative,
David Cameron,
DWP,
NHS,
redundancies,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
A4e,
Citizen Dave,
Conservative,
David Cameron,
DWP,
NHS,
redundancies,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
Saturday 14 May 2011
More inequality in Labour constituencies
If you are born in some Labour held seats, there is a 1000% higher chance of unemployment than if you were born into some Tory heartlands
The study below shows how ridiculous the notion of 'equality of opportunity' is. You inherit inequality. You start from the back of the grid with a half tank of fuel if you are lucky. There is a Ferrari on row one and it is roaring to go. That's the way life works.
The national unemployment rate as of September 2010 was 7.2%. Above is the top 15 Parliamentary constituencies with the highest unemployment rate as of then. The main finding is that the regional disparity in the UK unemployment rate is vast. For example, in the case of Birmingham Ladywood the rate is nearly 350% higher than the national average. Labour represent 14 out of the top 15 seats with the highest unemployment.
The chart also shows those seats with the lowest unemployment rates. 6 seats unemployment rates were that low they could not be included on the graph but as we can see in the case of Wiltshire, Henley and Cambridge their unemployment rate is more than 300% smaller than the national average. As a young person growing up, the greatest postcode lottery of our age is whether or not you will get a job. Forget ability and work ethic, if you are born into certain parts of Birmingham and Nottingham your chances of being unemployed are nearly a 1000% higher than if you were born in Henley. The governments harshness on benefit claimants should be more reflective of the fact that work is hard to find in some areas.
This massive disparity distorts people's views on unemployment and general notions of benefit scrounging. There are areas of England where work is just scarce. It is too simplistic to say that people are lazy or unwilling to work. The Tory party is traditionally firm some might say unduly harsh on tackling benefit fraud. But I wonder if the key is convincing them to be just as dedicated to job creation.
The study below shows how ridiculous the notion of 'equality of opportunity' is. You inherit inequality. You start from the back of the grid with a half tank of fuel if you are lucky. There is a Ferrari on row one and it is roaring to go. That's the way life works.
The national unemployment rate as of September 2010 was 7.2%. Above is the top 15 Parliamentary constituencies with the highest unemployment rate as of then. The main finding is that the regional disparity in the UK unemployment rate is vast. For example, in the case of Birmingham Ladywood the rate is nearly 350% higher than the national average. Labour represent 14 out of the top 15 seats with the highest unemployment. The chart also shows those seats with the lowest unemployment rates. 6 seats unemployment rates were that low they could not be included on the graph but as we can see in the case of Wiltshire, Henley and Cambridge their unemployment rate is more than 300% smaller than the national average. As a young person growing up, the greatest postcode lottery of our age is whether or not you will get a job. Forget ability and work ethic, if you are born into certain parts of Birmingham and Nottingham your chances of being unemployed are nearly a 1000% higher than if you were born in Henley. The governments harshness on benefit claimants should be more reflective of the fact that work is hard to find in some areas.
This massive disparity distorts people's views on unemployment and general notions of benefit scrounging. There are areas of England where work is just scarce. It is too simplistic to say that people are lazy or unwilling to work. The Tory party is traditionally firm some might say unduly harsh on tackling benefit fraud. But I wonder if the key is convincing them to be just as dedicated to job creation.
Friday 13 May 2011
Young, angry and on the rise
by Matthew Collins and Simon Cressy
(The following article appeared in this month's edition of "Searchlight" magazine. Readers may be aware that "Hope not Hate", the anti-fascist campaigning body that emerged out of the magazine is thinking of ending its fight with the BNP. This article is reproduced as a reminder to all that the BNP is not dead and the fight must go on)
The Young BNP, followed by the short-lived “BNP Crusaders” and now “Resistance” are intended to represent Nick Griffin’s personal ideological legacy to the “movement”. Having temporarily succeeded in masking elements of his own dubious political history, Griffin is trying to forge the future of his party on a quasi-paramilitary outfit for people aged 18 to 30 with lashings of hearty, white Britishness thrown in. These new “Young Turks” are presented as driven by the wholesome love of their country and untainted like so many of their peers by Nazism and racial hatred.
Since its inception, the BNP’s youth wing has been surrounded by older gun nuts and heavy drinkers. The YBNP with its Nazi volk imagery was supposed to encourage teenage party members to adopt a healthy outdoor lifestyle by playing with knives and airguns while dressed in paramilitary costumes. Around camp fires junior nazis got drunk and engaged in “healthy” teenage debauchery.
After a series of national newspaper exposés, the YBNP morphed into the BNP Crusaders as the party continued to search for a long-term replacement for Griffin. Because of that wider context, a position in the leadership of the youth, or now “young adult”, wing of the BNP is an honour for young white patriots who can thereby present themselves as the future leaders of the BNP.
Among the alumni of the BNP’s youth leadership are Mark Collett, who disgraced himself on national television (more than once), Griffin’s daughter Jennifer, the argumentative Danny Lake, who was sacked by a text message telling him to “p*** off”, and the party’s appalling karaoke recording “artist” Joey Smith. But now, raise your right arms for the fiery star of Channel 4’s 2010 documentary Young, Angry and White, Kieren Trent.
Trent, who is articulate and working class, was seen as something of a boutique acquisition for the party. Certainly angry and white, Trent had been filmed contemplating the temptations of the rival National Front and “autonomous nationalists” of the now-defunct English National Resistance.
Trent’s personal life was a bit of a gift to amateur psychologists. His mother had fled two abusive relationships with Kieren in tow while his father made a new life with a new wife and family elsewhere in the country. Trent, 20, also exhibited a puritan view on sex and relationships, castigating open-mouthed friends as “degenerate”, in particular on the issues of homosexuality and inter-racial relationships, courting unchallenged controversy in a bid for further attention. He even went as far as to check his girlfriend’s ethnicity.
Someone so young with so many insecurities and hang-ups was ideal to head the BNP’s youth section. In February, Trent was named as the leader of the latest incarnation of the young BNP, Resistance, at its launch in a London pub.
His elevation came despite a strange incident the previous month. An interest in European fascism and trips to Europe with other BNP officers and members had stirred Trent’s interest in his own Irish ancestry, always a tricky subject in the BNP. In January he tried to attend a Bloody Sunday commemoration meeting in Conway Hall, London, held jointly by the Republican Network for Unity and the Irish Republican Prisoners’ Support Group, both of which campaign, among other things, for recognition of dissident Irish republican prisoners.
Recognised by the stewards and barred, Trent entered into a long and pained discussion in which he portrayed his membership of the BNP as his own struggle for national liberation, likening it to membership of Irish republican groups. Not only could he reconcile the two, he claimed their interests were mutual. He also offered up some less than complimentary opinions about members of his party, but was still given short shrift.
However Trent has developed other new and potentially dangerous interests.
It seems the girlfriend whose ethnicity Trent doubted has been kicked to the kerb to be replaced by an older woman well known to BNP watchers. The new belle on Trent’s arm is none other than the North East organiser Cheryl Dunn from Hartlepool. This “love match” has caused no end of problems for Trent and the BNP as Dunn already had a partner, the one-time Hartlepool BNP organiser Peter King.
King was convicted last year for racially aggravated harassment and possessing an offensive weapon. Dunn described her relationship with King, a man blessed by a notoriously short fuse, as “violent and abusive” on an internet forum.
With Dunn at Northumbria University and King working in London, opportunity knocked and Dunn and Trent started an affair, sharing as much time together at BNP events as possible.
Eventually the inevitable happened and King found out.
When Trent and Dunn attended a recent BNP event in London together, King confronted the couple, violently assaulting Trent in front of several BNP members. The police were called and King was arrested and remanded in custody. Trent’s injuries were so bad that he was taken to hospital.
Another rising young star is Jordan Pont from Sheffield, the Yorkshire organiser of Resistance. Pont, 21, is known for his Facebook rants against people he feels are holding him back from achieving his ambitions in the party. In a high risk strategy, he even described some of Griffin’s most trusted lieutenants as “useless” when he was demanding last year that he be imposed on the BNP’s Sheffield branch as its organiser.
Now safely ensconced in this role, Jordan has become a loyal Griffinite, but initially toyed with joining the BNP Reform group, which wants to depose Griffin as leader. After a change of heart he dramatically stormed out of a meeting addressed by the party renegade Eddy Butler who is touring the country trying to organise the anti-Griffin movement.
Keen on self promotion, Pont filmed and posted on YouTube his own (dreadful) party political broadcast in support of his campaign to get elected to Sheffield council in East Ecclesfield. He is also a keener participant on internet forums, where he drives home his extreme dislike of Muslims and Islam. In one attack on a critic of the party, Pont rounded on an accusation that the BNP admired Adolf Hitler. Exploding into another of his semiliterate rants, he raged. “How can you say we admire Hitler. Hitler enjoyed having muslims [sic] in his SS, He loved the Islamic Faith! The BNP aren’t to [sic] fond on Muslims and i [sic] for one is against the Islamic Faith.”
Pont’s rise up the BNP ladder has cost him one friendship. Tom Holmes, another young party member with a rather colourful online persona, has taken to posting articles attacking Pont on the internet in a bid to draw unwelcome attention to Pont and thwart his ambitions.
Holmes and Pont initially fell out when Pont accused Holmes of grooming a young girl. Holmes did not deny it but said he had been duped. Holmes now spends time on the British Democracy Forum, Facebook and Indymedia website, posting messages against Pont and the BNP generally, which he feels has overlooked his own brilliant leadership potential. Their dispute could rumble on for a while yet.
(The following article appeared in this month's edition of "Searchlight" magazine. Readers may be aware that "Hope not Hate", the anti-fascist campaigning body that emerged out of the magazine is thinking of ending its fight with the BNP. This article is reproduced as a reminder to all that the BNP is not dead and the fight must go on)
The Young BNP, followed by the short-lived “BNP Crusaders” and now “Resistance” are intended to represent Nick Griffin’s personal ideological legacy to the “movement”. Having temporarily succeeded in masking elements of his own dubious political history, Griffin is trying to forge the future of his party on a quasi-paramilitary outfit for people aged 18 to 30 with lashings of hearty, white Britishness thrown in. These new “Young Turks” are presented as driven by the wholesome love of their country and untainted like so many of their peers by Nazism and racial hatred.
Since its inception, the BNP’s youth wing has been surrounded by older gun nuts and heavy drinkers. The YBNP with its Nazi volk imagery was supposed to encourage teenage party members to adopt a healthy outdoor lifestyle by playing with knives and airguns while dressed in paramilitary costumes. Around camp fires junior nazis got drunk and engaged in “healthy” teenage debauchery.
After a series of national newspaper exposés, the YBNP morphed into the BNP Crusaders as the party continued to search for a long-term replacement for Griffin. Because of that wider context, a position in the leadership of the youth, or now “young adult”, wing of the BNP is an honour for young white patriots who can thereby present themselves as the future leaders of the BNP.
Among the alumni of the BNP’s youth leadership are Mark Collett, who disgraced himself on national television (more than once), Griffin’s daughter Jennifer, the argumentative Danny Lake, who was sacked by a text message telling him to “p*** off”, and the party’s appalling karaoke recording “artist” Joey Smith. But now, raise your right arms for the fiery star of Channel 4’s 2010 documentary Young, Angry and White, Kieren Trent.
Trent, who is articulate and working class, was seen as something of a boutique acquisition for the party. Certainly angry and white, Trent had been filmed contemplating the temptations of the rival National Front and “autonomous nationalists” of the now-defunct English National Resistance.
Trent’s personal life was a bit of a gift to amateur psychologists. His mother had fled two abusive relationships with Kieren in tow while his father made a new life with a new wife and family elsewhere in the country. Trent, 20, also exhibited a puritan view on sex and relationships, castigating open-mouthed friends as “degenerate”, in particular on the issues of homosexuality and inter-racial relationships, courting unchallenged controversy in a bid for further attention. He even went as far as to check his girlfriend’s ethnicity.
Someone so young with so many insecurities and hang-ups was ideal to head the BNP’s youth section. In February, Trent was named as the leader of the latest incarnation of the young BNP, Resistance, at its launch in a London pub.
His elevation came despite a strange incident the previous month. An interest in European fascism and trips to Europe with other BNP officers and members had stirred Trent’s interest in his own Irish ancestry, always a tricky subject in the BNP. In January he tried to attend a Bloody Sunday commemoration meeting in Conway Hall, London, held jointly by the Republican Network for Unity and the Irish Republican Prisoners’ Support Group, both of which campaign, among other things, for recognition of dissident Irish republican prisoners.
Recognised by the stewards and barred, Trent entered into a long and pained discussion in which he portrayed his membership of the BNP as his own struggle for national liberation, likening it to membership of Irish republican groups. Not only could he reconcile the two, he claimed their interests were mutual. He also offered up some less than complimentary opinions about members of his party, but was still given short shrift.
However Trent has developed other new and potentially dangerous interests.
It seems the girlfriend whose ethnicity Trent doubted has been kicked to the kerb to be replaced by an older woman well known to BNP watchers. The new belle on Trent’s arm is none other than the North East organiser Cheryl Dunn from Hartlepool. This “love match” has caused no end of problems for Trent and the BNP as Dunn already had a partner, the one-time Hartlepool BNP organiser Peter King.
King was convicted last year for racially aggravated harassment and possessing an offensive weapon. Dunn described her relationship with King, a man blessed by a notoriously short fuse, as “violent and abusive” on an internet forum.
With Dunn at Northumbria University and King working in London, opportunity knocked and Dunn and Trent started an affair, sharing as much time together at BNP events as possible.
Eventually the inevitable happened and King found out.
When Trent and Dunn attended a recent BNP event in London together, King confronted the couple, violently assaulting Trent in front of several BNP members. The police were called and King was arrested and remanded in custody. Trent’s injuries were so bad that he was taken to hospital.
Another rising young star is Jordan Pont from Sheffield, the Yorkshire organiser of Resistance. Pont, 21, is known for his Facebook rants against people he feels are holding him back from achieving his ambitions in the party. In a high risk strategy, he even described some of Griffin’s most trusted lieutenants as “useless” when he was demanding last year that he be imposed on the BNP’s Sheffield branch as its organiser.
Now safely ensconced in this role, Jordan has become a loyal Griffinite, but initially toyed with joining the BNP Reform group, which wants to depose Griffin as leader. After a change of heart he dramatically stormed out of a meeting addressed by the party renegade Eddy Butler who is touring the country trying to organise the anti-Griffin movement.
Keen on self promotion, Pont filmed and posted on YouTube his own (dreadful) party political broadcast in support of his campaign to get elected to Sheffield council in East Ecclesfield. He is also a keener participant on internet forums, where he drives home his extreme dislike of Muslims and Islam. In one attack on a critic of the party, Pont rounded on an accusation that the BNP admired Adolf Hitler. Exploding into another of his semiliterate rants, he raged. “How can you say we admire Hitler. Hitler enjoyed having muslims [sic] in his SS, He loved the Islamic Faith! The BNP aren’t to [sic] fond on Muslims and i [sic] for one is against the Islamic Faith.”
Pont’s rise up the BNP ladder has cost him one friendship. Tom Holmes, another young party member with a rather colourful online persona, has taken to posting articles attacking Pont on the internet in a bid to draw unwelcome attention to Pont and thwart his ambitions.
Holmes and Pont initially fell out when Pont accused Holmes of grooming a young girl. Holmes did not deny it but said he had been duped. Holmes now spends time on the British Democracy Forum, Facebook and Indymedia website, posting messages against Pont and the BNP generally, which he feels has overlooked his own brilliant leadership potential. Their dispute could rumble on for a while yet.
A case of being laughable
Now here’s something to laugh at - David Cameron and Nick Clegg were together at an event yesterday to launch a government drive on youth unemployment.
The prime minister and his deputy will announce a £60m package to boost work prospects and vocational education.
They will commit in their appearance in London to tackle "structural barriers" to young people starting a career.
The launch comes a year after Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron walked into Downing Street together.
The government said it would provide funding for 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years and 100,000 work placements over the next two years.
More than 100 large companies and tens of thousands of small businesses had pledged to offer work experience places, ministers added.
Mr Cameron said: "It's time to reverse the trend of rising youth unemployment that has held back our country for far too long and help our young people get the jobs on which their future - and ours - depends.
"But government can't act alone. We need employers who are prepared to give young people a go.
"So I'm delighted that over 100 large companies and tens of thousands of small and medium sized enterprises have already responded to our call for work experience placements so that tens of thousands of young people can take those vital first steps in experiencing the world of work."
Mr Clegg said: "We all have a responsibility - government, business, charities, education providers - to work together to find a solution."
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said the proposals failed to match the guarantees given by the now cut Future Jobs Fund.
"The best thing the government could do is stop their deep rapid spending cuts that are running the whole economy into the ground, with the young as the worst victims,"
How absolutely true, but come on Brendan, surely you can do better than that? Almost a quarter of young people are without work and despite their best efforts the government have not been able to reverse the trend. Work experience is all very well, but it isn’t paid employment and it isn’t permanent. Moreover, the government are pitching their money on the private sector being wiling and able to pick up the tab of employing all these young people, but with inflation likely to rise to 5% over the coming year, industry is going to be hard-pushed to be competitive anyway – and that’s without the additional staff numbers coming from youth.
Citizen Dave and Tricky Nicky need to get their acts together and recognise there is a very real problem affecting an entire generation and it will not go away unless the government are prepared to invest in programmes that can help young people secure permanent and sustainable employment. Half-hearted measures that pay lip service to the needs of the young are an embarrassment and need to be treated with total scorn. These measures will do nothing to address the number of young people unemployed and it will give little to allay the fears of those set to leave school in June.
What baffles me is how few people see the lack of care Citizen Dave and Tricky Nicky have for the people of this country. Dave is the worst kind of Tory – a Thatcherite with a PR face. On face value he looks squeaky clean, but when you aren’t looking he’ll rip your heart out and laugh as he’s doing it. As for Clegg, he is just a puppet following his master’s will, but make no mistake, he knows what he is doing and, even worse, he agrees with Tory policy.
The prime minister and his deputy will announce a £60m package to boost work prospects and vocational education.
They will commit in their appearance in London to tackle "structural barriers" to young people starting a career.
The launch comes a year after Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron walked into Downing Street together.
The government said it would provide funding for 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years and 100,000 work placements over the next two years.
More than 100 large companies and tens of thousands of small businesses had pledged to offer work experience places, ministers added.
Mr Cameron said: "It's time to reverse the trend of rising youth unemployment that has held back our country for far too long and help our young people get the jobs on which their future - and ours - depends.
"But government can't act alone. We need employers who are prepared to give young people a go.
"So I'm delighted that over 100 large companies and tens of thousands of small and medium sized enterprises have already responded to our call for work experience placements so that tens of thousands of young people can take those vital first steps in experiencing the world of work."
Mr Clegg said: "We all have a responsibility - government, business, charities, education providers - to work together to find a solution."
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said the proposals failed to match the guarantees given by the now cut Future Jobs Fund.
"The best thing the government could do is stop their deep rapid spending cuts that are running the whole economy into the ground, with the young as the worst victims,"
How absolutely true, but come on Brendan, surely you can do better than that? Almost a quarter of young people are without work and despite their best efforts the government have not been able to reverse the trend. Work experience is all very well, but it isn’t paid employment and it isn’t permanent. Moreover, the government are pitching their money on the private sector being wiling and able to pick up the tab of employing all these young people, but with inflation likely to rise to 5% over the coming year, industry is going to be hard-pushed to be competitive anyway – and that’s without the additional staff numbers coming from youth.
Citizen Dave and Tricky Nicky need to get their acts together and recognise there is a very real problem affecting an entire generation and it will not go away unless the government are prepared to invest in programmes that can help young people secure permanent and sustainable employment. Half-hearted measures that pay lip service to the needs of the young are an embarrassment and need to be treated with total scorn. These measures will do nothing to address the number of young people unemployed and it will give little to allay the fears of those set to leave school in June.
What baffles me is how few people see the lack of care Citizen Dave and Tricky Nicky have for the people of this country. Dave is the worst kind of Tory – a Thatcherite with a PR face. On face value he looks squeaky clean, but when you aren’t looking he’ll rip your heart out and laugh as he’s doing it. As for Clegg, he is just a puppet following his master’s will, but make no mistake, he knows what he is doing and, even worse, he agrees with Tory policy.
Thursday 12 May 2011
No posting
Apologies for the absence of blog today. The server went down at about 6am and only just returned.
Normal postings will resule tomorrow
Normal postings will resule tomorrow
Tuesday 10 May 2011
National Insurance Holiday – a feeble start
Ed Balls was very effective yesterday, ridiculing George Osborne’s National Insurance “holiday.” This is one of the government’s new employment programmes, letting new businesses off paying National Insurance Contributions for the first 10 employees hired in their first year. Back in 2009, the Conservative Party claimed that it would create 60,000 jobs in two years, but by the time of last year’s Budget this had risen to 400,000 businesses (and presumably more jobs) benefiting. The government was so worried that this offer was going to be over-subscribed that they excluded businesses in London, East Anglia and the South East, and even so, budgeted to spend £50 million in 2010-11, rising to £370 million in 2012-13.
Well, how’s it going? As Mr Balls pointed out, figures the Treasury tried to slip out on the quiet showed that the actual figures so far are 3,000 businesses and an estimated 6,000 workers. Total cost so far? £5 million.
Ahem …
The TUC has argued for some time that the government has talked up the National Insurance holiday to a ludicrous extent. It isn’t actually harmful – some jobs will be created, but it doesn’t come anywhere near matching the scale of the problem. And it certainly doesn’t compensate for the vandalism of closing down the Future Jobs Fund. Of course, it’s possible that this is just a slow start, eventually it’ll be a great success and I’ll have egg on my face.
But somehow I don’t think so.
Well, how’s it going? As Mr Balls pointed out, figures the Treasury tried to slip out on the quiet showed that the actual figures so far are 3,000 businesses and an estimated 6,000 workers. Total cost so far? £5 million.
Ahem …
The TUC has argued for some time that the government has talked up the National Insurance holiday to a ludicrous extent. It isn’t actually harmful – some jobs will be created, but it doesn’t come anywhere near matching the scale of the problem. And it certainly doesn’t compensate for the vandalism of closing down the Future Jobs Fund. Of course, it’s possible that this is just a slow start, eventually it’ll be a great success and I’ll have egg on my face.
But somehow I don’t think so.
Monday 9 May 2011
Dishonesty in the Welfare to Work industry
As we all know the welfare to work industry is going through turmoil as it prepares for the delivery of the new Work Programme. Hundreds of people are now on redundancy notice though hopefully, a good number will find alternative employment with other providers.
Many of these will transfer under TUPE regulations in the hope their jobs will remain and they will continue to earn an income. What remains unclear is how many of these will be subject to redundancy notices once they have been transferred over.
Already we have heard one provider appearing the ‘bend’ the rules by talking about adhering to the ‘spirit’ of TUPE, rather than stating clearly they will follow the guidelines to the letter. We can only hope this was little more than a figure of speech and that staff will be given full rights under employment law.
Yesterday I was shocked to receive news from one of my informants. It appears that one of the unsuccessful providers may be forced to shed its entire staff. Many of these will be subject to TUPE considerations, but it will undoubtedly also result in a large number of redundancies. As the deadline for the transfer of clients from FND to WP looms, staff in the company are being urged to secure as many jobs as possible before the deadline – the cynical part of me wonders whether this has anything to do with profit rather than any other factor. In an explanation of this approach a senior manager explained it was to make the staff look as attractive as possible so that the highest performers would be TUPE’d but those who failed to deliver would almost certainly be out.
This is blatantly illegal and contravenes both the spirit and practice of TUPE. All frontline staff are eligible for TUPE transfer, though the company can limit the numbers based on their own requirements. Thus, if 100 staff are eligible for transfer, but the new company only needs 10 then the transfer will take factors into account like closeness to work etc. Sadly, those not transferred will be made redundant, though in some situations they may be transferred and made redundant by the new provider.
At a time when the sector is going through such pain it is incumbent on senior managers to be honest with their staff. They need to keep them regularly updated of news as it happens and offer clear guidelines about the process that will be adopted. In all of this process there can be no room for immoral profiteering from the fear of staff due to lose their jobs – but since when did bosses ever care about the workers?
Many of these will transfer under TUPE regulations in the hope their jobs will remain and they will continue to earn an income. What remains unclear is how many of these will be subject to redundancy notices once they have been transferred over.
Already we have heard one provider appearing the ‘bend’ the rules by talking about adhering to the ‘spirit’ of TUPE, rather than stating clearly they will follow the guidelines to the letter. We can only hope this was little more than a figure of speech and that staff will be given full rights under employment law.
Yesterday I was shocked to receive news from one of my informants. It appears that one of the unsuccessful providers may be forced to shed its entire staff. Many of these will be subject to TUPE considerations, but it will undoubtedly also result in a large number of redundancies. As the deadline for the transfer of clients from FND to WP looms, staff in the company are being urged to secure as many jobs as possible before the deadline – the cynical part of me wonders whether this has anything to do with profit rather than any other factor. In an explanation of this approach a senior manager explained it was to make the staff look as attractive as possible so that the highest performers would be TUPE’d but those who failed to deliver would almost certainly be out.
This is blatantly illegal and contravenes both the spirit and practice of TUPE. All frontline staff are eligible for TUPE transfer, though the company can limit the numbers based on their own requirements. Thus, if 100 staff are eligible for transfer, but the new company only needs 10 then the transfer will take factors into account like closeness to work etc. Sadly, those not transferred will be made redundant, though in some situations they may be transferred and made redundant by the new provider.
At a time when the sector is going through such pain it is incumbent on senior managers to be honest with their staff. They need to keep them regularly updated of news as it happens and offer clear guidelines about the process that will be adopted. In all of this process there can be no room for immoral profiteering from the fear of staff due to lose their jobs – but since when did bosses ever care about the workers?
Why Labour still have it wrong on ESA
Readers may not have had the chance to read an excellent posting by Sue Marsh (Diary of a Benefit Scrounger) yesterday. Due to the significance of the piece it is reprinted in full.
If threats of suicide over sickness and disability welfare reform were not enough to depress me (see earlier article) then news that The Public Bill Committee on Welfare Reform voted on Tuesday to keep time-limiting as part of the Bill added fury to the mix.
Rhydian Fon-James outlines the next steps in this brilliant piece for Broken of Britain and rightly points to Stephen Timms passionate attempt to oppose the plans, but finding myself on a long and boring car journey to Devon over the weekend, I took the time to read the transcripts from the committee and my sense of frustration and anger rose with every mile.
Of all the proposals to cut social security for the sick and disabled, I am totally clear that time limiting ESA is the single biggest threat to the dignity and financial stability the most vulnerable people in our society face. Why? Because it is absolute. Once our year is up, no matter what our conditions, no matter what our family incomes or levels of poverty, we will be cut adrift. If, like me, your partner works him or herself into the ground to maintain a degree of financial independence, you will face a total loss of all support. We will become chattels, totally at the mercy of the goodwill of our loved ones. Worth nothing in the eyes of society, anyone with a progressive or degenerative condition who has not found some miracle cure within one year will be cast off.
Even a causal reading of this article makes it clear that this will present a massive dis-incentive to work. It will simply bankrupt us and force us into claiming 100% state support.
It is also a dis-incentive to be honest. I could side-step this proposal by getting a divorce and indeed, many people like me may simply be left with no other alternative.
It breaks any covenant between the state and dreadfully unwell people. People who may have paid into the same system all of their lives but find that when life becomes impossibly hard, they are all alone.
The transcripts show that other than cancer and to a lesser degree, mental illness, our politicians - of all parties - have no concept at all of what they are about to do. Mr Timms suggested that 90% of all claimants put into the Work Related Activity group will be affected by this change. From now on, if you get sick, you have just one year to get better or you will lose everything.
The Labour amendment suggested that time limiting should be set at at least two years. Mr Timms did ask for much more information and research on just how many people will actually have found work in that time, but it appears the DWP have no idea. So far studies show that of those being transferred from Incapacity Benefit to ESA, just 9% are "helped" into work within a year. What will happen to the other 81%? Nobody knows and it is abundantly clear that nobody cares.
There is no evidence to suggest that ministers have looked into exactly how much working partners earn. Can they actually afford to support their unwell or disabled partners without facing bankruptcy? With the limit set at just over £5000 per year or 24 hours a week, virtually all families will be affected.
The vital and depressing part is that despite asking for clarification on some issues and asking for a longer limit (the proposal was rejected) Labour still totally support the concept of time-limiting ESA. There were many references to how it has worked with those on Jobseekers Allowance but no concept at all of why the same mandatory approach cannot possibly work for those who are unwell.
All the while Labour refuse to listen and the Lib Dems support the Conservative proposals, sick and disabled people have no voice at all speaking out for them. How dare Labour decide that one year is too short, but two will probably be fine, with no details or facts at all to back up their claim? What kind of society and democracy are we living in if the opinions and voices of sick and disabled people are totally ignored? If those making the decisions are so keen to save money that they ignore all evidence, all pleas, all sense?
How totally out of touch are our politicians if they believe that cancer is the only condition that might not get better in a year? Have they honestly not heard of conditions like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Bowel Disease, Heart Disease, Lupus, Kidney Failure, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia or the countless other degenerative, progressive or auto-immune conditions that may make it impossible for people to work? ALL of these people routinely go into the Work Related Activity Group and it is very unlikely that many of them will be able to "work" at least in the way expected by the DWP.
On 14thy May 2010, Mr Timms was stabbed by a constituent, suffering "potentially life threatening" wounds - lacerations to his liver and a perforation to his stomach. A senior police officer said that he "was extremely fortunate not to have been killed."
Just a millimetre either way could have seen Mr Timms disabled for life. He could have been left without a bowel, leaving him dependent on a feeding tube for the rest of his life. He could have suffered liver damage that left him in need of a transplant. That spare liver may have taken much longer than a year to appear. The knife could have severed his spinal cord leaving him paralysed.
Whilst I'm extremely thankful that no such disaster ravaged Mr Timm's life, the words "There but for the grace of God go I" must surely have occurred to him? Surely, he of all people must be able to see that life can change in a heartbeat and setting a stopwatch may not be appropriate to recovery?
No matter how big the stick, no matter how hard politicians try to use that stick to beat us with, some conditions just won't get better. Some will be made worse by working. A political class that chooses to ignore those simple facts, using a mid 90s definition of illness is in a very dangerous place indeed.
If threats of suicide over sickness and disability welfare reform were not enough to depress me (see earlier article) then news that The Public Bill Committee on Welfare Reform voted on Tuesday to keep time-limiting as part of the Bill added fury to the mix.
Rhydian Fon-James outlines the next steps in this brilliant piece for Broken of Britain and rightly points to Stephen Timms passionate attempt to oppose the plans, but finding myself on a long and boring car journey to Devon over the weekend, I took the time to read the transcripts from the committee and my sense of frustration and anger rose with every mile.
Of all the proposals to cut social security for the sick and disabled, I am totally clear that time limiting ESA is the single biggest threat to the dignity and financial stability the most vulnerable people in our society face. Why? Because it is absolute. Once our year is up, no matter what our conditions, no matter what our family incomes or levels of poverty, we will be cut adrift. If, like me, your partner works him or herself into the ground to maintain a degree of financial independence, you will face a total loss of all support. We will become chattels, totally at the mercy of the goodwill of our loved ones. Worth nothing in the eyes of society, anyone with a progressive or degenerative condition who has not found some miracle cure within one year will be cast off.
Even a causal reading of this article makes it clear that this will present a massive dis-incentive to work. It will simply bankrupt us and force us into claiming 100% state support.
It is also a dis-incentive to be honest. I could side-step this proposal by getting a divorce and indeed, many people like me may simply be left with no other alternative.
It breaks any covenant between the state and dreadfully unwell people. People who may have paid into the same system all of their lives but find that when life becomes impossibly hard, they are all alone.
The transcripts show that other than cancer and to a lesser degree, mental illness, our politicians - of all parties - have no concept at all of what they are about to do. Mr Timms suggested that 90% of all claimants put into the Work Related Activity group will be affected by this change. From now on, if you get sick, you have just one year to get better or you will lose everything.
The Labour amendment suggested that time limiting should be set at at least two years. Mr Timms did ask for much more information and research on just how many people will actually have found work in that time, but it appears the DWP have no idea. So far studies show that of those being transferred from Incapacity Benefit to ESA, just 9% are "helped" into work within a year. What will happen to the other 81%? Nobody knows and it is abundantly clear that nobody cares.
There is no evidence to suggest that ministers have looked into exactly how much working partners earn. Can they actually afford to support their unwell or disabled partners without facing bankruptcy? With the limit set at just over £5000 per year or 24 hours a week, virtually all families will be affected.
The vital and depressing part is that despite asking for clarification on some issues and asking for a longer limit (the proposal was rejected) Labour still totally support the concept of time-limiting ESA. There were many references to how it has worked with those on Jobseekers Allowance but no concept at all of why the same mandatory approach cannot possibly work for those who are unwell.
All the while Labour refuse to listen and the Lib Dems support the Conservative proposals, sick and disabled people have no voice at all speaking out for them. How dare Labour decide that one year is too short, but two will probably be fine, with no details or facts at all to back up their claim? What kind of society and democracy are we living in if the opinions and voices of sick and disabled people are totally ignored? If those making the decisions are so keen to save money that they ignore all evidence, all pleas, all sense?
How totally out of touch are our politicians if they believe that cancer is the only condition that might not get better in a year? Have they honestly not heard of conditions like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Bowel Disease, Heart Disease, Lupus, Kidney Failure, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia or the countless other degenerative, progressive or auto-immune conditions that may make it impossible for people to work? ALL of these people routinely go into the Work Related Activity Group and it is very unlikely that many of them will be able to "work" at least in the way expected by the DWP.
On 14thy May 2010, Mr Timms was stabbed by a constituent, suffering "potentially life threatening" wounds - lacerations to his liver and a perforation to his stomach. A senior police officer said that he "was extremely fortunate not to have been killed."
Just a millimetre either way could have seen Mr Timms disabled for life. He could have been left without a bowel, leaving him dependent on a feeding tube for the rest of his life. He could have suffered liver damage that left him in need of a transplant. That spare liver may have taken much longer than a year to appear. The knife could have severed his spinal cord leaving him paralysed.
Whilst I'm extremely thankful that no such disaster ravaged Mr Timm's life, the words "There but for the grace of God go I" must surely have occurred to him? Surely, he of all people must be able to see that life can change in a heartbeat and setting a stopwatch may not be appropriate to recovery?
No matter how big the stick, no matter how hard politicians try to use that stick to beat us with, some conditions just won't get better. Some will be made worse by working. A political class that chooses to ignore those simple facts, using a mid 90s definition of illness is in a very dangerous place indeed.
Sunday 8 May 2011
Are the far right a spent force?
Every decent thinking reader of this blog will have warmly welcomed the news that the BNP have been reduced to only two councillors as a result of last Thursday’s election. One of the key reasons for this failure to retain their seats has been due to the outstanding work of anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations such as Hope not Hate. They should be congratulated.
The danger now is that those opposed to the far right now become complacent as we all enjoy the spectacle of Nick Griffin and the BNP tearing themselves apart. However, there is still much to be done.
Whilst the BNP and NF are capable of derisory results at the polls there are still far right groups that are achieving some disturbing successes.
The anti-immigration policies of the BNP are widely recognised, but less publicised is the stance of the English Democrats. Their vitriol is no different from Griffin’s crew. Take what they say on their website:
“Immigration is out of control. England is the third most densely populated country in the world and, for its size, the most densely populated country in Europe. We have neither the space nor the resources to permit more large-scale immigration. England is targeted by hundreds of thousands of economic migrants each year, who know they can come here easily, costing English taxpayers £billions a year in benefits. Worse still, immigrants are granted housing that young or needy English people are entitled to. In short, mass immigration has placed severe strains on England's housing accommodation, Education and Health Services, and exacerbated road congestion. It is time to close the door. Mass immigration must be ended. We would deport illegal immigrants and all those immigrants who are extremists, terrorists and criminals. We would regain control of our immigration systems by leaving the European Union.”
And on education ….
“The English Democrats support parental choice. Where there is a demand for it, schools should be able to free them-selves from local education authority control and be run independently in a way that suits local needs.”
Gays, women, minority groups had all better beware too. On the matter of political correctness they argue:
“The English Democrats unreservedly condemn this intolerant creed. We reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil. Political correctness is incompatible with a free and democratic society.”
Now, ordinarily we might dismiss the English Democrats as a bunch of eccentrics, but the polls last Thursday showed that in some wards they were polling over 20% of the vote. On top of that, the Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies joined the English democrats in 2005 and has stood as their candidate since that time.
It is now time anti-fascist groups turned their attention on these anti-immigration groups and exposed their innate racism. The danger is that we concentrate exclusively on the BNP and NF, thus allowing other far right groups like this to gain a foothold.
So far they have failed to achieve any significant gains, but they are increasing and they are putting themselves over as moderates and decent people. They are neither. They are no different from other far right organisations and they need to be exposed and humiliated at the polls.
Let us not forget what happens when you ignore a threat in your own back yard.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The danger now is that those opposed to the far right now become complacent as we all enjoy the spectacle of Nick Griffin and the BNP tearing themselves apart. However, there is still much to be done.
Whilst the BNP and NF are capable of derisory results at the polls there are still far right groups that are achieving some disturbing successes.
The anti-immigration policies of the BNP are widely recognised, but less publicised is the stance of the English Democrats. Their vitriol is no different from Griffin’s crew. Take what they say on their website:
“Immigration is out of control. England is the third most densely populated country in the world and, for its size, the most densely populated country in Europe. We have neither the space nor the resources to permit more large-scale immigration. England is targeted by hundreds of thousands of economic migrants each year, who know they can come here easily, costing English taxpayers £billions a year in benefits. Worse still, immigrants are granted housing that young or needy English people are entitled to. In short, mass immigration has placed severe strains on England's housing accommodation, Education and Health Services, and exacerbated road congestion. It is time to close the door. Mass immigration must be ended. We would deport illegal immigrants and all those immigrants who are extremists, terrorists and criminals. We would regain control of our immigration systems by leaving the European Union.”
And on education ….
“The English Democrats support parental choice. Where there is a demand for it, schools should be able to free them-selves from local education authority control and be run independently in a way that suits local needs.”
Gays, women, minority groups had all better beware too. On the matter of political correctness they argue:
“The English Democrats unreservedly condemn this intolerant creed. We reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil. Political correctness is incompatible with a free and democratic society.”
Now, ordinarily we might dismiss the English Democrats as a bunch of eccentrics, but the polls last Thursday showed that in some wards they were polling over 20% of the vote. On top of that, the Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies joined the English democrats in 2005 and has stood as their candidate since that time.
It is now time anti-fascist groups turned their attention on these anti-immigration groups and exposed their innate racism. The danger is that we concentrate exclusively on the BNP and NF, thus allowing other far right groups like this to gain a foothold.
So far they have failed to achieve any significant gains, but they are increasing and they are putting themselves over as moderates and decent people. They are neither. They are no different from other far right organisations and they need to be exposed and humiliated at the polls.
Let us not forget what happens when you ignore a threat in your own back yard.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Saturday 7 May 2011
National Week of Action Against Atos Origin
Disability activists, claimant groups and anti-cuts campaigners have called a week of action against Atos Origin beginning on Monday 9th May with a picnic and party in Triton Square, home of their head office, at 2pm.
Both announced and unannounced protests are set to take place around the UK outside the offices and testing centres operated by Atos Origin.
Atos Origin have just begun a £300 million contract by the Con-dem Government to carry out ‘work capability assessments’ on all of those claiming Incapacity Benefit.
It is claimed assessments are to test what people can do rather than what they can’t. The real purpose is to strip benefits from as many people as possible.
This testing system has already led to people with terminal illnesses and severe medical conditions being declared fit for work and having benefits cut. GP’s are ignored in favour of decisions made by Atos Origin’s computer.
Plans announced for the scrapping of Disability Living Allowance have also revealed that this intrusive testing is likely to be extended to everyone on some form of disability or health related benefit.
To date around 40% of appeals against Atos Origin’s decisions have been successful.
On the 24th January and 14th April claimants from around the country demonstrated outside Atos Origins premises, with many choosing to close for the day rather than face their ‘clients’. We call on all groups around the UK to take action against these parasites who have been dubbed ‘the racial purity and euthanasia arm of the DWP’
Please join, share and invite friends to the facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=121624627914913
A list of Atos Origin’s corporate offices can be found at:
http://www.uk.atosorigin.com/en-uk/about_us/locations/
Atos testing centres are listed at:
http://www.atoshealthcarejobs.co.uk/locations.html
If you are holding an event, protest or action in your home town please add details on the wall below to have your event added to this page and the website.
Alternatively contact us at: notowelfarecuts@yahoo.co.uk
Latest News:
Birmingham
Thursday, May 12 • 7:00pm – 10:00pm
Unison offices, 19th floor McClaren Tower, Priory Queensway. B4 7NN
Public Meeting: Benefit Cuts: Who are they targeting? How can we stop them? – called by DPAC and Right To Work
Then on Friday May 13th at noon outside Waterstones bookshop opposite bull statue in Bullring centre join them for leafleting and street theatre ‘ The Computer Says NO’ an adaptation of a Brighton Benefit Campaign play.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169640809755894
Bristol – 3.30-5.30 Thursday 12th May
After a previous successful demonstration outside ATOS, Flowers Hill, voicing our dissent at the way this Government is attacking the most vulnerable in our society and using ATOS as a way of doing it, we are asking you join us for another demonstration between 3.30-5.30 Thursday 12th May 2011 outside ATOS, Flowers Hill,
Brislington.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=158658667531464
Cardiff – Monday, May 9 • 12:30pm – 3:30pm
Disability Benefits Building, St Agnes Street, Gabalfa, Cardiff
As part of the National Week of Action against Benefit Cuts and Atos Origin kicking off on Monday 9th of May, we will be staging a protest outside the Disability Benefits Building at St. Agnes road, Gabalfa, Cardiff.
Bring music, drums, banners, placards, snacks to share and brighten up the faceless corporate wasteland that is the Benefits Building!
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=171127669607093&ref=mf
Chatham
Between 12 and 2pm on Friday 13th May
Medway Against the Cuts (MAC) will be holding a protest picket of the ATOS Testing Centre at 1a Batchelor St Chatham between 12 and 2pm on Friday 13th May. Medway Against the Cuts can be contacted at medway-against-the cuts@live.co.uk
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_168119479887991
Edinburgh
11.00am – 1.00pm Monday, 9th May
Atos Origin, 44 York Place, (near top of Broughton St)
The Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty and Black Triangle will be protesting outside ATOS healthcare offices in Edinburgh on Monday the 9th of May.
Liverpool – Picket Atos Origin
Monday, May 9 • 11:30am – 2:30pm
Atos Origin, The Plaza, Old Hall Street, Liverpool
As part of this week of action, Liverpool Solidarity Federation are calling for all those who stand in support of disabled people to join us in a picket of their offices in Liverpool the same day.
Assemble in The Plaza, Old Hall Street, at 11.30am on Monday 9th May. Bring flags, banners, and placards.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160068340719677
London – Party and Protest in Triton Square
Monday, May 9 – 2pm
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=194299250612882&
Claimants will also be leafleting outside Atos Origin/DWP Offices on Lisson Grove, NW1 from 11am
London – Hardest Hits March – 11 May
Thousands of disabled people, family and friends are expected to march. There are many ways to participate, including online – visit: http://thehardesthit.wordpress.com/
Some of us autonomous claimants plan to attend and will be meeting up with WinVisible at 11.30 on Victoria Embankment at the corner of Derby Gate SW1. The march will go past Parliament towards Millbank, ending at Dean Stanley St. The nearest tube station is Westminster. Bring anti-atos placards, leaflets etc
http://benefitclaimantsfightback.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/london-hardest-hit-march-lobby-and-protest-wed-11-may/
Manchester- Wednesday, May 11 • 12:00pm – 3:00pm
Albert Bridge House, Bridge Street, Manchester
Called by Manchester Coalition Against Cuts. If your organisation would like to support this demonstration please contact: coalitionagainstcuts@gmail.com
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=145587872178552
Nottingham
11:00AM Monday, May 9th
Day of action against ATOS origin and Office Angels / Adecco
Meet at 11am outside Office Angels (located in the city centre past the right lion. Next door to MAC and opposite The Square bar/club)
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=221270991217017
Plymouth
Monday, May 11 – 11am
Plymouth Claimants Union will be demonstrating outside the Atos Origin Argosy House , Marsh Mills , medical centre in Plymouth from 11.00 am Monday 9th May. Free transport from city centre. Cntact plymouthclaimantsunion@yahoo.co.uk
Truro
There is now a Cornwall DPAC group formed which may be contacted at c.mccarther@sky.com We are holding a protest day in Truro and going to the ATOS office. Meet outside Weatherspoons in Lemon Quay at 10.30am on Wednesday May 11.
Everywhere!
International Week of Virtual Protest Against Atos Origin
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=144607022276752&
Supported by:
o Armchair Army
o Anti-Benefit Cuts Glasgow
o Black Triangle Anti-Defamation Campaign
o Brighton Benefits Campaign
o Bristol & District Anti-Cuts Alliance (BADACA)
o Cardiff’s Unemployed Daytime Disco
o Carer Watch
o Claimants Fightback
o Crippen – Disabled Cartoonist
o Defend Glasgow Services Campaign
o Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
o Disabled People Against Cuts
o Dundee Unemployed Workers
o East Lancs Right to Work
o Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty (ECAP)
o Free London Listings
o Goldsmiths in Occupation
o Haringey Solidarity Group
o Ipswich Unemployed Action
o Islington Deaf and Disabled People Against Cuts
o Islington Hands Off Our Public Services (IHOOPS)
o Islington Poverty Action
o John McDonnell, MP
o Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group
o Lancaster and Morecambe Against the Cuts
o London Autistic Rights Movement
o Liverpool Solidarity Federation
o London Coalition Against Poverty (LCAP)
o London Foodbank
o Mad Pride
o Medway Against The Cuts
o Mental Health Resistance Network
o Milton Keynes Coalition of Resistance
o Norfolk Community Action Group
o Nottingham Anarchist Federation
o Nottingham Claimants’ Union
o Nuneaton Against Benefit Cuts
o Nurses Against Atos
o Oxford Save Our Services
o Plymouth Claimants Union
o Right To Work Campaign
o Save Our Services in Reading
o Single Mothers’ Self-Defence
o Squattastic
o Social Work Action Network (SWAN)
o Torbay & District Anti-Cuts Alliance
o Tyne and Wear Coalition of Resistance
o Tyneside Claimants Union
o UNITE Scottish Housing Associations Branch
o Welfare Action Hackney
o Welfare Rights 4 u (UK)
o West Yorkshire Solidarity Federation
o Where’s the Benefit?
o WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities)
o Work Programme & Flexible New Deal Scandal
o World Homeless Day
Both announced and unannounced protests are set to take place around the UK outside the offices and testing centres operated by Atos Origin.
Atos Origin have just begun a £300 million contract by the Con-dem Government to carry out ‘work capability assessments’ on all of those claiming Incapacity Benefit.
It is claimed assessments are to test what people can do rather than what they can’t. The real purpose is to strip benefits from as many people as possible.
This testing system has already led to people with terminal illnesses and severe medical conditions being declared fit for work and having benefits cut. GP’s are ignored in favour of decisions made by Atos Origin’s computer.
Plans announced for the scrapping of Disability Living Allowance have also revealed that this intrusive testing is likely to be extended to everyone on some form of disability or health related benefit.
To date around 40% of appeals against Atos Origin’s decisions have been successful.
On the 24th January and 14th April claimants from around the country demonstrated outside Atos Origins premises, with many choosing to close for the day rather than face their ‘clients’. We call on all groups around the UK to take action against these parasites who have been dubbed ‘the racial purity and euthanasia arm of the DWP’
Please join, share and invite friends to the facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=121624627914913
A list of Atos Origin’s corporate offices can be found at:
http://www.uk.atosorigin.com/en-uk/about_us/locations/
Atos testing centres are listed at:
http://www.atoshealthcarejobs.co.uk/locations.html
If you are holding an event, protest or action in your home town please add details on the wall below to have your event added to this page and the website.
Alternatively contact us at: notowelfarecuts@yahoo.co.uk
Latest News:
Birmingham
Thursday, May 12 • 7:00pm – 10:00pm
Unison offices, 19th floor McClaren Tower, Priory Queensway. B4 7NN
Public Meeting: Benefit Cuts: Who are they targeting? How can we stop them? – called by DPAC and Right To Work
Then on Friday May 13th at noon outside Waterstones bookshop opposite bull statue in Bullring centre join them for leafleting and street theatre ‘ The Computer Says NO’ an adaptation of a Brighton Benefit Campaign play.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169640809755894
Bristol – 3.30-5.30 Thursday 12th May
After a previous successful demonstration outside ATOS, Flowers Hill, voicing our dissent at the way this Government is attacking the most vulnerable in our society and using ATOS as a way of doing it, we are asking you join us for another demonstration between 3.30-5.30 Thursday 12th May 2011 outside ATOS, Flowers Hill,
Brislington.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=158658667531464
Cardiff – Monday, May 9 • 12:30pm – 3:30pm
Disability Benefits Building, St Agnes Street, Gabalfa, Cardiff
As part of the National Week of Action against Benefit Cuts and Atos Origin kicking off on Monday 9th of May, we will be staging a protest outside the Disability Benefits Building at St. Agnes road, Gabalfa, Cardiff.
Bring music, drums, banners, placards, snacks to share and brighten up the faceless corporate wasteland that is the Benefits Building!
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=171127669607093&ref=mf
Chatham
Between 12 and 2pm on Friday 13th May
Medway Against the Cuts (MAC) will be holding a protest picket of the ATOS Testing Centre at 1a Batchelor St Chatham between 12 and 2pm on Friday 13th May. Medway Against the Cuts can be contacted at medway-against-the cuts@live.co.uk
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_168119479887991
Edinburgh
11.00am – 1.00pm Monday, 9th May
Atos Origin, 44 York Place, (near top of Broughton St)
The Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty and Black Triangle will be protesting outside ATOS healthcare offices in Edinburgh on Monday the 9th of May.
Liverpool – Picket Atos Origin
Monday, May 9 • 11:30am – 2:30pm
Atos Origin, The Plaza, Old Hall Street, Liverpool
As part of this week of action, Liverpool Solidarity Federation are calling for all those who stand in support of disabled people to join us in a picket of their offices in Liverpool the same day.
Assemble in The Plaza, Old Hall Street, at 11.30am on Monday 9th May. Bring flags, banners, and placards.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160068340719677
London – Party and Protest in Triton Square
Monday, May 9 – 2pm
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=194299250612882&
Claimants will also be leafleting outside Atos Origin/DWP Offices on Lisson Grove, NW1 from 11am
London – Hardest Hits March – 11 May
Thousands of disabled people, family and friends are expected to march. There are many ways to participate, including online – visit: http://thehardesthit.wordpress.com/
Some of us autonomous claimants plan to attend and will be meeting up with WinVisible at 11.30 on Victoria Embankment at the corner of Derby Gate SW1. The march will go past Parliament towards Millbank, ending at Dean Stanley St. The nearest tube station is Westminster. Bring anti-atos placards, leaflets etc
http://benefitclaimantsfightback.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/london-hardest-hit-march-lobby-and-protest-wed-11-may/
Manchester- Wednesday, May 11 • 12:00pm – 3:00pm
Albert Bridge House, Bridge Street, Manchester
Called by Manchester Coalition Against Cuts. If your organisation would like to support this demonstration please contact: coalitionagainstcuts@gmail.com
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=145587872178552
Nottingham
11:00AM Monday, May 9th
Day of action against ATOS origin and Office Angels / Adecco
Meet at 11am outside Office Angels (located in the city centre past the right lion. Next door to MAC and opposite The Square bar/club)
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=221270991217017
Plymouth
Monday, May 11 – 11am
Plymouth Claimants Union will be demonstrating outside the Atos Origin Argosy House , Marsh Mills , medical centre in Plymouth from 11.00 am Monday 9th May. Free transport from city centre. Cntact plymouthclaimantsunion@yahoo.co.uk
Truro
There is now a Cornwall DPAC group formed which may be contacted at c.mccarther@sky.com We are holding a protest day in Truro and going to the ATOS office. Meet outside Weatherspoons in Lemon Quay at 10.30am on Wednesday May 11.
Everywhere!
International Week of Virtual Protest Against Atos Origin
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=144607022276752&
Supported by:
o Armchair Army
o Anti-Benefit Cuts Glasgow
o Black Triangle Anti-Defamation Campaign
o Brighton Benefits Campaign
o Bristol & District Anti-Cuts Alliance (BADACA)
o Cardiff’s Unemployed Daytime Disco
o Carer Watch
o Claimants Fightback
o Crippen – Disabled Cartoonist
o Defend Glasgow Services Campaign
o Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
o Disabled People Against Cuts
o Dundee Unemployed Workers
o East Lancs Right to Work
o Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty (ECAP)
o Free London Listings
o Goldsmiths in Occupation
o Haringey Solidarity Group
o Ipswich Unemployed Action
o Islington Deaf and Disabled People Against Cuts
o Islington Hands Off Our Public Services (IHOOPS)
o Islington Poverty Action
o John McDonnell, MP
o Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group
o Lancaster and Morecambe Against the Cuts
o London Autistic Rights Movement
o Liverpool Solidarity Federation
o London Coalition Against Poverty (LCAP)
o London Foodbank
o Mad Pride
o Medway Against The Cuts
o Mental Health Resistance Network
o Milton Keynes Coalition of Resistance
o Norfolk Community Action Group
o Nottingham Anarchist Federation
o Nottingham Claimants’ Union
o Nuneaton Against Benefit Cuts
o Nurses Against Atos
o Oxford Save Our Services
o Plymouth Claimants Union
o Right To Work Campaign
o Save Our Services in Reading
o Single Mothers’ Self-Defence
o Squattastic
o Social Work Action Network (SWAN)
o Torbay & District Anti-Cuts Alliance
o Tyne and Wear Coalition of Resistance
o Tyneside Claimants Union
o UNITE Scottish Housing Associations Branch
o Welfare Action Hackney
o Welfare Rights 4 u (UK)
o West Yorkshire Solidarity Federation
o Where’s the Benefit?
o WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities)
o Work Programme & Flexible New Deal Scandal
o World Homeless Day
Friday 6 May 2011
Which way for Labour?
Anyone who has read my comments on here will know I am no fan of Citizen Dave or the Tories but, in fairness it has to be conceded they fought the borough elections well and the resul reflects some disturbing realities for Labour. The biggest of these is that Miliband and the party hierarchy are not getting the message across that Labour offer a real and effective alternative to the 'cut and burn' approach of the Tories.
Secondly, although electors should vote on local issues, we know they use it to endorse, or protest aganst a sitting government. Since last May, Citizen Dave has presented a slick and statesmanlike behaviour as prime minister. Compare this with the meagre attempts by Ed Miliband and there is further cause for concern. No wonder Labour didn't sweep away many vulernable Tory councils.
Nor was last night's substantial vote against AV good for Labour. The party has historically opposed PR and its recent conversion to AV came as a shock to many die-hard lefties. Miliband hung his colours on the "Yes" campaign and with a vote of 2 to 1 against, it brings a further dent to his leadership.
Labour now need to reflect on these results and question why they are not in control in Scotland or Wales. They also need to look at the role of Andy Burnham as campaign manager - a job he handled with anonymity and without passion. Similarly, the autopsy should question the leadership style of Ed Miliband. His "I want to appear as unfazed and likable" approach isn't working and it obviously isn't convincing the electorate.
The Lib Dems are in disarray and it will take them months, perhaps years to recoup after their recent defeats. This isn't the case with the Tories and labour will need to work swiftly if they want to be seen as a credible opposition force.
Secondly, although electors should vote on local issues, we know they use it to endorse, or protest aganst a sitting government. Since last May, Citizen Dave has presented a slick and statesmanlike behaviour as prime minister. Compare this with the meagre attempts by Ed Miliband and there is further cause for concern. No wonder Labour didn't sweep away many vulernable Tory councils.
Nor was last night's substantial vote against AV good for Labour. The party has historically opposed PR and its recent conversion to AV came as a shock to many die-hard lefties. Miliband hung his colours on the "Yes" campaign and with a vote of 2 to 1 against, it brings a further dent to his leadership.
Labour now need to reflect on these results and question why they are not in control in Scotland or Wales. They also need to look at the role of Andy Burnham as campaign manager - a job he handled with anonymity and without passion. Similarly, the autopsy should question the leadership style of Ed Miliband. His "I want to appear as unfazed and likable" approach isn't working and it obviously isn't convincing the electorate.
The Lib Dems are in disarray and it will take them months, perhaps years to recoup after their recent defeats. This isn't the case with the Tories and labour will need to work swiftly if they want to be seen as a credible opposition force.
The clouds in last night’s silver lining
With results from parish, borough and AV voting now declared, the guest writer today continues the autopsy on Labour's performance in local elections. The guest writer today is Atul Hatwal, associate editor of Labour Uncut.
As Ed Miliband surveys the results after his first major test as leader he will have mixed emotions. Great in England, good in Wales, bad in Scotland and rapidly forgotten on AV.
A curate’s egg, whatever one of those might be.
While the dynamics of devolved government mean the results in Scotland and Wales are driven by regional factors, and AV is done for a generation at least, it’s the English local elections where the tea leaves for the next general election can be best read.
England is where Labour needs to win the key seats, and its England where Labour has proportionately lost most voters since 1997. Ostensibly, the results give a sound basis for hope.
Not quite street party territory, but at least a couple of glasses of sherry.
On this happy path, the numbers of new Labour councillors elected take Labour back to respectable mid-2000s levels of representation in local government. Gains in a single election on this scale have not been seen since the mid-1990s.
This is not to be lightly dismissed. Revival in local government is an essential pre-requisite for national success.
Then there’s the overall vote share. While not spectacular, it was much improved over the election last year and progress at this rate would lead to a solid Labour majority at the next general election.
But still, there’s doubt.
Can a national result be extrapolated from local elections? Is this really a foundation for victory built by winning back Labour sceptics? Or a house of cards made from passing protest votes?
A few months ago in this column, I highlighted Labour’s poll challenge by looking at three specific questions asked intermittently by YouGov in their daily and weekly polls, and tracked their responses over the previous three months. These questions examined voters’ attitudes to the defining issues for the next general election.
The updated results to Labour’s poll challenge hold the key to interpreting last nights mixed election results.
The three YouGov questions look below topline voting intentions to reveal how voters feel the government is hitting them in the wallet, their view of how the government is cutting the deficit and who they prefer as a leader – David Cameron or Ed Miliband.
The public’s answers over this year have involved responses from tens of thousands of people and give a clear view of the scale of the problem.
To misquote William Cobbett, I defy you to agitate a man on a full wallet. The higher the wallet line, the better things are for the government. Because it focuses on peoples’ perceptions of their own financial future it gives quite a different response to doom and gloom about the general economic state of the country.
The wallet line has remained largely constant this year. In January, 74% of people didn’t view the coming year as posing a major financial drama. In April this had risen a little to 75%.
In key Labour battlegrounds such as London and the Midlands, there are the early rumblings of actual optimism. The latest figures show that well over 40% think the worst is over and that the situation will either get better next year or at least stay the same.
That’s three-quarters of Britain thinking that things aren’t actually so bad and almost half of the public in key English regions, rich with key seats, thinking things can only get better.
This doesn’t suggest an electoral situation ripe for people to reverse their vote from the general election last year.
But, while worry about personal finances is often a driver of change, it is not sufficient alone. Winning the economic argument is what is needed, and can make the difference on its own.
This is what the middle band on the graph tests. The deficit is the defining economic issue of the day and the public’s attitude to how the government goes about cutting it will be a key determinant in how people vote at the general election.
The results here for Labour are worst of all.
On this central economic argument, Labour has not only failed to make ground, it has fallen further behind. At the start of the year, the majority who felt the way the government was cutting the deficit was necessary compared to unnecessary was 17%. In April, this had grown to 28%.
Well over 50% of the public consistently believe that the government approach to cutting the deficit is necessary.
And voters remain in no doubt as to who to blame for these cuts.
In January, 41% of voters blamed the last Labour government for the cuts, compared to 25% blaming the current government and 24% blaming both. In April, it was virtually the same. 41% blamed the last Labour government, 25% the current government and 23% both.
The public’s basic position is that Labour is responsible for the deficit and the government’s cuts are necessary. If anything, people are becoming more, not less, convinced of it over time.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of economic policy, purely in political terms this is a huge problem. From the mid-1980s through to 1992, Labour made an economically cogent but politically suicidal case for higher taxation.
The deficit is this decade’s tax.
Ed Balls is a big beast who knows how to take the fight to the Tories. He’s added vigour and aggression to Labour’s attack on the economy. But when he became shadow chancellor, he set himself the measure of putting Labour “on the front foot” on the economy.
Three months into his tenure, beyond the rough and tumble of day to day debate on the economy where Labour’s performance has improved significantly, the party is now more distant than ever from being trusted on this defining economic question.
Perceptions of Labour as a realistic government in waiting are further undercut by the leader gap.
At the start of January, Cameron’s lead over Miliband as peoples’ preference for PM was 12%. By the end of April, this had been pegged back slightly to 10%.
While this measure is going in the right direction, the level of reduction in Cameron’s lead begs the question – why so little?
Miliband’s press operation has been much sharper since the appointment of Tom Baldwin and Bob Roberts at the start of the year, he has been getting the better of Cameron at prime minister’s questions on an increasingly regular basis and the government has gifted Labour a conveyor belt of gaffes and U-turns.
Forests, defence, the NHS, schools, universities – virtually no corner of public policy has been left without a government crisis entirely of its own making.
If, after all that, Cameron still has a double digit lead among voters as the preferred PM, its hard to think what will shift the numbers decisively.
Looking at the three elements of the graph in the round, the overall picture is not a pleasant one for Labour.
It describes an electorate for whom the personal financial salience of the cuts is limited. Where Labour is seen as the cause of the problem and opponents of the solution. And where leadership is something only Cameron can provide.
In this context, the happy path that starts with these English election results ultimately leads back to the general election of 1992, or maybe even 1987.
The reality is that yesterday’s result in England was a blind trail of protest votes. People aren’t enamoured of this government, and showed it. But the local elections weren’t a choice between Labour and Conservative; they were a chance to vent at the government.
Based on the underlying factors picked-up by the wallet line, the argument gap and the leader gap, any pressure on Labour in a real election and the poll lead will collapse. Unless Labour can shift these key drivers, future mid-term victories or upturns in the headline polls will just be more false hope.
The sad truth is, one year on from the start of the Tory-led coalition, Labour’s journey has taken it back to square one.
As Ed Miliband surveys the results after his first major test as leader he will have mixed emotions. Great in England, good in Wales, bad in Scotland and rapidly forgotten on AV.
A curate’s egg, whatever one of those might be.
While the dynamics of devolved government mean the results in Scotland and Wales are driven by regional factors, and AV is done for a generation at least, it’s the English local elections where the tea leaves for the next general election can be best read.
England is where Labour needs to win the key seats, and its England where Labour has proportionately lost most voters since 1997. Ostensibly, the results give a sound basis for hope.
Not quite street party territory, but at least a couple of glasses of sherry.
On this happy path, the numbers of new Labour councillors elected take Labour back to respectable mid-2000s levels of representation in local government. Gains in a single election on this scale have not been seen since the mid-1990s.
This is not to be lightly dismissed. Revival in local government is an essential pre-requisite for national success.
Then there’s the overall vote share. While not spectacular, it was much improved over the election last year and progress at this rate would lead to a solid Labour majority at the next general election.
But still, there’s doubt.
Can a national result be extrapolated from local elections? Is this really a foundation for victory built by winning back Labour sceptics? Or a house of cards made from passing protest votes?
A few months ago in this column, I highlighted Labour’s poll challenge by looking at three specific questions asked intermittently by YouGov in their daily and weekly polls, and tracked their responses over the previous three months. These questions examined voters’ attitudes to the defining issues for the next general election.
The updated results to Labour’s poll challenge hold the key to interpreting last nights mixed election results.
The three YouGov questions look below topline voting intentions to reveal how voters feel the government is hitting them in the wallet, their view of how the government is cutting the deficit and who they prefer as a leader – David Cameron or Ed Miliband.
The public’s answers over this year have involved responses from tens of thousands of people and give a clear view of the scale of the problem.
To misquote William Cobbett, I defy you to agitate a man on a full wallet. The higher the wallet line, the better things are for the government. Because it focuses on peoples’ perceptions of their own financial future it gives quite a different response to doom and gloom about the general economic state of the country.The wallet line has remained largely constant this year. In January, 74% of people didn’t view the coming year as posing a major financial drama. In April this had risen a little to 75%.
In key Labour battlegrounds such as London and the Midlands, there are the early rumblings of actual optimism. The latest figures show that well over 40% think the worst is over and that the situation will either get better next year or at least stay the same.
That’s three-quarters of Britain thinking that things aren’t actually so bad and almost half of the public in key English regions, rich with key seats, thinking things can only get better.
This doesn’t suggest an electoral situation ripe for people to reverse their vote from the general election last year.
But, while worry about personal finances is often a driver of change, it is not sufficient alone. Winning the economic argument is what is needed, and can make the difference on its own.
This is what the middle band on the graph tests. The deficit is the defining economic issue of the day and the public’s attitude to how the government goes about cutting it will be a key determinant in how people vote at the general election.
The results here for Labour are worst of all.
On this central economic argument, Labour has not only failed to make ground, it has fallen further behind. At the start of the year, the majority who felt the way the government was cutting the deficit was necessary compared to unnecessary was 17%. In April, this had grown to 28%.
Well over 50% of the public consistently believe that the government approach to cutting the deficit is necessary.
And voters remain in no doubt as to who to blame for these cuts.
In January, 41% of voters blamed the last Labour government for the cuts, compared to 25% blaming the current government and 24% blaming both. In April, it was virtually the same. 41% blamed the last Labour government, 25% the current government and 23% both.
The public’s basic position is that Labour is responsible for the deficit and the government’s cuts are necessary. If anything, people are becoming more, not less, convinced of it over time.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of economic policy, purely in political terms this is a huge problem. From the mid-1980s through to 1992, Labour made an economically cogent but politically suicidal case for higher taxation.
The deficit is this decade’s tax.
Ed Balls is a big beast who knows how to take the fight to the Tories. He’s added vigour and aggression to Labour’s attack on the economy. But when he became shadow chancellor, he set himself the measure of putting Labour “on the front foot” on the economy.
Three months into his tenure, beyond the rough and tumble of day to day debate on the economy where Labour’s performance has improved significantly, the party is now more distant than ever from being trusted on this defining economic question.
Perceptions of Labour as a realistic government in waiting are further undercut by the leader gap.
At the start of January, Cameron’s lead over Miliband as peoples’ preference for PM was 12%. By the end of April, this had been pegged back slightly to 10%.
While this measure is going in the right direction, the level of reduction in Cameron’s lead begs the question – why so little?
Miliband’s press operation has been much sharper since the appointment of Tom Baldwin and Bob Roberts at the start of the year, he has been getting the better of Cameron at prime minister’s questions on an increasingly regular basis and the government has gifted Labour a conveyor belt of gaffes and U-turns.
Forests, defence, the NHS, schools, universities – virtually no corner of public policy has been left without a government crisis entirely of its own making.
If, after all that, Cameron still has a double digit lead among voters as the preferred PM, its hard to think what will shift the numbers decisively.
Looking at the three elements of the graph in the round, the overall picture is not a pleasant one for Labour.
It describes an electorate for whom the personal financial salience of the cuts is limited. Where Labour is seen as the cause of the problem and opponents of the solution. And where leadership is something only Cameron can provide.
In this context, the happy path that starts with these English election results ultimately leads back to the general election of 1992, or maybe even 1987.
The reality is that yesterday’s result in England was a blind trail of protest votes. People aren’t enamoured of this government, and showed it. But the local elections weren’t a choice between Labour and Conservative; they were a chance to vent at the government.
Based on the underlying factors picked-up by the wallet line, the argument gap and the leader gap, any pressure on Labour in a real election and the poll lead will collapse. Unless Labour can shift these key drivers, future mid-term victories or upturns in the headline polls will just be more false hope.
The sad truth is, one year on from the start of the Tory-led coalition, Labour’s journey has taken it back to square one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
