The Observer by Mark Townsend | Saturday, 9 April 2011
A senior member of the BNP who burned a copy of the Qur'an in his garden has been arrested.
Footage of the burning shows Sion Owens, 40, from south Wales and a candidate for the forthcoming Welsh Assembly elections, soaking the Qur'an in kerosene and setting fire to it. A video clip of the act was leaked to the Observer and passed immediately to South Wales police, provoked fierce criticism from the government.
Owens, who has previously stood for a council seat, was last Tuesday unveiled by the BNP as a candidate for next month's assembly elections. Several photographs place him alongside party leader Nick Griffin, including one showing the pair embracing during a party conference.
Owens was arrested within hours of police receiving the video. A second person, believed to have filmed the Qur'an burning, is also in police custody. It is unclear when the incident took place, but the five-minute footage is already understood to have been circulated to extremists. There is no evidence that Griffin was aware of the film.
When Jones went ahead with his "punishment" of the Qur'an on 20 March it was initially largely ignored until it was streamed on the internet and preserved on YouTube.
The footage of the burning in Britain clearly identifies Owens, who is wearing a "Whitelaw No Surrender" T-shirt. The film starts with the Qur'an lying in a Quality Street tin before Owens begins dousing the holy book in flammable liquid and then setting fire to it. The camera zooms in as the Qur'an burns.
Saqed Mueen of the international security thinktank, the Royal United Services Institute, described the act as proof of the "globalisation of outrageous stunts". Concern over Islamophobic provocation among far-right elements is epitomised by the rise of the English Defence League, which was founded in 2009 and claims to have thousands of members in scores of regional branches.
The EDL's rise coincides with the decline of the BNP as a political force, evident during last year's poor general election performance. Although Griffin's party had 338 candidates in the parliamentary elections, a record number for a far-right party in Britain, its share of the vote in key seats fell.
The BNP fared little better in the council elections, failing in its concerted attempt to win control of Barking and Dagenham council and losing all but two of its 28 wards.
The news that a senior BNP figure has been arrested after a film showing him burning the Qur'an will only discredit the party further, according to anti-fascist campaigners.
Photographs show Owens at a Welsh Defence League demonstration with a group of alleged Nazis including Wayne Baldwin, who has been pictured posing in front of a swastika flag. The Observer has also been passed images that show Owens's face apparently superimposed on Hitler's body.
Owens was officially announced last week as the BNP's number three candidate for the South Wales West constituency of the Welsh assembly.
In 2008 he stood for the BNP in council elections, polling almost a fifth of votes in his ward but finishing last out of three candidates. His campaign posters at the time show him standing on a ticket against "mass immigration, enforced multiculturalism, political correctness".
Although the BNP announced a record number of candidates for the Welsh assembly elections last week, anti-fascist groups maintain the party is a fading force, claiming that it has struggled to field candidates in the forthcoming local elections in areas that used to be target seats.
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Friday, 8 April 2011
Public fury as emergency workers display a sense of their own mortality
This article first appeared on the Counterfire website and was written by 'The Third Estate'. It was reprinted here for the interest of readers.
It has become so boringly familiar. “Emergency services held back by red tape”, runs the typical headline in the press. Usually this refers to an incident in which the emergency services have been halted in their duties by serious concerns about their own safety. This, in turn, will upset a great many people, who appear to believe that firefighters and ambulance staff should behave more like the ones they see in action movies. Indeed, on the silver screen such heroes will invariably hurtle in with no regard for their own wellbeing – shielded only by the knowledge that, as fictional characters, they won’t actually be leaving a family behind to suffer the impact of their demise.
The latest incident to provoke the ire of the press is a rather sad one. A woman named Caren Patterson was left brain damaged after paramedics took 2 hours to come to her aid. Her address had been “red-flagged” as “high risk” for paramedics, and as such they demanded a police escort. This in turn took a great deal of time to arrive, leaving the ambulance crew waiting as Patterson’s brain was starved of Oxygen.
There certainly appear to be questions about whether the address was “red flagged” by mistake, and the ambulance service have admitted liability. But the basic principle, that paramedics should have a right to require police back up when enterring known high risk addresses, is sound. Every year there are around 3,000 attacks on paramedics. They are not armed with batons, or trained in public order – and if they are to be made into quasi-police officers, this too could compromise their ability to do their job.
The Mail recently reported on the apparently scandalous decision of ambulance staff to hold back while Raul Moat was on his rampage, and offered us a list of other “Victims of risk avoiders”. Amongst them was Phil Surridge, who died after fire crews refused to rescue him from a frozen lake, on account of the fact tat they weren’t trained to do so. They quote his mother’s assertion that fire crews had “condemned him to death”.
Now, perhaps I am missing something here, but running onto a frozen lake, in which one person is already drowning, strikes me as a uniquely dangerous activity for which one would need specialist training. It also occurs to me that just because somebody is trained to rescue people from burning buildings, it doesn’t mean they know how to how to deal with frozen lakes. Perhaps there was some bad bureaucracy in sending a crew with the wrong training, but cowardice is neither here nor there.
Since serfdom came to an end, the basic idea has been that workers sell their labour power but not themselves.While some jobs inevitably involve risk, it is ridiculous to expect the workers who keep our emergency services going to behave like they are completely dispensable. When the grand age of robots dawns, we can perhaps disregard such considerations. But until then our emergency services will need to be staffed by human beings.
It has become so boringly familiar. “Emergency services held back by red tape”, runs the typical headline in the press. Usually this refers to an incident in which the emergency services have been halted in their duties by serious concerns about their own safety. This, in turn, will upset a great many people, who appear to believe that firefighters and ambulance staff should behave more like the ones they see in action movies. Indeed, on the silver screen such heroes will invariably hurtle in with no regard for their own wellbeing – shielded only by the knowledge that, as fictional characters, they won’t actually be leaving a family behind to suffer the impact of their demise.
The latest incident to provoke the ire of the press is a rather sad one. A woman named Caren Patterson was left brain damaged after paramedics took 2 hours to come to her aid. Her address had been “red-flagged” as “high risk” for paramedics, and as such they demanded a police escort. This in turn took a great deal of time to arrive, leaving the ambulance crew waiting as Patterson’s brain was starved of Oxygen.
There certainly appear to be questions about whether the address was “red flagged” by mistake, and the ambulance service have admitted liability. But the basic principle, that paramedics should have a right to require police back up when enterring known high risk addresses, is sound. Every year there are around 3,000 attacks on paramedics. They are not armed with batons, or trained in public order – and if they are to be made into quasi-police officers, this too could compromise their ability to do their job.
The Mail recently reported on the apparently scandalous decision of ambulance staff to hold back while Raul Moat was on his rampage, and offered us a list of other “Victims of risk avoiders”. Amongst them was Phil Surridge, who died after fire crews refused to rescue him from a frozen lake, on account of the fact tat they weren’t trained to do so. They quote his mother’s assertion that fire crews had “condemned him to death”.
Now, perhaps I am missing something here, but running onto a frozen lake, in which one person is already drowning, strikes me as a uniquely dangerous activity for which one would need specialist training. It also occurs to me that just because somebody is trained to rescue people from burning buildings, it doesn’t mean they know how to how to deal with frozen lakes. Perhaps there was some bad bureaucracy in sending a crew with the wrong training, but cowardice is neither here nor there.
Since serfdom came to an end, the basic idea has been that workers sell their labour power but not themselves.While some jobs inevitably involve risk, it is ridiculous to expect the workers who keep our emergency services going to behave like they are completely dispensable. When the grand age of robots dawns, we can perhaps disregard such considerations. But until then our emergency services will need to be staffed by human beings.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
A fly in the soup for the Royal wedding
I am so fed up with all this hype about the Royal wedding – as if I care that two rich ‘state spongers’ are going to get hitched. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t ant anti-marriage rant, I am all in favour of it and would love to see the law extended to include the lesbian and gay community. But is it really necessary to have a William and “what’s her name” mug, or tea plate? Everywhere I go I am accosted by reminders that later this month the happy couple will be wed. Of course they are happy – look at the income they have going into the house. 
He has his salary of £37,170 from the RAF and on top of that, he also receives an income established on the death of his mother and he also has further money coming in from his father’s Duchy income. All in all, he’s not short of a bob or two and a far cry from the £22,000 salary Daddy was paying Kate Middleton before she quit the family firm last month. So, news that a peace camp in Parliament Square cannot legally be moved and will probably remain throughout this elitist spree made my spirits soar this morning. Apparently, the prime minister, the home secretary and the mayor of London have all vowed the ramshackle tented peace encampment yards from Westminster Abbey in Parliament Square will not become a backdrop to the perfect royal wedding tableau in on 29 April. Unfortunately for Citizen Dave, the people’s toff, despite numerous legal attempts, no one – from No 10 down – has been able to come up with any legal power to move campaigners from the pavement between the Houses of Parliament and the abbey, where Prince William and Kate Middleton will marry. Much to my glee, Tory politicians are venting their fury at Scotland Yard, piling the pressure on senior officers to do something. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is understood to have made it clear in private to the Metropolitan police that he does not want anything – not a tin of paint, a placard or a tent flap – to spoil the wedding day. Of course not, Boris is facing re-election and the last thing he wants is some nasty, scruffy left-winger spoiling his roadshow. David Cameron told the Commons he could not understand why demonstrators were being allowed to sleep in the square. Ummm – bit of news for you Dave, we live in a democracy and peaceful protest is a legitimate tactic the common people (you know, those oiks you keep trying to put down) employ when they are opposed to something parliamentarians (with their £65,000+ salaries) do. It seems Dave stressed at prime minister's question time he wanted the peace camp removed before the wedding. Dream on Dave – can’t go and won’t go. So desperate are this bunch of right-wing hoodlums that they are even prepared to rewrite the law to suit their own ends. The home secretary, Theresa May, has created an amendment to the police reform and social responsibility bill, which outlaws the erection in Parliament Square of "any tent, or any other structure that is designed, or adapted... for the purpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in". The legislation is about to enter its second reading in the House of Lords and will not be law in time for the big day. I suppose Citizen Dave follows the same mentality as Queen Victoria, who is reputed to said “Take it away lest it offend my eye”. 
As an aside, why does Theresa May always dress in the same sort of clothes as Princess Leiea from Star Wars – is this a secret Hollywood fetish we are uncovering here? Anyway, I digress - at Scotland Yard, there have been high-level meetings to scour legislation and identify a clause that would give police the power to act. Given the level of political pressure, there have been conversations about the possibility of using emergency powers but, after a meeting at the Yard this week, it was concluded that there was nothing the Met could do. A senior police source told the press: "They are putting us under huge pressure, but … They made the laws and to date there doesn't seem to be one we can act on. If there was we would have done it by now." Hopes had been resting on attempts by the Greater London Authority and Westminster council to remove the inhabitants of the camp, their 14 tents, placards, montage pictures of war victims and two home-made police boxes, by taking action through the courts. But most protesters have permission to stay on the Parliament Square pavement under a clause in the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005.
There is a small chance the GLA – which is responsible for the grass on Parliament Square – might be able to move two tents pitched on a patch of lawn at the edge of the square next week if an appeal by peace campaigners Brian Haw and Barbara Tucker fails in the high court. However, all Haw and Tucker need do is move their tents three feet on to the pavement. Westminster council – which is responsible for the pavement – has more chance of success by arguing in the high court that the peace encampment is an obstruction under the Highways Act. You might remember Westminster council. They are the same body that made providing hot food from a soup kitchen for those who are forced to sleep rough illegal. Meanwhile, some inhabitants of the camp – which was first settled 10 years ago when veteran peacenik Brian Haw pitched his tent on the grass of Parliament Square – are making what they see as a generous gesture in a spirit of compromise. One protester, Maria Gallastegui, has written to Buckingham Palace offering to cover up her placards for the day. Much to her surprise, she received a reply – delivered to her police box. One of the toffee nosed elite employed as emissaries for the Prince of Wales wrote how the Royals "appreciated" her offer and "careful note has been taken on the points you make". For their part, Citizen Dave, Theresa “Princess Leiea” May and “Biffer” Johnson seem unlikely to accept the olive branch. Let us all hope their efforts fail and the camp will somehow find its way into the Royal wedding album.
He has his salary of £37,170 from the RAF and on top of that, he also receives an income established on the death of his mother and he also has further money coming in from his father’s Duchy income. All in all, he’s not short of a bob or two and a far cry from the £22,000 salary Daddy was paying Kate Middleton before she quit the family firm last month. So, news that a peace camp in Parliament Square cannot legally be moved and will probably remain throughout this elitist spree made my spirits soar this morning. Apparently, the prime minister, the home secretary and the mayor of London have all vowed the ramshackle tented peace encampment yards from Westminster Abbey in Parliament Square will not become a backdrop to the perfect royal wedding tableau in on 29 April. Unfortunately for Citizen Dave, the people’s toff, despite numerous legal attempts, no one – from No 10 down – has been able to come up with any legal power to move campaigners from the pavement between the Houses of Parliament and the abbey, where Prince William and Kate Middleton will marry. Much to my glee, Tory politicians are venting their fury at Scotland Yard, piling the pressure on senior officers to do something. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is understood to have made it clear in private to the Metropolitan police that he does not want anything – not a tin of paint, a placard or a tent flap – to spoil the wedding day. Of course not, Boris is facing re-election and the last thing he wants is some nasty, scruffy left-winger spoiling his roadshow. David Cameron told the Commons he could not understand why demonstrators were being allowed to sleep in the square. Ummm – bit of news for you Dave, we live in a democracy and peaceful protest is a legitimate tactic the common people (you know, those oiks you keep trying to put down) employ when they are opposed to something parliamentarians (with their £65,000+ salaries) do. It seems Dave stressed at prime minister's question time he wanted the peace camp removed before the wedding. Dream on Dave – can’t go and won’t go. So desperate are this bunch of right-wing hoodlums that they are even prepared to rewrite the law to suit their own ends. The home secretary, Theresa May, has created an amendment to the police reform and social responsibility bill, which outlaws the erection in Parliament Square of "any tent, or any other structure that is designed, or adapted... for the purpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in". The legislation is about to enter its second reading in the House of Lords and will not be law in time for the big day. I suppose Citizen Dave follows the same mentality as Queen Victoria, who is reputed to said “Take it away lest it offend my eye”. 
As an aside, why does Theresa May always dress in the same sort of clothes as Princess Leiea from Star Wars – is this a secret Hollywood fetish we are uncovering here? Anyway, I digress - at Scotland Yard, there have been high-level meetings to scour legislation and identify a clause that would give police the power to act. Given the level of political pressure, there have been conversations about the possibility of using emergency powers but, after a meeting at the Yard this week, it was concluded that there was nothing the Met could do. A senior police source told the press: "They are putting us under huge pressure, but … They made the laws and to date there doesn't seem to be one we can act on. If there was we would have done it by now." Hopes had been resting on attempts by the Greater London Authority and Westminster council to remove the inhabitants of the camp, their 14 tents, placards, montage pictures of war victims and two home-made police boxes, by taking action through the courts. But most protesters have permission to stay on the Parliament Square pavement under a clause in the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005.
There is a small chance the GLA – which is responsible for the grass on Parliament Square – might be able to move two tents pitched on a patch of lawn at the edge of the square next week if an appeal by peace campaigners Brian Haw and Barbara Tucker fails in the high court. However, all Haw and Tucker need do is move their tents three feet on to the pavement. Westminster council – which is responsible for the pavement – has more chance of success by arguing in the high court that the peace encampment is an obstruction under the Highways Act. You might remember Westminster council. They are the same body that made providing hot food from a soup kitchen for those who are forced to sleep rough illegal. Meanwhile, some inhabitants of the camp – which was first settled 10 years ago when veteran peacenik Brian Haw pitched his tent on the grass of Parliament Square – are making what they see as a generous gesture in a spirit of compromise. One protester, Maria Gallastegui, has written to Buckingham Palace offering to cover up her placards for the day. Much to her surprise, she received a reply – delivered to her police box. One of the toffee nosed elite employed as emissaries for the Prince of Wales wrote how the Royals "appreciated" her offer and "careful note has been taken on the points you make". For their part, Citizen Dave, Theresa “Princess Leiea” May and “Biffer” Johnson seem unlikely to accept the olive branch. Let us all hope their efforts fail and the camp will somehow find its way into the Royal wedding album.
at
22:31
0
comments
Labels:
Boris Johnson,
Citizen Dave,
Prince William,
Theresa May,
Westminster Council
0
comments
Labels:
Boris Johnson,
Citizen Dave,
Prince William,
Theresa May,
Westminster Council
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Jenny Griffin is a busy girl
On 26 March, Clive Jefferson, the hapless BNP national elections officer announced on the BNP website that the local elections campaign was “hotting up” and, in an effort to chivvy along other activists, claimed that his patch, North West Cumbria, was going to stand 15 candidates “and counting” in Copeland and 15 candidates “and counting” in Allerdale.
“This year’s elections have a different feel to them. There are no unrealistic expectations,” claimed Jefferson. “There are a lot of new people coming forward eager to pin the British National Party heart to their chests,” he boasted. “People have worked quietly but systematically over the last year, and there is a feeling of real excitement in the active groups who are fielding big slates in 2011 … Cumbria has thrown the challenge down. Which region is going to beat the Cumbrian gambit of 30 seats?”
The BNP faithful lapped it up.
There appears to have been a problem though. Jefferson’s efforts to whip his colleagues into a frenzy of excitement were not based on fact. Indeed, when nominations closed it was revealed that there were only four candidates standing in Copeland which means that a number of BNP branches have managed to beat Clive Jefferson’s big push hands down.
There was little respite for Jefferson in Allerdale either where, despite claiming he had 15 candidates “and counting”, he could, at the end of the day, only muster six. And, what happened to their mayoral candidate for Middlesborough? He or she is also a no-show.
Two of the candidates were Jennifer Matthys, the daughter of Nick Griffin, and her husband, Angus. Angus is best remembered as the man who had to wear rubber gloves to open the BNP's post when he worked with Jenny at the BNP's Belfast office. Both are standing as candidates for the BNP in Allerdale.
But Jenny will be particularly busy come election day. She is standing on the Welsh Assembly regional list for South Wales East (fourth on the list) on the same day. And now we hear she's also standing in Scotland, Mid Scotland and Fife region, while husband Angus is also standing in Glasow, on the regional list! An unlikely proposition I know, but one wonders how they will divide their time between so many different countries should they get elected? Obviously, given their past there it's no surprise that neither made it onto the list for Northern Ireland.
“This year’s elections have a different feel to them. There are no unrealistic expectations,” claimed Jefferson. “There are a lot of new people coming forward eager to pin the British National Party heart to their chests,” he boasted. “People have worked quietly but systematically over the last year, and there is a feeling of real excitement in the active groups who are fielding big slates in 2011 … Cumbria has thrown the challenge down. Which region is going to beat the Cumbrian gambit of 30 seats?”
The BNP faithful lapped it up.
There appears to have been a problem though. Jefferson’s efforts to whip his colleagues into a frenzy of excitement were not based on fact. Indeed, when nominations closed it was revealed that there were only four candidates standing in Copeland which means that a number of BNP branches have managed to beat Clive Jefferson’s big push hands down.
There was little respite for Jefferson in Allerdale either where, despite claiming he had 15 candidates “and counting”, he could, at the end of the day, only muster six. And, what happened to their mayoral candidate for Middlesborough? He or she is also a no-show.
Two of the candidates were Jennifer Matthys, the daughter of Nick Griffin, and her husband, Angus. Angus is best remembered as the man who had to wear rubber gloves to open the BNP's post when he worked with Jenny at the BNP's Belfast office. Both are standing as candidates for the BNP in Allerdale.
But Jenny will be particularly busy come election day. She is standing on the Welsh Assembly regional list for South Wales East (fourth on the list) on the same day. And now we hear she's also standing in Scotland, Mid Scotland and Fife region, while husband Angus is also standing in Glasow, on the regional list! An unlikely proposition I know, but one wonders how they will divide their time between so many different countries should they get elected? Obviously, given their past there it's no surprise that neither made it onto the list for Northern Ireland.
Government suggestions that 80% will be better off are fundamentally untrue
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has disputed Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander’s claim that 80 per cent of families will be “better off” as a result of the tax and benefit changes that came into force yesterday morning.
Politics Home reports:
“James Browne, the IFS senior research economist, told Politics Home that there are “winners and losers” in each of the eight lowest deciles of the population – and that it was therefore misleading to say eight out of 10 families would benefit.
“Mr Alexander’s assertion was based on statistics compiled by the IFS… which suggested that measures introduced in the Budget would see the eight lowest deciles of population benefit from an increase in net income in 2011…
“In its post-Budget Briefing, the IFS described the changes in the Budget as “very minor”. But the group acknowledged that the “very richest households lose the most” from the Budget’s personal tax and benefit changes.”
The chief secretary told Sky News:
“On the basis of the changes happening today, 80% of families on average will be better off.”
While yesterday, he told the Today programme:
“As a consequence of the changes coming in today, as the package rightly said there are spending cuts that are coming through the system and will keep coming through the system and other things that affect people and I don’t want to belittle that in any way but the changes coming through today will on average mean that 80 per cent of people will be better off, that in particular we are cutting income tax for low and middle income earners.”
Prior to today’s comments, the IFS, in its February Green Budget, said:
“Tax and benefit changes to be introduced in April 2011 involve a net ‘takeaway’ of £5.4 billion from households in 2011–12; this is equivalent to £200 per household and comes on top of the £12.8 billion increase in indirect taxes introduced in January 2011, which is equivalent to £480 per household on average…
“Working couples with children also lose significantly from cuts to tax credits.”
A point re-emphasised by Nicola Smith, senior policy officer at the TUC:
“To allow households to gain a better understanding of what the changes mean for them the TUC has launched a tax credit calculator, which shows how changes to tax credits will affect household entitlements over the years ahead - and exposes the reality behind today’s rhetoric about winners and losers…
“Today’s changes reveal much about the government’s priorities. The coalition has chosen to deliver a small tax cut to households above the income tax threshold who are on low or middle incomes, at the cost of far larger effective tax rises for the lowest income households (those who are below the income tax threshold but still pay VAT) and for low to middle income families with children.
“Lone parents face some of the greatest cuts - being more likely to rely on childcare tax credits and only benefiting once from the personal allowance increase - and parents with small children also lose considerably, with the baby and toddler elements of tax credits dropped.
“For these working families the Treasury’s analysis of today’s changes is far removed from the reality of their household budgets.”
Politics Home reports:
“James Browne, the IFS senior research economist, told Politics Home that there are “winners and losers” in each of the eight lowest deciles of the population – and that it was therefore misleading to say eight out of 10 families would benefit.
“Mr Alexander’s assertion was based on statistics compiled by the IFS… which suggested that measures introduced in the Budget would see the eight lowest deciles of population benefit from an increase in net income in 2011…
“In its post-Budget Briefing, the IFS described the changes in the Budget as “very minor”. But the group acknowledged that the “very richest households lose the most” from the Budget’s personal tax and benefit changes.”
The chief secretary told Sky News:
“On the basis of the changes happening today, 80% of families on average will be better off.”
While yesterday, he told the Today programme:
“As a consequence of the changes coming in today, as the package rightly said there are spending cuts that are coming through the system and will keep coming through the system and other things that affect people and I don’t want to belittle that in any way but the changes coming through today will on average mean that 80 per cent of people will be better off, that in particular we are cutting income tax for low and middle income earners.”
Prior to today’s comments, the IFS, in its February Green Budget, said:
“Tax and benefit changes to be introduced in April 2011 involve a net ‘takeaway’ of £5.4 billion from households in 2011–12; this is equivalent to £200 per household and comes on top of the £12.8 billion increase in indirect taxes introduced in January 2011, which is equivalent to £480 per household on average…
“Working couples with children also lose significantly from cuts to tax credits.”
A point re-emphasised by Nicola Smith, senior policy officer at the TUC:
“To allow households to gain a better understanding of what the changes mean for them the TUC has launched a tax credit calculator, which shows how changes to tax credits will affect household entitlements over the years ahead - and exposes the reality behind today’s rhetoric about winners and losers…
“Today’s changes reveal much about the government’s priorities. The coalition has chosen to deliver a small tax cut to households above the income tax threshold who are on low or middle incomes, at the cost of far larger effective tax rises for the lowest income households (those who are below the income tax threshold but still pay VAT) and for low to middle income families with children.
“Lone parents face some of the greatest cuts - being more likely to rely on childcare tax credits and only benefiting once from the personal allowance increase - and parents with small children also lose considerably, with the baby and toddler elements of tax credits dropped.
“For these working families the Treasury’s analysis of today’s changes is far removed from the reality of their household budgets.”
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Tory slash and burn economics are hurting the most deprived
A financial education charity has said tax and benefit changes coming into force today will leave households £200 worse off. Credit Action, a financial education charity, has calculated they will leave households £200 a year worse off.
According to their research reductions to what parents could claim in childcare costs through the working tax credit alone would leave some families worse off by up to £1,560 a year.
Other changes due to come into force today include a £1,000 rise in the threshold at which people start paying income tax - this will mean 500,000 people will be lifted out of paying income tax altogether, a freeze in the inheritance tax threshold, an extra 5% on stamp duty for homes worth more than £1m and restrictions on tax relief on pension contributions for those on more than £150,000 a year.
The government is also cutting childcare support through the working tax credit. The resolution foundation says this will cost 450,000 people, which includes almost 290,000 lone parents, an average of £436 a year. For some families with two or more children it could be up to £1560 lost. This little-noticed change will have a huge impact on hundreds of thousands of families, but particularly mothers who work part time for low pay. Cuts to childcare support make no sense if it simply makes it harder for parents to work – as the office for budget responsibility has warned – and so ends up costing the taxpayer more.
The biggest losers will be those earning more than £35,000, with someone on £50,000 seeing their take-home pay reduced by £500 a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The results of Osborne’s Budget are really quite frightening, especially for the poorer sector of our society. And what are the government doing to help them? Nothing – it seems they are oblivious to the demise of the average man and woman in this country. Understandable really, given that over 20 of the Cabinet are millionaires and have never really experienced hardship.
This bunch of elites and toffs are totally unaware of the economic realities facing society -
1. The VAT rise will cost families with children £450 this year alone
2. Tax credits and child benefit will be frozen from April
3. Petrol prices are soaring with the VAT rise adding 3p per litre
4. Economic growth has stalled
5. Unemployment is rising again – now at a 17 year high
6. Nearly 1 million young people are now out of work
But fear not, for the government have a strategy to help the less well off. Called the child poverty strategy, it aims to offer genuine opportunities to the most deprived people in Britain. Many disagree with the principles outlined in it pages and argue it is a bungling attempt to solve a critical problem.
Responding to the publication yesterday of the Government’s child poverty ‘strategy’ and social mobility strategy, the Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group, Alison Garnham, said:
“A child poverty ‘strategy’ which does not set out how poverty numbers will fall, and by when, is not a strategy and is incredibly disappointing and surprising given the Prime Minister’s stated commitment on tackling poverty.
“The ‘strategy’ is unlawful because it has not kept to the requirements laid down in law by Parliament. An expert Child Poverty Commission should have been set up and consulted in the strategy’s preparation. This failure shows in the poor quality of the ‘strategy’ itself.
“It is absolutely staggering to see in the 'strategy' cuts to housing benefit and support for sick and disabled families that will make poor families poorer. On top of benefit cuts, wage stagnation and rising prices for basics like food, fuel and clothes mean there is an immediate crisis for families. Urgently addressing the financial crisis for families should be the foundation for the strategy.
“Requirements on social inclusion and the progress Ministers expect to make on their targets by 2014 are missing. We are astonished to see a consultation on scrapping child poverty duties for local government promoted in the ‘strategy’, instead of being clearly ruled out.
“The ‘strategy’ starts from a false premise, suggesting that the last decade made no progress and did not address worklessness. In fact there’s been a downward trend for child poverty in workless households, but an upward trend for in-work poverty, which is now the larger problem.
“Although we finally have a document that tells us what the Government plans to do, it appears to do very little. Taken together with the social mobility strategy it is hard to see how they will have any traction on the major problem of child poverty we face. Britain could have the same low rates of child poverty as other European countries, but to achieve this we need a strategy that learns the lessons of what successful countries on child poverty have got right and addresses the structural unfairness in our own economy.”
On top of all this, on April 1st housing workers and their tenants faced the start of a two-year package of reforms to housing benefit that will have far-reaching effects on families and communities across the whole of the UK.
The new housing benefit caps for people in the private rented sector and the move to cut the number of properties people can choose from will have an immediate impact on families looking to find a new rented home.
There is also an important change to the levels of housing benefit that people in both the social and private sectors will receive if they have adult children at home.
From 1 April, tenants sharing their home with other adults need to collect more money from them to contribute towards the rent, or make up the difference from their own money. This will be an incentive to tenants to encourage their children to leave home and could also lead to greater risks of rent arrears.
Sarah Webb, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH), said:
"People are going to have their options about where they can live cut significantly and it is likely that demand for the properties that remain available will be squeezed further.
"Government has argued that rents will fall as a result of the measures. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that landlords will respond to the changes by cutting their rents. Indeed, the latest surveys from across the sector suggest that rents are going up as demand outstrips supply and the number of new homes being built continues to be half of the level needed."
The average rent in England and Wales edged ahead by 0.2% to £684 a month in February 2011, to leave the typical cost of being a tenant 3.9% higher than in February last year, according to letting agency network LSL Property Services.
Ms Webb added: "Where tenants face significant shortfalls the choice is going to be stark, find money from somewhere else or move. Given these are people on low incomes their ability to save by cutting back on other items is severely limited.
"Ultimately, this will mean low-income families moving from the communities where they have jobs, where their children are in schools, where they having strong social networks."
The full measures which have now come into force are:
1. There will no longer be a five bedroom Local Housing Allowance rate. Weekly Local Housing rates will not exceed £250 for a one bedroom property; £290 for a two bedroom property; £340 for a three bedroom property; £400 for a four bedroom property.
2. The £15 excess will be removed as soon as the Local Authority reviews a claim. Claimants will no longer be able to pocket any excess money after their rent is paid.
3. Non-dependants living in households of Housing Benefit claimants will see their deduction increases take effect from April 2011.
4. Disabled people with a long-term health condition who need overnight care or live with someone with similar needs, may now be able to claim Housing Benefit for a private rented property which has an additional bedroom for a non-resident carer.
Bearing all this in mind, how can the government legitimately talk about increasing fairness, supporting those who are less privileged and increasing the chances for the poor? Once again it seems the Tories are full of lies and dishonesty just so they can hang onto power.
According to their research reductions to what parents could claim in childcare costs through the working tax credit alone would leave some families worse off by up to £1,560 a year.
Other changes due to come into force today include a £1,000 rise in the threshold at which people start paying income tax - this will mean 500,000 people will be lifted out of paying income tax altogether, a freeze in the inheritance tax threshold, an extra 5% on stamp duty for homes worth more than £1m and restrictions on tax relief on pension contributions for those on more than £150,000 a year.
The government is also cutting childcare support through the working tax credit. The resolution foundation says this will cost 450,000 people, which includes almost 290,000 lone parents, an average of £436 a year. For some families with two or more children it could be up to £1560 lost. This little-noticed change will have a huge impact on hundreds of thousands of families, but particularly mothers who work part time for low pay. Cuts to childcare support make no sense if it simply makes it harder for parents to work – as the office for budget responsibility has warned – and so ends up costing the taxpayer more.
The biggest losers will be those earning more than £35,000, with someone on £50,000 seeing their take-home pay reduced by £500 a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The results of Osborne’s Budget are really quite frightening, especially for the poorer sector of our society. And what are the government doing to help them? Nothing – it seems they are oblivious to the demise of the average man and woman in this country. Understandable really, given that over 20 of the Cabinet are millionaires and have never really experienced hardship.
This bunch of elites and toffs are totally unaware of the economic realities facing society -
1. The VAT rise will cost families with children £450 this year alone
2. Tax credits and child benefit will be frozen from April
3. Petrol prices are soaring with the VAT rise adding 3p per litre
4. Economic growth has stalled
5. Unemployment is rising again – now at a 17 year high
6. Nearly 1 million young people are now out of work
But fear not, for the government have a strategy to help the less well off. Called the child poverty strategy, it aims to offer genuine opportunities to the most deprived people in Britain. Many disagree with the principles outlined in it pages and argue it is a bungling attempt to solve a critical problem.
Responding to the publication yesterday of the Government’s child poverty ‘strategy’ and social mobility strategy, the Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group, Alison Garnham, said:
“A child poverty ‘strategy’ which does not set out how poverty numbers will fall, and by when, is not a strategy and is incredibly disappointing and surprising given the Prime Minister’s stated commitment on tackling poverty.
“The ‘strategy’ is unlawful because it has not kept to the requirements laid down in law by Parliament. An expert Child Poverty Commission should have been set up and consulted in the strategy’s preparation. This failure shows in the poor quality of the ‘strategy’ itself.
“It is absolutely staggering to see in the 'strategy' cuts to housing benefit and support for sick and disabled families that will make poor families poorer. On top of benefit cuts, wage stagnation and rising prices for basics like food, fuel and clothes mean there is an immediate crisis for families. Urgently addressing the financial crisis for families should be the foundation for the strategy.
“Requirements on social inclusion and the progress Ministers expect to make on their targets by 2014 are missing. We are astonished to see a consultation on scrapping child poverty duties for local government promoted in the ‘strategy’, instead of being clearly ruled out.
“The ‘strategy’ starts from a false premise, suggesting that the last decade made no progress and did not address worklessness. In fact there’s been a downward trend for child poverty in workless households, but an upward trend for in-work poverty, which is now the larger problem.
“Although we finally have a document that tells us what the Government plans to do, it appears to do very little. Taken together with the social mobility strategy it is hard to see how they will have any traction on the major problem of child poverty we face. Britain could have the same low rates of child poverty as other European countries, but to achieve this we need a strategy that learns the lessons of what successful countries on child poverty have got right and addresses the structural unfairness in our own economy.”
On top of all this, on April 1st housing workers and their tenants faced the start of a two-year package of reforms to housing benefit that will have far-reaching effects on families and communities across the whole of the UK.
The new housing benefit caps for people in the private rented sector and the move to cut the number of properties people can choose from will have an immediate impact on families looking to find a new rented home.
There is also an important change to the levels of housing benefit that people in both the social and private sectors will receive if they have adult children at home.
From 1 April, tenants sharing their home with other adults need to collect more money from them to contribute towards the rent, or make up the difference from their own money. This will be an incentive to tenants to encourage their children to leave home and could also lead to greater risks of rent arrears.
Sarah Webb, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH), said:
"People are going to have their options about where they can live cut significantly and it is likely that demand for the properties that remain available will be squeezed further.
"Government has argued that rents will fall as a result of the measures. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that landlords will respond to the changes by cutting their rents. Indeed, the latest surveys from across the sector suggest that rents are going up as demand outstrips supply and the number of new homes being built continues to be half of the level needed."
The average rent in England and Wales edged ahead by 0.2% to £684 a month in February 2011, to leave the typical cost of being a tenant 3.9% higher than in February last year, according to letting agency network LSL Property Services.
Ms Webb added: "Where tenants face significant shortfalls the choice is going to be stark, find money from somewhere else or move. Given these are people on low incomes their ability to save by cutting back on other items is severely limited.
"Ultimately, this will mean low-income families moving from the communities where they have jobs, where their children are in schools, where they having strong social networks."
The full measures which have now come into force are:
1. There will no longer be a five bedroom Local Housing Allowance rate. Weekly Local Housing rates will not exceed £250 for a one bedroom property; £290 for a two bedroom property; £340 for a three bedroom property; £400 for a four bedroom property.
2. The £15 excess will be removed as soon as the Local Authority reviews a claim. Claimants will no longer be able to pocket any excess money after their rent is paid.
3. Non-dependants living in households of Housing Benefit claimants will see their deduction increases take effect from April 2011.
4. Disabled people with a long-term health condition who need overnight care or live with someone with similar needs, may now be able to claim Housing Benefit for a private rented property which has an additional bedroom for a non-resident carer.
Bearing all this in mind, how can the government legitimately talk about increasing fairness, supporting those who are less privileged and increasing the chances for the poor? Once again it seems the Tories are full of lies and dishonesty just so they can hang onto power.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Welfare to work "fat cats" thrive whilst many face redundancy
I am getting a bit sick of the “fat cats” in the welfare to work sector taking huge salaries whilst so many of their frontline staff face redundancy as a result of recent bidding announcements for Work programme. Take the case of Emma Harrison, the head of A4e.
The woman appointed by David Cameron to help troubled families get off benefits and into work has a joint income with her husband estimated at more than £1.4m after building a business empire based on lucrative "welfare to work" contracts with government.
A4e's latest accounts show that Harrison, who lives with her husband in Thornbridge Hall, a 12th-century stately home in the heart of the Peak District, has an 85.5% shareholding in the Sheffield-based company. She receives a salary of £365,000 a year. On top of this, last year she and her husband received an additional £462,000 from A4e for the company's use of her home for conferences and administrative work. From what I hear this ‘administrative’ work includes inviting staff members over to her place for a cuppa. I guess this is to show the oiks how the rich live. After all, one really must keep the working class in their place.
Her husband received an additional £626,856 for the lease of another property to A4e. Nice for some – I guess money breeds money.
Last December Cameron offered Harrison a role championing government efforts to help troubled families get back on their feet. "Emma and others will be helping to pioneer a new way of doing things: less bureaucratic, less impersonal, more human, more effective," the prime minister said. "Above all, treating the whole family as a unit, not just a collection of individuals.
What does Emma know about hardship, other than the fact she was born in Jaywick, now recorded as being the most deprived town in the UK? I’ll bet Emma didn’t see too much if it when she was growing up.. Indeed, she openly admits that as a child she moved to Sheffield and lived in a ‘big’ house. From details of her life, I doubt she ever experienced hardship, or living off welfare benefits.
Today she heads up a company reputedly worth £100 million.
All this at a time when A4e have placed all their staff on redundancy notice, though admittedly a proportion of them will be re-employed (albeit on lower salaries) as a result of the company winning in five areas in the UK.
It emerged last week another major player in the welfare to work industry, Serco, which has won two more contracts, had awarded its top executives bumper pay packets. Chris Hyman, Serco's chief executive, enjoyed an 18% rise to £1.86m, while Andrew Jennings, the finance director, received an increase of 7% to £948,295. The company's diverse range of contracts includes running several prisons, London's bicycle hire scheme and the Docklands Light Railway.
Serco have yet to publicise the extent of any redundancies within their organisation, but logically it is unlikely they will be able to maintain the same level of staffing. Large sections of the country were served by Serco employees and with the ending of Flexible New Deal on 1st June we can anticipate many of them will be consigned to the dole queues.
Working Links, one of the successful contractors of the new work programme, is from today sending redundancy letters to almost 600 of its 2,000 workforce, with the threat that more could follow if staff numbers for the new contracts are lower than existing levels. Meanwhile, their managing director, Breege Burke enjoys a handsome salary of over £220, 000 a year
The news about the Harrisons, Burke, Hyman and Jennings’ ' income will fuel a growing row over the extent to which the private sector is set to benefit increasingly from Citizen Dave, the people’s toff’s determination to widen its role in the provision of public services.
In a recently published report for the government, Will Hutton called for a fair pay code to be extended into the public services industry. He also called for details on justification of an executive's annual salary to be published and for more employees to become involved in companies' remuneration committees. The report, which is being considered at the highest levels of government, said remuneration "must be brought back into the context of the pay of the rest of the workforce through the disclosure of the ratio of top to median pay".
It seems the “fat cats” in the sector never read that part of the report.
Union leaders have described the salaries earned by private entrepreneurs whose businesses were taking on government contracts as "obscene". They said private firms were queuing up to reap massive rewards from plans to open up the National Health Service to "any willing provider".
Once again, it’s another example of how Citizen Dave looks after the rich whilst the rest of us scrabble around for any spare pickings as pushes us day by day to become an “alright for some” society.
The woman appointed by David Cameron to help troubled families get off benefits and into work has a joint income with her husband estimated at more than £1.4m after building a business empire based on lucrative "welfare to work" contracts with government.
A4e's latest accounts show that Harrison, who lives with her husband in Thornbridge Hall, a 12th-century stately home in the heart of the Peak District, has an 85.5% shareholding in the Sheffield-based company. She receives a salary of £365,000 a year. On top of this, last year she and her husband received an additional £462,000 from A4e for the company's use of her home for conferences and administrative work. From what I hear this ‘administrative’ work includes inviting staff members over to her place for a cuppa. I guess this is to show the oiks how the rich live. After all, one really must keep the working class in their place.
Her husband received an additional £626,856 for the lease of another property to A4e. Nice for some – I guess money breeds money.
Last December Cameron offered Harrison a role championing government efforts to help troubled families get back on their feet. "Emma and others will be helping to pioneer a new way of doing things: less bureaucratic, less impersonal, more human, more effective," the prime minister said. "Above all, treating the whole family as a unit, not just a collection of individuals.
What does Emma know about hardship, other than the fact she was born in Jaywick, now recorded as being the most deprived town in the UK? I’ll bet Emma didn’t see too much if it when she was growing up.. Indeed, she openly admits that as a child she moved to Sheffield and lived in a ‘big’ house. From details of her life, I doubt she ever experienced hardship, or living off welfare benefits.
Today she heads up a company reputedly worth £100 million.
All this at a time when A4e have placed all their staff on redundancy notice, though admittedly a proportion of them will be re-employed (albeit on lower salaries) as a result of the company winning in five areas in the UK.
It emerged last week another major player in the welfare to work industry, Serco, which has won two more contracts, had awarded its top executives bumper pay packets. Chris Hyman, Serco's chief executive, enjoyed an 18% rise to £1.86m, while Andrew Jennings, the finance director, received an increase of 7% to £948,295. The company's diverse range of contracts includes running several prisons, London's bicycle hire scheme and the Docklands Light Railway.
Serco have yet to publicise the extent of any redundancies within their organisation, but logically it is unlikely they will be able to maintain the same level of staffing. Large sections of the country were served by Serco employees and with the ending of Flexible New Deal on 1st June we can anticipate many of them will be consigned to the dole queues.
Working Links, one of the successful contractors of the new work programme, is from today sending redundancy letters to almost 600 of its 2,000 workforce, with the threat that more could follow if staff numbers for the new contracts are lower than existing levels. Meanwhile, their managing director, Breege Burke enjoys a handsome salary of over £220, 000 a year
The news about the Harrisons, Burke, Hyman and Jennings’ ' income will fuel a growing row over the extent to which the private sector is set to benefit increasingly from Citizen Dave, the people’s toff’s determination to widen its role in the provision of public services.
In a recently published report for the government, Will Hutton called for a fair pay code to be extended into the public services industry. He also called for details on justification of an executive's annual salary to be published and for more employees to become involved in companies' remuneration committees. The report, which is being considered at the highest levels of government, said remuneration "must be brought back into the context of the pay of the rest of the workforce through the disclosure of the ratio of top to median pay".
It seems the “fat cats” in the sector never read that part of the report.
Union leaders have described the salaries earned by private entrepreneurs whose businesses were taking on government contracts as "obscene". They said private firms were queuing up to reap massive rewards from plans to open up the National Health Service to "any willing provider".
Once again, it’s another example of how Citizen Dave looks after the rich whilst the rest of us scrabble around for any spare pickings as pushes us day by day to become an “alright for some” society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
