Sunday 31 March 2013

A Month of Shame

Today is April Fool’s Day and we were the fools who believed the Cameron lie that there is such a thing as “Caring Conservativism”. Since then, he and his cronies must have been laughing all over their faces. Even worse, since Thatcher destroyed our trade union movement and Blair hijacked the Labour Party and swung it even further to the right there has been no effective opposition to the Tory destruction of the Welfare state.

Admittedly there are marvellous groups such as the Coalition of Resistance and the Right to Work campaign, but on the whole they cater for existing activists and have done little to draw in new people.

The People’s Toff Celebrates

So, what has been the consequence? Over the course of April we will see

  1. The introduction of the bedroom tax - 660,000 people in social housing will lose an average of £728 a year.
  2. Thousands of people will lose access to legal aid
  3. Council tax benefit moves into local control resulting in increased bills for most people
  4. 240 local commissioning groups made up of doctors, nurses and other professionals will take control of budgets to buy services for patients
  5. Disability Living Allowance is scrapped
  6. Benefit uprating begins - Nearly 9.5 million families will be affected, including 7 million in work, by £165 a year.
  7. Welfare Benefit cap - no welfare claimants will receive in total more than the average annual household income after tax and national insurance
  8. Universal Credit introduced

As if that isn’t bad enough, Cameron will rub salt into the wood by scrapping the 50p tax for high earners.

Without doubt it can only be described as a month of shame for the Tories, but they do not see it that way. They remain convinced they are in the right – and without an effective opposition they will undoubtedly stretch things further.

Over the coming weeks we must organise an effective opposition. The Labour party has failed to take that lead and though the trade unions have made some effort, the result has been limited. Hopefully the Bedroom Tax campaign will be the start of something powerful – a return to the mentality of the Poll Tax campaign. If we can bring about an effective challenge to the Tories there is a chance we can rebuild the left, but if we fail then we risk obscurity for at least a generation.

Saturday 30 March 2013

Trident: one good cut the government could make

A couple of days ago, Left Foot Forward published an entry from Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Chair, Dr Kate Hudson. Bearing in mind the significance of the content and the importance of the demonstration tomorrow, we are publishing it here in full

Dr Kate Hudson

In tough times, tough decisions must be made. Such is the mantra peddled by George Osborne and co – reinforced in last week’s budget which unveiled further public spending cuts.

But while it is happy to push these cuts onto crucial public services, the government refuses to make what most people consider a ‘good cut’.

We spend around £3bn annually on running Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system. Just in one year.

But not only are the Conservatives happy to pay this amount, they’re pushing for a replacement of the ageing Vanguard Class submarines (which carry our nukes) to the tune of more than £100bn.

That’s £20-25bn over the next few years just to build them (to which you can add the £3bn per year running cost of our current system), £3bn per annum running costs over the next 30-40 years, and then an estimated £25bn in decommissioning.

That’s before we get into the Ministry of Defence’s ubiquitous overruns on major projects: typically delivering them around 40 per cent over-budget.

On Easter Monday – April Fools’ Day no less – CND will be continuing a tradition which first brought the issue of Britain’s nuclear arsenal to prominence from 1958 onwards: protesting at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston. We’re calling on the government to see sense, with the message: ‘Scrap Trident: Time to Stop Fooling with Nuclear Weapons’.

And the issue is not just the untenable economics of Trident replacement – it’s also strategically redundant. The government itself has said that nuclear weapons are not relevant to the kind of security threats we face. In its National Security Strategy in 2010, the threat of state-on-state nuclear attack was downgraded to a tier-two risk.

And many in the military agree. Senior figures in the armed forces have said Trident is “completely useless” and concern is growing in the military and Whitehall over its ruinous impact on the MoD’s ability to fund conventional defence forces.

Friday 29 March 2013

Tory Housing and Pension advice to the common people of Britain

The UK's Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has warned young people not to rely on home ownership to fund their retirement. Unveiling a radical overhaul of the state pension, the Work and Pensions Secretary said rising house prices were putting bricks and mortar out of reach. He added it was "absolutely imperative" that the Government took steps to "secure the position of the next generation" and encourage saving.

Swanbourne, Buckinghamshire

He added that 70 per cent of today's pensioners owned their own homes, but their grandchildren were "struggling to even get a foot on the housing ladder" because house prices for first-time buyers had risen by 40 per cent in real terms over the last decade. "The next generation will not be able to rely on bricks and mortar in the way their parents have been able to," he said. "It's no wonder our children are increasingly cynical about saving." Now Iain Duncan Smith happens to live not too far from the Sage's Castle in Buckinghamshire and I happen to know a bit about his own bricks and mortar.

Lord and Lady Cottesloe

This is such good advice from a person who when he was made redundant had the comfort and support of his father in law, John Fremantle, 5th Baron Cottesloe, who built and gave him a house on his 1,400 acres of land at Swanbourne, in North Buckinghamshire where IDS lives to this day. Iain Duncan Smith is married to Elizabeth "Betsy" Fremantle. As IDS observed during the Foot & Mouth epidemic, he understands the plight of the ordinary farmer. And no doubt the ordinary person made redundant who doesn't have the cushion of an aristocratic father-in-law?

His “ordinary farmer” father-in-law is the 5th Baron Cottesloe. He also inherited the Austrian noble title "Baron Fremantle", which is an authorised title in the United Kingdom by Warrant of April 27, 1932. He was Lord-Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire between 1984 and 1997. An Old Etonian and former naval commander, he owns the Swanbourne estate in Buckinghamshire, which includes the picture-postcard village of Swanbourne, complete with post office, village store, tea-rooms, prep school and houses, plus rolling acres of prime farmland. Lord and Lady Cottesloe live in the Old House, a manor house set in five acres. As Betsy is the Cottesloes' oldest child, the next village squire could be Iain Duncan Smith. Despite attempts by Tory Central Office to present him otherwise, Duncan Smith is resolutely upper class.

The Fremantle Family's Betsey Wynne Pub at Swanbourne.

The Pub’s name comes from Betsey, who married Thomas Fremantle when he was a sea Captain with the British Fleet in Naples, 1797. Horatio Nelson was the best man. From their prolific union stems the complete Fremantle line of distinguished Naval Officers, including three Admirals and the present head of the family, Lord Cottesloe, who lives at Swanbourne. IDS's wife is named after her and Fremantle, Swanbourne and Cottesloe in Western Australia are named after the family who claimed Western Australia for the crown and founded the Swan River Colony, today Perth.

IDS served as a British Army officer in the Scots Guards from 1975 to 1981 and his father was a Group Captain in the RAF. Intriguingly, given his wife's family wealth, his two homes, and his children going to public schools, Duncan Smith has complained that life as an MP had been "a financial disaster”. From his aristocratic marriage, military background, free house and personal wealth of over £1 million he is able to understand the hearts and minds of the ordinary men and women of Britain.

IDS cares about housing

It is wondrous to see the Quiet Man of British Politics lead the Tory led Coalition’s cynically amoral assault on the poor (mainly working poor) of Britain claiming there are no “soft options.”

A Newsnight investigation in December 2002 found that Iain Duncan Smith's CV contained 'inaccurate and misleading' claims about his education. The investigation found that Duncan Smith's biography on the Conservative Party website, his entry in Who's Who, and various other places, stated that he went to the Universita di Perugia in Italy. It transpired instead that he had attended the Universita per Stranieri, which is also in Perugia; however the University did not award degrees when Duncan Smith attended in 1973. When challenged by Newsnight, Duncan Smith's office confirmed that he 'didn't get any qualifications in Perugia or even finish his exams'. The first line of Ian Duncan Smith's biography on the Conservative Party website claimed that he was 'educated at Dunchurch College of Management'. Dunchurch was the former staff college for GEC Marconi, where he worked in the 1980s, again Duncan Smith's office confirmed to Newsnight that 'he did not get any qualifications there either, but that he completed six separate courses lasting a few days each, adding up to about a month in total'. John Garside, a former Dunchurch tutor, told the Newsnight investigation team 'I'm puzzled, flattered, but puzzled. What we did was offer short courses… it was not a continuous form of education by any means.

There have been plenty of soft options for IDS who became an arms salesman through the Old Boys network after his short six year Guards career in the army and had his house built for free on his father in law. Lord Cottesloe's, land when he was made redundant after six months in the only real job he ever had. He also (as an MP) took six months off work in 2009 when his wife Betsy was diagnosed with breast cancer. Is this another case of do as I say, not as I do?

IDS is 58 years old and has suckled upon the publicly-funded teat for most of his life. He's signed on the dole. He's had four children and received child benefit for all of them. He has put them each through private school, too. His wife hasn't worked since they married, except for 15 months in which he got her a job paid by the taxpayer.

He and his colleagues eat and drink food you subsidise in a palace you pay for, he is driven around in a car you own, and when he is too old to 'work' any more you will pay for him to have a better pension than you, too. He started out at the age of 21 with six years of taxpayer-funded military service, during which he acted as bag-carrier to a Major-General.

Then in 1981, aged 27, he left the Army and signed on the dole for several months. He then began a period of ordinary work based upon the skills he had gained at the taxpayer's expense, and worked in sales for arms dealer GEC-Marconi. He then moved on to a property firm, where he was made redundant after six months, and then sold gun-related magazines for Jane's Information Group.

After 11 years of this all-too brief career he succeeded in once again boarding the publicly-funded gravy train in 1992. In the intervening 20 years he has been paid by the taxpayer every year more money than most taxpayers earn. He has topped it up, along the way, to more than six figures for a few years here and there. In 2001 he helped his unemployed wife to have a suckle, arranging for you to pay her £15,000 to be his diary secretary.

These days he is given the grand total of £134,565 a year from the taxpayer. He lives for free in a £2million Tudor farmhouse on his father-in-law's ancestral estate in Buckinghamshire. He has three acres of land, a tennis court, swimming pool and some orchards, which is not bad for a life in the pay of the state.

Now let us in the spirit of the Tories Big Society all sing the first verse and chorus of the hoary old anthem “We are all in this together.”

Thinking of Mandela

It is a worrying time despite South Africa's presidency saying 94-year-old Nelson Mandela is responding positively to hospital treatment for a recurring lung infection.

The office of President Jacob Zuma also said in a statement that the former president and anti-apartheid leader remains under observation.

Mr Mandela was admitted late Wednesday to a hospital in Pretoria, the South African capital.

But let us never forget that he contracted tuberculosis during his 27-year imprisonment for fighting white racist rule in South Africa. Since his release he has repeatedly had lung problems. White South Africa has much to feel guilty about and it has been a mark of the strength and genertosity of this great leader that he has always held a hand of friendship out to his persecutors.

He is a very rare man and this site salutes him and wishes him every good fortune and a return to good health.

Thursday 28 March 2013

Another disaster at DWP?

Once again the Tories are having to back pedal as their Universal Credit programme shows signs of falling behind schedule and facing major problems. The system, which will roll all benefits and tax credits into a single payment automatically linked to earnings, was expected to be trialled for new claimants across four areas of the country from late April.

Unfortunately, and typical ignorance of the simple realities of life, Iain Duncan Smith failed to check out with those who deliver welfare benefits and consequently he has been forced to scale back the trials to a single JCP office in Ashton-under-Lyne. So much for a grand roll-out.

Three other pilot areas in Wigan, Warrington and Oldham that were also due to ‘test out’ the new programme will not now begin processing the payments until at least July and possibly later.

Of course it would be nice to think that IDS would have the humility to admit to, and display a little embarrassment, but I suspect we may be waiting a long time. This is a man noted for his single-mindedness. No doubt over the coming days we will hear a range of excuses, but the bottom line is that it has been a kick in the pants for the Secretary of State.

In February, 2013, Iain Duncan Smith drafted in one of the Government’s most experienced trouble-shooters to take charge of the programme – a move which led to the departure of another senior DWP civil servant a few weeks later.

The delay in rolling out Universal Credit are probably due to the fact that most frontline staff do not have the training, computer programmes or experience in place to avoid making disastrous mistakes which could lead to people not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. A point made by a number of welfare organisations months ago. Could this be more evidence that IDS doesn’t listen to those around him?

In its announcement of the delay the Department of Work and Pension made no attempt to explain why it was unable to proceed as planned. Interestingly, in a neat little sidestep a spokesman for the department searched for a way to get IDS off the hook and tried to suggest it was “sensible” to start with one area before rolling it out to the other three in July.

Speaking on behalf of DWP, he said:

“It will allow us to make any changes that we feel we need to make and see what works and what doesn’t”.

Liam Byrne, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, tried to capitalise on this bungling by condemn UC and describing the announcement as “yet another embarrassing setback”.

He went on to say:

“The scheme is already late and over-budget and in spite of earlier promises Ministers have admitted that they have no idea when out of work claimants will move over to Universal Credit … The truth is the IT for Universal Credit appears to be nowhere near ready. Universal Credit calculations depend on salary data from HMRC's new PAYE Real Time Information system. Obligations for small firms to provide PAYE data on or before each employee payment have recently been delayed from April until October. And DWP are so worried they are now barring access to their five main contractors. This scheme is now on the edge of disaster. Ministers must admit this project is in crisis and start to fix it now – before millions of families tax credits are put at risk.”

Regrettably, Byrne failed to point out that UC will create significant challenge to low-income families. The simple reality is that, according to a Resolution Foundation report, “Conditions Uncertain”, almost 1.2 million low-paid workers entitled to support under Universal Credit will have to look for extra work or face the risk of having payments withdrawn. Furthermore, in a report by Tanni Grey-Thompson, 100,000 disabled children stand to lose up to £28 a week and 116,000 disabled people who work will be at risk of losing up to £40 per week from help towards additional costs of being disabled.

These are injustices that appear to be going through on a nod and a wink. The Tories and their Lib-Dem puppies will force this programme onto the most vulnerable in our society and it is a responsibility of those on the left to expose the extent of these injustices and campaign for their eradication.

We have a responsibility to do everything in our power to protect the poor and the vulnerable. If we fail them now we have no right to ask for their support later.

Wednesday 27 March 2013

Support? What support

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the UK has some of the highest childcare costs in the developed world, and that these act as a significant disincentive for parents who want to work or increase their hours of employment. This barrier is clearly more significant for those on low-incomes who scrabble to pay the same high fees as better-off families from their much smaller budgets, and who have seen a cut in childcare support through tax credits from 80% to 70% of costs since 2011.

As a result, the decision this week to route an additional £200 million through universal credit (UC) to help families with childcare is, on the face of it, a welcome announcement. We know that higher levels of parental employment correlate with lower levels of child poverty, and that helping mums back to work is a particularly effective child poverty reduction strategy.

However, as always, the devil is in the detail.

Additional help with childcare costs over and above what is already on offer for low-income families will only be available through UC for those parents who work a sufficient number of hours to pay income tax. For those in low-paid jobs this is a high bar to hit, and one, of course, that has been raised even further after the chancellor’s announcement this week that the tax threshold will increase to £10,000 a year in 2014/15.

As a result, a lone parent will need to work over 31 hours a week at the national minimum wage to reach this threshold, and the same will be true for both partners in a couple. In effect, then, what the new scheme offers is extra help to parents who work all but full-time, while those who wish to start working again after having children, or to combine part-time work with their family commitments, receive no extra support.

In this, the government could stand accused of sending out a very mixed message to low-income parents. Under UC, lone parents and second earners will only be expected to work ‘reasonable school hours’ which net out across the year at around 20 hours a week. At minimum wage this would not put them in the taxable bracket, and hence these families would not be eligible for the new upper rate of childcare support.

From a child poverty perspective, this new arrangement is also far from ideal. The government’s poverty statistics tell us two interesting things in relation to numbers of hours worked: first, that the risk of poverty drops drastically once a parent enters work; and second, that couple families see another significant reduction in risk once they contain one-and-a-half earners. We also know from focus groups that low-income parents urgently want childcare to help them undertake training and improve their skills.

If the government is interested in reducing child poverty, then, this new, two-tier system has got the incentives in the wrong place. Rather than pushing poor parents to work ever longer hours (which, of course, may not even be available), we would most likely see bigger child-poverty pay-outs if higher levels of childcare support were focused on helping all parents enter work in the first place, and to progress to better paid jobs.

Alas, an evidence-based approach such as this seems to run counter to a worrying thread emerging from some quarters, that if you are not working ‘enough’ hours you are not really in poverty at all. But if the government is really keen to help hard-working families as it claims to be, it needs to find a more rational way of supporting all low-income parents with the ever-increasing costs of childcare.

Beware the Savage Jaw

They'll split your pretty cranium, and fill it full of air

And tell that you're eighty, but brother, you won't care

You'll be shooting up on anything, tomorrow's never there

Beware the savage jaw

Of 1984

Those of you who have taken the time to read George Orwell’s “1984” will remember the story of an oppressive society dominated by deceit. A society where facts are distorted to meet the needs of the government and where the people are forced to accept this rule blindly and without question.

I recently reread this outstanding novel and could not help draw huge similarities between the society Orwell predicted and the current state of the Welfare to Work industry. No doubt those readers working in that sector will have gasped in horror at such an outrageous statement, but indulge me for a moment and allow me to explain.

Just like Orwell’ society, the Welfare to Work industry depends on adherence to four central mottos:

Ignorance is Strength

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Long live Big Brother!

Now, let’s look at those mottos and see how they apply to the Welfare to work industry.

Ignorance is Strength

Central to the running of the variety of provisions supplied by the industry is the need to obscure facts. Many years ago, I read a marvellous book entitled “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”. In the book the author outlined how statistics can be used to the advantage of the person reporting them. Take for example the following two statements:

1. The lifetime risk of Alcohol Dependence is approximately 15% in the general population. In any year, 5% of the general population will actively be suffering from Alcohol Dependence.

2. The lifetime likelihood of being free from any form of alcohol dependence is now 85% in the general population. In any year, 95% of the general population will be from all signs of Alcohol Dependence.

Technically both say the same thing, but the conclusion reached by the reader would be quite different, depending on which one was read.

It is the same with the “statistics” offered by the W2W industry. Take the figures released a couple of months ago about the “success rate” of the Work Programme. The figures disclosed would suggest that delivery was achieving nothing. Indeed, the evidence would go so far as to suggest that as many people would have secured work without any involvement with the sector. Nonsense, screamed supporters of welfare to work. You haven’t given us time. Wait until another year has passed and you will see how things have improved. But isn’t that a little like a 35 year old inexperienced athlete saying ‘if I’d had another hundred metres I would have beaten Usain Bolt’?

The government are quite happy to go along with this subterfuge. Indeed, they have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that the broad spectrum of programmes are delivering well above target – even if it isn’t true. What they don’t tell us is the number of providers who fail, the number who are forced to give back their contracts and the number who consistently fail to reach targets.

War is Peace

A browse through the web pages of Indus Delta or the Department of Work and Pensions would soon give the reader the illusion that the vast majority of long-term unemployed are time-wasting, work-dodging, lazy individuals who do all they can to obstruct the ‘support’ offered to them by providers. Whistleblown mail has come into the hands of this blogger confirming that both JCP and the providers ‘attack’ clients from the underlying assumption they will do all they can to avoid work.

As a result, casework is undertaken in a spirit of hostility, where the client/ customer/ service user is brow beaten into accepting the authority of the provider. From the start it is not set up as a help-providing environment but as a controlling one where the client is obliged to do as the provider demands of face the threat of a loss of benefit.

Take the case of Geraldine, a mother of two who had been out of work for ten years. When told she would be referred to a Work Programme provider she was excited, believing it would be a certain route to helping her find work. Nine months on and she continues to see her caseworker, who in turn regularly offers her jobs that have expired or are unsuited to her qualifications (she has a degree and masters from Cambridge University in mathematics). Lately, and in desperation, the caseworker has been offering her vacancies in the caring sector. She dare not complain. If she does she might be seen as hindering her chances of work … and so she continues to keep the peace, because if she doesn’t, she fears she might lose her entitlement to benefit.

Freedom is Slavery

Within every family there are rules – we all grew up with them and we have them in our families today. They range from the simple ‘take your shoes off before entering the house’ to the more intense, such as ‘children should be seen and not heard’. But one of the greatest rules is ‘thou shalt not talk about the rules’. Over the years a number of people have criticised the Welfare to Work industry and their comments are usually dismissed and ridiculed. Media inquiries into the workings of the industry have generally been ignored and their conclusions buried.

Take for example some of the responses I have received as a result of questioning the broad opinions and practices of providers:

Tacticus … Why are you in the employment support industry? Your constant arguments are tiresome, totally unprofessional and are becoming an embarrassment to the profession.

Tactitus .... MOVE AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD. Keep it out of reach (I appreciate it may need surgical removal). You do not have to respond to comments. Your hands are controlled by your brain. They do not have a mind of their own. Self-control is key.

Interestingly, the Indus Delta webpages have been ‘edited’ and some of the more personal comments raised against me have been removed. No doubt regular readers of my comments will recall them with some disgust.

The bottom line is that freedom of expression is not welcome in the sector. Far from being a broad church of ideas, it is a narrow-minded right-wing oligarchy intent on promulgating the policies of a Thatcherite government. All this under the pretence of extending social welfare when the reality is that it is for the great god of profit.

Long Live Big Brother

Once the ‘customer’ has been referred to a work programme provider they are inducted into the process. This will include the usual overt passing on of information designed to help them understand how WP will work in their lives. The more covert process is to ensure the ‘customer’ realises that the caseworker, along with JCP have the capacity to pull their strings in any way they choose. If they fail to comply they can face the loss of benefit. Equally, if they dare to complain (assuming they are made aware of a complaints procedure and this blogger found a significant number of cases of clients not being informed) the client is likely to be pigeon-holed as a troublemaker and parked.

‘Tammy’ is a Service Desk manager who had been unemployed for 16 months. During that time she had started a correspondence course designed to help him obtain a place at university to study to become a nurse. For a variety of reasons she felt it necessary to complain to her provider about the way she was being treated. Until her complaint they had frequently cancelled appointments without notification, offered her jobs out of the area or requiring her to travel for over two hours each day, and suggested her course inhibited her chance of taking work and informed her that unless she stopped it, the provider might be forced to refer her back to JCP to face sanctions. This is despite her making it abundantly clear she would take any job and work her course around her work hours.

Tammy’s case is not unusual. Rather than using motivational and/ or cognitive behavioural processes recognised within other fields, providers use pressure and sometimes gentle bullying to achieve their end. Why? The answer is simple – the vast majority of staff working as caseworkers have had no formal training in motivational change. Many come from a sales background and use those techniques to coerce clients to do what the caseworker sees as being in their best interests. It is a travesty. How can an entire industry, earning so much government money each year justify delivering programmes with untrained and frequently incompetent staff? They have no excuse – other than to explain it as a desire to make more money.

And let’s take a closer look at these caseworkers – are they really there to help the customer? Or is their role precisely the same as Orwell’s ‘Thought Police’? An army of pro-provider staff whose sole aim is to monitor client thought processes and guarantee they do not stray from the mainstream. If the client begins to question or desire to have a say in their future they are deemed troublesome and risk sanctions.

True there are some caseworkers who genuinely care about their clients, but the good ones soon realise they are facing an uphill struggle and so they leave the sector. Welfare to work has been around for a number of years, but look around the staff and see how many fieldworkers and trainers have been in the sector for over ten years. Nurses, doctors, social workers, teachers stay working on the coalface throughout their careers. Very few Welfare to work staff will do the same.

It needs to end. What is needed is for the government to have a radical rethink about the way it helps people back into work. They need to decide what they want, how they want it delivered and who they want it delivered by. Once this has been decided the government should set up a monitoring body capable of removing contracts and sanctioning providers. It should also have the capacity to register staff working in the sector and demand a minimal standard of training.

But none of this will happen because just like Orwell introduced the concept of Doublespeak to hide the truth from the populace, so the Welfare to Work sector have created Dolespeak, where lies become truth, where coercion becomes help, where bullying becomes support and where incompetence becomes professionalism.

It needs to come to an end, but with the Tories and Labour now entrenched in a core belief that Welfare to Work is the best way forward, despite evidence to the contrary, we are a long way away from sacking the providers.

But don’t give up hope – IT WILL HAPPEN.

Monday 25 March 2013

The government will need to react quickly if a benefit cut for social housing tenants leads to rises in rent arrears and homelessness. In a recent interview, Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge said it could have a "severe impact" on low-income families.

Estimates by some of the largest housing associations suggest many tenants are not currently planning to move home to avoid the cut.

From 1 April, changes to housing benefit (HB) affecting working-age social housing tenants deemed to have spare bedrooms will mean a 14% cut for those with one extra room and of 25% for those with two or more. On top of this, changes to Council Housing Benefit have meant many of the most vulnerable have, or will soon receive Benefit notices informing them of a substantial reduction in the amount they receive each week.

The controversial measure - which will see affected tenants lose an average of £14 a week - has been dubbed the "bedroom tax" by Labour, though the government has been at pains to argue it is not a tax but a curb on "spare room subsidies". A “tax” or a “curb”, it makes no difference. The long and the short of it is that, according to ther Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), 600,000 of the poorest social housing tenants are having to pay for the luxury of keeping this cruel government in power.

In an interview, Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee said:

"The DWP says it can't accurately predict the effects of its housing benefit changes either on individuals or on the housing supply. Instead it will rely on a 'wait and see' approach and monitor changes in homelessness, rent levels and arrears so that, where there is a need, it can intervene and respond ….. Even small reductions in housing benefit can have a severe impact on the finances of the poorest people."

Stay or go?

In response, the Tory government has argued the change brings housing benefit for social housing tenants in line with its provision in the private sector, where size criteria already apply. But let’s cut to the core, the policy is simply designed to reduce the £21bn annual housing benefit bill and encourage greater mobility in the social rented sector.

The consequences will be catastrophic. Take for example Riverside Homes, with 51,493 properties and an estimated 6,602 households affected by the cut. In their estimation, 1584 - 24% of affected tenants – will be forced to move from their home.

Similarly, Glasgow Housing Association - with 41,400 homes - estimated that of 6,100 affected tenants, 1,300 - 21% - will be forced out of their home. In Wales, Community Housing Cymru Group (CHC), representing 70 housing associations in Wales, estimated that of 40,000 affected claimants, more than 4,000 - 9% - will have to leave their homes 'National shortage'

Many housing associations have argued that moving large numbers of people considered to be under-occupying social homes was unachievable simply because there were not enough smaller homes available.

As evidence for this, CHC said that 88% of housing associations in Wales would have a mismatch of properties if they tried to downsize all under-occupying tenants facing a benefit cut.

"Not because tenants are needlessly under-occupying larger homes, but because there is a national shortage of affordable homes, especially one and two-bed properties,"

With the vast majority of affected tenants expected to try to find the extra rental money themselves, housing associations raised concerns including:

Increased financial difficulty for tenants

Tenants running up rent arrears

Increased costs to housing associations of rent collection and evictions

A rise in doorstep lending

Damage to communities from increased turnover in social housing

Less affordable, larger homes remaining empty

They also warned that people who responded to the benefit cut by leaving social housing could end up claiming more housing benefit in the costlier private sector.

The DWP points out that with one third of working-age social housing tenants receiving housing benefit for homes larger than they need, that amounts to one million extra bedrooms currently being subsidised. It hopes its measure will enable better use of available social housing stock, and improve work incentives for affected tenants.

"We expect people to respond in different ways to the changes to the Spare Room Subsidy - some will move and some will make up the difference in their rent by moving into work, or increasing their hours. But when in England alone there are nearly two million households on the social housing waiting list and over a quarter of a million tenants are living in overcrowded homes, this measure is needed to make better use of our housing stock." If this wasn’t such a serious issue, the DWP response would be almost laughable. The reality is that, courtesy of Thatcher’s sell-off of the social housing stock, aided and abetted later by Blair and New Labour, there are now less houses available for those in greatest need. We do not have the luxury of being able to facilitate mobility within social housing. Indeed, we cannot house all those who need a home, much less move them around.

Once again we are seeing the government has no idea of how to help and support the most vulnerable. All they are interested in is helping the fat cats get fatter while the poor are forced to pay the price. Why am I reminded of Marie Antoinette’s supposed comment “… then let them eat cake”?

Sunday 24 March 2013

Cameron's foolishness and Clegg's U-turn

Writing in the Sun newspaper today, Prime Minister Cameron said Migrants will lose benefits after six months, unless they "have a genuine chance of finding work". According to reports, he will say the measures are to ensure that "everyone who comes here pays their way and gives something back".

No doubt his pronouncements will be welcomed by those on the far right and by many in the Tory party. It may even bring a smile to Cameron’s tame puppy, Nick Clegg. However, Cameron has failed, or refused to consider what consequences will emerge from this action.

Clearly, there are only three possible results – a small number will find appropriate employment, though in the current economic climate this will not be easy, others who have chosen to come to this country to start a new life will find themselves without any financial support and in dire need.

The remainder will be forced to accept work with unscrupulous employers, often working in substandard conditions for long hours at rates of pay that are so low they almost defy imagination.

This last option is the most frightening because it will be a very real option for many new arrivals. Tragically, Clegg and cronies will almost certainly stand by Cameron when these changes come before parliament. Already Clegg has demanded a £1000 deposit for some immigrants (a proposal fully supported by Vince Cable). Admittedly he did also outline plans to increase cash penalties for "unscrupulous" employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants because they are cheaper. The maximum fine is £10,000 per illegal worker and Mr Clegg called for a doubling of penalties. But will this ever become reality? Unlikely. The Tories are by tradition the party of the rich and wealthy, the party of the self-employed – even if that employer is abusing his workers.

In 2010, It is a perfect U-turn - Clegg said in the Liberal Democrat manifesto: “We will allow people who have been in Britain without the correct papers for ten years, but speak English, have a clean record and want to live here long-term to earn their citizenship”. Now he has decided that policy is unworkable and should never have seen the light of day – what changed? Oh yes … I remember now … he joined the Tories and became their lapdog.

Undoubtedly our immigration system is in chaos. The Border Agency seem unable, or incapable of preventing illegal immigrants enter this country; there is a bubbling anger at the number of new arrivals entering this country. And the right-wing feed on this by suggesting these immigrants are taking our jobs. They lie. The statistics tell us that immigrants old and new are having no effect on unemployment levels and are having no effect on the number of jobs available.

What is needed is a reasoned and reasonable discussion about immigration that can consider the needs of potential arrivals, as well as the needs of this country. We are by nature a welcoming country, a people that can work and live alongside other cultures with ease and in peace. Cameron’s and Clegg’s pronouncements do little to add to the debate and do much to harm and destabilise our relationship with immigrants old and new to this country.

How Welfare To Work providers fail

At the best of times, being unemployed is a disheartening experience, but when this lasts for over 12-months it is soul destroying. In the UK we have been living in a largely recessionary economy for a number of years and this, coupled with harsh government induced cuts has led many unemployed people to face hardship and physical or mental health problems.

If this wasn’t bad enough on its own, the agencies and organisations with responsibility for supporting the vulnerable appear to be failing to deliver an effective service. In 2011 the government rolled out its flagship “Work Programme” aimed at helping unemployed people back into work. But is it doing its job?

Over the last 18-months a catalogue of incompetence has been revealed that has included providers and/ or subcontractors being ill-prepared for the job at hand. This has included cases of a number of clients not being seen for almost two months because some of the companies charged with delivering the service had neither appropriate premises, sufficient front-line staff, or appropriate administrative back-up to deliver according to the terms of the contract.

A number of cases were reported of clients being turned away because of IT failures, lack of caseworkers able to see service users, or electricity/ heating failures.
“When I arrived the caseworkers were just sitting around chatting and when I said that I had come for my appointment they told me I couldn’t be seen. That went on for five weeks and there were things I needed to talk about.”
(Bob, 47 – 19-months unemployed)

Of course it could be argued that providers offering such a poor service are “cutting off their nose to spite their face”, but are they? Firstly, they receive an initial payment for taking the job on in the first place.

Admittedly the amount is small, but the effect is quite substantial because in participating in WP they demonstrate to the government a capability of delivering Welfare to Work programmes.

In doing so they add to their level of presumed competency and, in doing so, make themselves more attractive when it comes to bidding for further work. This is despite the evidence they fail each day.

And what about the caseworkers? Countless cases were reported of clients believing staff were ill-qualified and poorly trained. Their fears were not without foundation because along with these anxieties came evidence of staff not knowing how to help service users, unless they were willing to accept work in the retail sector. Semi-skilled or skilled clients were often parked because staff had no idea of how to support them.
“Until I hurt my arm I’d worked regularly on the buildings, but then had to give it up ‘cos I couldn’t lift. I went along to see B (caseworker) and she showed me jobs in teaching and management. I told her I wasn’t qualified or experienced in any of that, but it just kept on coming every time I saw her. It was a waste of time.”
(Steve, 51 – unemployed 23-months)

Customers who are unhappy with their supplier of water can refer to OFWAT, to OFGEN for electricity or gas problems, or to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you are unhappy with your bank. Yet, if you are unemployed you are expected to grin and bear it, even if the service offered is a disgrace.

True, every company has a complaints procedure, but what happens when service users are not told about it – as was discovered amongst many of those identified in this investigation? They have nowhere to go … and even if they do manage to discover a route through the maze, they are often unable to secure justice.

First they must confront the provider directly – not a comfortable task when the person you are complaining about can refer you back to JCP and have your benefits removed! If they fail to secure justice they can upgrade the complaint and take it to the Prime Contractor.

They will undertake an investigation and then report back on the findings. On average, this process can take about 6 weeks and if the client is still unhappy they can refer the matter to an Independent Examiner (though often they will need to have the skills of Sherlock Holmes to discover the address or contact telephone number).

Once referred to the Examiner the complaint process can take a potential eight more weeks – meaning the entire process may well have lasted anything up to three months – that’s three months without work and living on the poverty line because of the incompetency of the provider.

It is a disgrace that so many people are being treated so abysmally. Unemployment, by its very nature is dehumanising and those affected need support, guidance and dynamic, active encouragement. They do not need abuse and disinterest from those charged with the responsibility for helping them.

It needs change – NOW!

Saturday 23 March 2013

In memory of Ron Dorman

This blogger has been informed that Ron Dorman died sometime overnight between the 20th and 21st March. He was 84. Those who knew him inform me Ron was a long standing activist in the Socialist/ Communist movement. In his latter days he concentrated on his work in CAEF and other anti-EU campaigns. He was also active in the Stockland Green Anti-Cuts Group and the West Midlands Pensioners Convention. Ron had been a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and the Communist Party of Britain (CPB). In the CPGB he was active at branch level and was a branch secretary. Perhaps some readers will have worked with Ron over the years and may have had disagreements with him - they are of no consequence now. May he be remembered for his hard work and dogged determination. Let us remember him as he would have wanted - by continuing the struggle.

The Fightback begins .....

Regular readers of this site will possibly recall that two years ago I was a regular (and often abused) blogger. In that time I tried to raise core issues affecting our society and offered a critical alternative stance on many of the topics raised. Now, as an independent voice, free from the shackles of being employed by a Welfare to Work Provider, I have undertaken a detailed undercover study of the efficacy and benefit (or lack) of participation in a variety of Welfare to Work Porgrammes. The results are, to say the least, disturbing. Over the last 18 months, I have discovered throughout the country, cases of providers regularly only seeing clients for as little as 5 minutes, incidents of service users being introduced to jobs they physically cannot perform, offered jobs that no longer exist or require qualifications they do not hold and at one location a situation where a significant numbert of clients had no direct contact with a caseworker for up to 6 weeks. I discovered situations where providers 'negotiated' with clients that they would be seen monthly, despite the fact there is an expectation by DWP they should be seen more frequently. Over the coming weeks, I will expose the nature of these cases and, at the same time, ask the question of how the Welfare to Work industry can legitimately argue it is either professional or competent, when a raft of hard and soft data now exists confirming the extent of incompetency within the industry. Naturally, I am not expecting to win any popularity vote. It is of no consequence - what is of greater concern is how public money is being frittered away for minimal gain while so many cases of malpractice exist. In addition to this, I will write regularly about how the Cameron/ Clegg coalition are destroying the fabric of our society and reducing the poor, the sick and disabled to ruination and bankruptcy. I will refer back to their election promises made before taking office and show how they lied and continue to misinform. None of it will be pleasant reading, but it will be important. Starting Sunday - read my blog HERE
Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics