How Should We Pay for Adult Social Care?

It is expected that the UK government will publish a Green Paper shortly on the future funding of adult social care in Britain. Government spokespersons have said that it will be released before Parliament goes into summer recess on 20 July. Green papers are official consultation documents produced by the government for discussion both inside and outside Parliament, when a government is considering introducing a new law, but are unsure of the public’s reaction to a particular policy.

This cautious approach taken by the government comes in the wake of the Tories disastrous manifesto commitment at last year’s general election, which pledged to fund adult social care by requiring users of the service to pay for care with equity held within their homes, should they own one. The policy idea was said to be the brainchild of Nick Timothy, one of the prime minister’s special advisers, and apparently not even discussed in Cabinet before hand.

It was a bit of a back of a fag packet plan, which when I first heard about it I thought was a very un-Tory like policy, and very risky to just spring on the electorate at a general election. It almost certainly cost the Tories votes and contributed to the government losing its majority in Parliament. Timothy was duly sacked as an adviser.

There is broad agreement amongst politicians and health care professionals that this issue does need to be sorted out. This year the gap in funding, which has been caused by the Tories austerity agenda resulting in deep cuts to local authority funding, has only been partially addressed by allowing local government to raise council tax (by 3% without having to win local referendums), but this is just a quick, partial fix.

With an ageing population, the problem of funding adult social care will only get worse in the future. Estimates of the future cost vary, but is in the range of an extra £2 to £4 Billion per year by 2019-20, and rising thereafter, depending on the quality of care. Council tax payers can’t be forced to pay this extra amount, so some kind of central funding needs to be devised to meet the increased demand.

Ahead of the Green Paper, two reports have been published which look into funding options. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), in a report co-authored with former health ministers Lord Darzi and Lord Prior, advocates raising National Insurance contributions by 1p in the pound from next year. In addition to supporting the NHS, it would enable an increase in social care spending from £17bn to £21bn by the end of the parliament, the report claimed.

Separately, a report by The Health Foundation charity and Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) for the NHS Confederation also called for tax increases amid increasing numbers of people aged over 65 and those with long-term medical conditions. An annual increase of 3.9% in public funding for social care would be required over the next 15 years to meet future needs.

IFS director Paul Johnson said that with other areas of funding already squeezed the only way forward was to get more money from taxpayers, but warned the Government would have to overcome the ‘tyranny of the status quo’.

The government is likely to resurrect the option of using the value of people’s homes with some level of threshold limit, but it will be just one option. But for younger people, who will require social care themselves one day, and are less likely to have property assets because of the astronomical costs of buying a home in many areas, so this needs to be addressed too. The idea of some kind of social care insurance, perhaps just for younger people, is likely to be proposed also.

I think that it is very unlikely that higher earners will have to cover all of the costs by raising the top rate of income tax, because the Tories just don’t do that sort thing, even if the fairness of this is obvious to most people, but we will have to wait and see.

Personally, I think some kind of tax rise, perhaps ring-fenced for adult social care will have to happen, but I see no reason why higher earners should not shoulder more of the burden than the less wealthy, but I am a socialist after all.

Surrey's Council Tax Referendum is a Cry for Help

News that Surrey County Council will hold a referendum of residents on raising their council tax by 15%, has ignited a wider debate about local authority funding.

The Council leader, Cllr David Hodge, a Tory, told the Municipal Journal (subscription) after the announcement why the increase is necessary:

'Demand for adult social care, learning disabilities and children's services is increasing every year so I regret, despite us finding £450m worth of savings from our annual budget, we have no choice but to propose this increase in council tax.'

Under the government's rules on council tax increases any increase over 2% requires a referendum's approval from residents. For this year and next only, a further 3% council tax can be raised without a referendum, but this money is ring fenced for adult social care provision. Most local authorities view the amount that this would raise as insufficient to deal with the situation on the ground as well as being unpopular with council tax payers.

As Cllr Hodge says, social care, for children as well as adults has been subjected to around a 40% cut in funding over the last six years, with more to come in the next two years, especially. The situation is compounded by government plans to introduce, what it calls a National Living Wage. Care workers are mainly paid at the lesser National Minimum Wage rate currently, raising costs for councils further. Many private social care providers, who council's sub-contract the care to, are going bust. Surrey has nowhere else to turn, if it is to pay for a proper level of care for its residents.

But a debate is all that it is likely to raise, as I fully expect the referendum to be lost. The only previous council tax referendum, in Bedfordshire in 2015, which asked for a 15.8% rise to fund extra police, was defeated by more than a two to one majority.

It seems as though people will not vote for a tax increase, however good the cause may be. Even people who are in favour of the rise, are much less likely to get out and vote, than those who oppose an increase. It could be that Surrey know this, and are trying to pressurise the government into providing more funding, but the government seems relaxed about the residents making the decision, either way.

Referendums are unsuitable for local tax rises, they should only be used for national constitutional matters, like the EU referendum last year. After all, when the government raises tax nationally, we don't have a referendum about it. If people don't like it, they can throw the government out, and the same should apply to local government.

When even a Tory council is forced into seeking approval for such a large rise in council tax, then it signals that there is something very wrong about funding for local services, and in local government the despair is widespread. The Local Government Association, also headed by a Tory councillor, Sir Gary Porter, has called for the government to seek cross party support for a viable solution to the funding of local care, before the system collapses completely. They do not see council tax rises as a suitable way to fund these services.

It is not that these cuts to local funding actually save any money overall either, because of the knock on effect of 'bed blocking' in hospitals, because patients can't be sent home where home care provision is so sparse. It is much more expensive to keep people in hospital, and of course increases waiting lists for the treatment of other patients. The government's approach to the issue is therefore not only callous but counter-productive too.

The government have announced a review of the funding of social care for the future, but this may be just a smokescreen, to weather the storm of bad publicity.

It is high time that the government took this issue seriously, and put in place a proper plan for funding these services. Their ideological mania for slashing public services does not work and deprives vulnerable people of much needed care and human dignity.

Benefit Cuts Lead to Homelessness Crisis

Analysis by the National Federation of ALMOs (NFA) and the Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH) finds that almost 90% of Universal Credit claimants are in arrears with their rent. Almost 60% are in arrears for more than one month's rent, and facing the possibility of eviction from their homes.

Universal Credit (UC) is the government's flag ship welfare policy, whereby six different benefit payments are rolled into a single UC benefit, which includes the former Housing Benefit. It was introduced two and half years ago in some areas, and has been bedevilled with IT problems, which were said to be 'teething problems,' but the report says that the situation is actually getting 'dramatically worse.'

John Bibby, chief executive of ARCH, said: "We are extremely concerned with the upward trajectory of rent arrears for Universal Credit households. Not only are the numbers of households increasing as UC is rolled out, but the percentage of households falling into rent arrears and experiencing financial difficulty is critically high."

A report last month by the New Policy Institute (NPI), commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, warns reductions in Council Tax Support (previously Council Tax Benefit) in some areas of England, are leading to home evictions. In areas where a minimum payment from claimants is required, of more than 20% of the full amount in some areas, evictions are rising. Local authorities are free to choose how much of the total Council Tax bill, they require claimants to contribute towards.

The report quotes a report by the Child Poverty Action Group and Z2K that found that research they did in London in 2015-16 showed there was an increase of 51% of claimants being referred to bailiffs than in 2014-15. There was also an increase in the numbers of claimants charged court costs and the report says that claimants were cutting back on essentials like food, clothing and heating.

Yesterday, the Evening Standard reported that Shelter, the homelessness charity, predict that 1260 families will lose their homes in the capital in the next month and over 7,370 over the next six months. In July to September last year, official figures show 4,580 families in London being housed in temporary accommodation of whom 40% lost their home at the end of a private tenancy agreement.

This after more general cuts to benefits, the benefits cap, those benefits associated with disability and the 'bedroom tax,' with a sharp rise in jobseeker claimants having benefits sanctioned, for up as much as three years. Where people are in work, wages are low and stagnating with in work benefits reduced. Pay day lenders and other loan sharks prey on desperate people and the situation gets worse.

Lack of genuinely affordable housing, insecure short term private tenancies and benefit cuts, compounded by court costs, all whips up the perfect storm for a homelessness crisis, which is pretty much what we have at the moment. I see it myself around where I work in central London, there has been a marked increase in rough sleepers in the last couple of years.

Some more facts about homelessness:

• Sleeping rough has serious consequences. On average, homeless people die at just 47 years of age, compared to 81 years for the average UK citizen. A homeless rough sleeper is 35 times more likely to commit suicide that the average person. 
• Two thirds of rough sleepers surveyed said they had been insulted by a member of the public, and one in ten said they had been urinated on.
• The streets are a dangerous place to be, homeless people are 13 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the general public, and 47 times more likely to be a victim of theft.

The government responded today by announcing support for a Parliamentary Private Members Bill, the Homelessness Prevention Bill, which will oblige local authorities to provide accommodation for people without dependent children. The government pledged an extra £48 million to fund the new duty, which councils said was too little. The government needs to change its whole austerity policy if it wants to resolve this situation. It is highly unlikely they will.

The government's drive to cut benefits and the localising of much of the welfare benefit system onto the shoulders of already hard pressed local authorities with central government grants continuing to be reduced, has created this crisis.

It really is a scandal that one of the most basic of human needs, adequate shelter, is getting beyond an increasing number of our fellow citizens.

I, Daniel Blake – Reflections of a Former Jobcentre Adviser

I watched Ken Loach’s latest film, I, Daniel Blake, over the weekend. I have seen many if not all of Loach’s films, and very good they are too. I, Daniel Blake is no exception to this, and is like many of Loach’s films, Kes and Cathy Come Home spring to mind, a social commentary.

The plot is about a man in his fifties (Daniel Blake) living in the north east of England, who has suffered a heart attack. In the opening scene he is passed fit for work, at a Work Capability Assessment by an American health care company, employed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and so is taken off Employment Support Allowance (ESA), and put onto Jobseekers Allowance (JA). ESA is for people who are too sick, or disabled to be expected to work. Blake’s own doctor has told him that he is too ill to go back to work and would risk another heart attack. Blake submits an appeal against the decision, but has to wait months for a tribunal hearing.

The amount of benefit money paid by both of these allowances is exactly the same, but anyone receiving JA only receives payments if they are ‘actively seeking work.’ Claimants have to prove this, by keeping a record of job applications and job searches, as well as attend any events that their Jobcentre Adviser directs them to do. Attending Jobcentre appointments, on time, is part of the job seeker’s ‘contract.’ Failure to comply, with proof of job seeking or a direction, or being late for an appointment, leads to a sanction, which means that benefit is withdrawn from the claimant, for as much three years in extremis.

Blake befriends single mother Katie and her two children, who have been forced to move from London, three hundred miles away, to find social housing, and who is sanctioned because she briefly got lost on the way to the Jobcentre, and was late for an appointment.

As is usual with Loach’s work, the film displays a positive, affectionate view of the working class. 

The rallying around to help each other in desperate times, a social solidarity and generosity to each other among people who are being ground down by the bureaucratic establishment, but still manage to share what little they have with each other.  

Visits to a local foodbank become a daily occurrence, with long queues of people in the same boat. Katie, after a failed attempt to shop lift a packet of tampons, turns to prostitution to get money to feed her children. Blake eventually refuses a Jobcentre direction and is sanctioned, and is then arrested for spraying graffiti on the outside walls of the Jobcentre.

I spent some time working as a Jobcentre adviser, a few years ago, and the scenes from the Jobcentre are very accurate, and all too familiar to me. The period that I worked as an adviser straddled the end of the Labour government and the beginning of the Coalition government. During Labour’s tenure, many people were forced off ESA and onto JA, but advisers were given discretion as to if they sanctioned claimants. Life is not straightforward, people are fallible, things go wrong, so it is sensible to let advisers, who know their clients, decide not to refer them for sanction. This freedom was progressively removed from advisers under the Coalition government.

I didn’t see my job as making people even poorer, I was trying to help them get back on their feet, and I had a fair bit success of getting people into work. This became increasingly unimportant to the management though, once the Coalition government was elected. Sanctions were the only game in town.

I was as fair as I could be with people, and only sanctioned one person in my time as an adviser, I didn’t like doing it, but it was unavoidable, some other advisers were much more hawkish. This point is made in the film, one hard-line advisor, and one sympathetic (who gets in trouble for this with her manager). The actual decision on sanctions is taken by some remote official, and communicated by post. This diffuses the situation a little at the Jobcentre, but advisors know what the result will be, usually a sanction.

There is pressure on the lower level managers from more senior management, and this can lead to bullying of the staff, but senior managers quickly wash their hands of it. In the same way, the politicians lean on the top civil servants, and the message then goes all the way down the line. That is why the Tory government can claim that it does not set targets for sanctioning claimants. Strictly speaking they don’t set targets.

How it works is that Ministers will make it clear to senior officials that ‘they want the sanctions rules enforced’ or such like. The sanction rules haven’t changed from the Labour government days, although the sanctions themselves have increased. This is then fed down the management chain and ‘local’ targets for sanctions are set. It happened when I was there, doubled overnight. I hear it is much worse now.

Blake eventually gets his appeal date, but whilst waiting for the case to be heard, he has another, fatal heart attack. The statement he was to give at the tribunal, is read out by Katie at his funeral. It is very moving.

At the film’s ending, a burst of spontaneous applause broke out in the cinema, and when the lights went up, I could see people with tears in their eyes. How can all of this be going on in Britain in the twenty first century?

See the film, it has strong acting performances and it is an excellent counter-point to the Benefits Street image that is often conjured in the media.  

Is Duncan Smith’s Resignation the Beginning of the End for Cameron?

(Photo Manchester Evening News)

Last night’s dramatic news that Iain Duncan Smith had resigned as the Work and Pensions Secretary continues to reverberate around British politics. Duncan Smith has tried to spin his resignation as a matter of moral principle, saying that he does not support the Budget proposal to cut £1.3 billion from disabled people’s benefit payments.

This is rather curious, not only has Duncan Smith presided over billions of pounds of welfare cuts, including to the disabled, over the last six years, but also because the government had already signalled a re-think of the Budget proposal, conscious that Tory MPs were set to rebel and defeat the government in Parliament over the issue, if necessary.

Duncan Smith has said that after he was forced to defend the policy, to see it jettisoned was the final straw, but that is just politics. Duncan Smith has back tracked before, and this looks to be in the normal run of events of a government with small governing majority.

I think there is much more to this. Duncan Smith is a well-known Eurosceptic, and he has never really trusted the Prime Minister, David Cameron, over his negotiations on European Union (EU) reforms. Duncan Smith has only really been in the Cabinet because of the EU referendum, where Cameron judged it better to have him government, rather than causing trouble outside of it.

If all goes to plan for the Prime Minister, and the country votes to remain in the EU, I expect Duncan Smith would be sacked by the autumn at the latest. By resigning now, Duncan Smith has signalled a challenge to Cameron’s leadership and possibly stuck a fatal dagger into the back of the Chancellor, George Osborne, who is Cameron’s preferred successor when he stands down at some stage in this Parliament.

Certainly, there is no love lost between Osborne and Duncan Smith, with Osborne reported in the past as saying that Duncan Smith ‘is just not very clever’, and they have had constant battles over the welfare budget.

An interesting piece written by Kerry-Anne Mendoza at The Canary, makes the point that this is indeed an attempt at a coup by the Brexit wing of the Tory party, and that Boris Johnson is likely to have been involved, or at least informed about it.

Boris Johnson’s decision to join the Brexit campaign has virtually assured him of the leadership of the party once Cameron does go, but the sooner Cameron goes the better for Johnson and the worst for Osborne, although rumours abound that Osborne’s budget set us on course for a general election (with him as leader, he hopes) in next couple of years. Osborne doesn't plan to make the same mistake as Gordon Brown when he succeeded Tony Blair as Labour Prime Minister, by failing to call a general election, to obtain a 'personal' mandate.

So Europe, once again, is tearing the Tory party apart. The Eurosceptic wing of the party, roughly half of their MPs and probably three quarters of the rank and file membership, could force a leadership election after the EU referendum. Certainly, if we vote to leave there will be a challenge, but it is looking increasingly likely, that there will be one even if we remain.

All the pent up frustration of the Eurosceptics will need an outlet if we stay in the EU, and Cameron is increasingly seen as a traitor, who conned them with the offer of a referendum after renegotiations of our membership terms. His negotiations are considered to be inconsequential, and just a smoke screen to keep the Tory party united.

The next few months could finish off this government, and it is notable that a YouGov opinion poll released yesterday, shows for the first time under Corbyn’s leadership, Labour ahead in an opinion poll. It is only by one point, and as we know opinion polls are not terribly reliable, but this does compare to a steady Tory lead of around ten points since last year’s general election.

The split in the Tory party can only get wider, and we may get a chance to kick them out of government sooner than we had thought possible. It may be that Duncan Smith’s resignation, is his most significant act as a political operator.  

Now DWP Bullying Disabled Staff as well as Claimants

Another day, another critical story appears in the media about the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Hundreds of millions of pounds wasted on the new Universal Credit benefit scheme and its associated IT system, claimants refused sickness benefits just before they die, claimant suicides soaring, caught out releasing dodgy statistics, ruled as acting illegally in thousands of cases of benefit withdrawal and its Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, staring at Miss Essex’s breasts for twenty minutes.    

On top of it all, now The Independent reports that the department’s own staff survey finds that over 1,400 disabled civil servants have suffered discrimination, harassment and bullying at work. This represents a 23% increase in last twelve months.

The DWP appears unperturbed by these findings and in a twist of the truth claims, that the result reflects their efforts to get civil servants to report these incidents, so really they should be congratulated. You really couldn’t make it up.

I spent some time working as a Jobcentre adviser, which is where the vast majority of DWP staff work, a few years ago. I do have a small disability too, a hearing impairment, but I have to say that I didn’t experience, well hardly any, bullying personally.

But this wasn’t the case for most of the Jobcentre staff, I can tell you. In twenty years working at BT, before this, I hadn’t seen union reps worked so hard as they were at the Jobcentre. Not a single day would pass without the union reps attending some kind of disciplinary meeting with their members. One worker there successfully brought a claim to an Industrial Tribunal, for disability discrimination, and won damages from the DWP.

It wasn’t just disabled people who were bullied and harassed though, probably more than half the people who worked at the Jobcentre that I worked in, had one story or another of management harassment to tell. Bullying of the staff was rife in my time there.

How staff are treated does vary from Jobcentre to Jobcentre, I heard that X was better than where I worked, but Z was worse, so it was probably a pretty middling example. What appears to happen is the Jobcentre manager runs the place like a personal fiefdom, and some are more benign than others.

There is pressure on these managers from more senior management, and this can lead to bullying of the staff, but senior managers quickly wash their hands of it. In the same way, the politicians lean on the top civil servants, and the message then goes all the way down the line. That is why the Tory government can claim that it does not set targets for sanctioning claimants. Strictly speaking they don’t set targets.

How it works is that Ministers will make it clear to senior officials that ‘they want the sanctions rules enforced’ or such like. The sanction rules haven’t changed from the Labour government days, although the sanctions themselves have increased. This is then fed down the management chain and ‘local’ targets for sanctions are set. It happened when I was there, doubled overnight.

There was some discretion given to advisers in my day, because things are often not clear cut, and you have treat each case on its merits. Raising targets effectively removes this discretion from advisers, or they will not meet their local targets.

I didn’t see it in my day, but I have heard stories of advisers even setting up claimants for sanctions as the pressure to hit increased targets rises.

Unfortunately, the whole demonisation of benefit claimants by the government has been very popular with a largely ignorant public, who seem all too willing to believe that all claimants are work-shy layabouts. What a disgraceful state of affairs.  

My Experiences of Welfare

Written by Rob Ponsford

“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education. 

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”

This was spoken by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in what he dubbed the second bill of rights and while it may seem odd to use an American President’s words when discussing welfare in this country, it serves to highlight a point.

So what do I know of welfare? In truth quite a bit, in my working life I have been unemployed a total of 4 times for various reasons and for different lengths of time from a few months, to 18 months. During these periods I have experienced various schemes designed to “help” the reality is of course that help is the furthest thing from the agenda.

During the 1980's there were schemes that provided training for the unemployed in fact my own father was able to obtain his HGV license through such an scheme and has never been unemployed since. In 2015 there is no such scheme, The Work Program consists of being handled by a third party organization (A4e, Prospects, Working Links) who in the first instant access how “job ready” you are.

The less job ready you are the more things will be done with you such as CV building workshops, mock interview and even work experience, things that may very well help. However to be classed as job ready and these third party organizations have very little to offer and in all honesty will wait around and wait until you find work and then claim credit for this to get paid.

As happened to me I had been on the hailed Work Program for 3 months and had been found work ready, had my CV assessed and had a few words changed here and there and then nothing. I had signed on with different agencies and as luck would have it I was offered a 4 month temp assignment.

My temp role ended up lasting considerable longer, however all good things must come to an end as did this job, so back to the job centre I went and having had several temp jobs over a number of years I made the decision that this time I would take nothing less than a job that would last at least 12 months to try and break the trap that had become temp work.

This led to my longest time unemployed, 18 months. So I would look for work and sign on and each fortnight my revolving door of “advisors” would ask is there anything we can do for you. Each time my response was well what can you offer me, can I get training for this or that?

The short answer was “No” the explanation was we are simply not funded to provide that sort of in depth training. Many people who have never had to sign on have asked me ‘well why wont they help you what advice did you get?’

It shocked them to discover that a Job Centre Advisor is actually classed as an Admin Officer, in other words they are administrators and that is what happens to you when you sign on. You are administered, your job seeking evidence is checked and verified and you may be given some specific tasks to do before next signing on.

As you may imagine its not very happy or positive place and you can be the most motivated person in the world, but after several months you become sapped of all positivity and depression will begin to set in and you become much more despondent.

Then, if you are unlucky you can get caught for being late to a Job Centre appointment or fail to attend a meeting you didn't know about because Job Centre mail goes out as second class mail and if it wasn't sent out at least four days in advance will not reach you in time.

Any of these things can result in sanctions, sanctions are of course taking away money from those who already have no money and this can last in extreme cases for 3 months or more. The idea is that a claimant signs a job seeking agreement and if that person is then determined not to have kept their part of the agreement then a sanction is the acceptable response.

The reality is two fold, Job Centre staff have a sanction target that they have to achieve and so the staff are put under pressure to sanction anyone who may have even only just breached their agreement. But of course the real issue is what does the person who has been sanctioned do for money, to pay for food, the electric and gas to be able to wash with hot water etc.

The answer has increasingly become Food Banks, charity groups who have taken to feeding the hungry of this country. That statement alone should make us all angry and disgusted, that this country rich as it is has people relying on charity to help feed themselves and their family, even more disgusting is a greater number of these people work some form of job.

Finally one of the worst things about being unemployed besides the obvious, is the perception others have of you, thanks to a media obsessed with benefit cheats (which accounts for a tiny fraction, indeed corporate fraud along with tax loopholes and avoidance is massive in comparison) you are also made to feel ashamed.

The number of people I spoke to when I was unemployed who believed I was getting a free ride, or who would say “if you got it so bad how come you have broadband and TV.”

This is a popular question among those who seem to hate and despise the unemployed of course the answer is very logical.

I haven't always been unemployed and I bought things when employed some of those things like broadband, are paid on a contract basis. As a side note it is now a requirement for all job seekers to have access to e-mail and a computer with internet access to actually job seek, it is no longer a luxury but an essential to the modern job seeker.

Many people believe the unemployed get it easy, in reality an unemployed person doesn't have any pride, we are fully aware of the perception that a lot of people have and you ask most unemployed people if they would rather be working or signing on?

They will say working, the perception many want to stay on benefits is total utter rubbish, spouted by people who have never been unemployed or “know someone who has it easy.”

Before we had the welfare state this country had a monstrous place known as the workhouse, the idea was that those who were unemployed and sick should be made out to be like criminals and feel ashamed and then they would never ever want to go back.

This country got rid of the workhouse but in recent years something from that period has returned and that is shame, the unemployed are shamed and made to feel less than a person with programs like benefit street, and the government pushing mandatory voluntary work schemes (yes you read that right) for big corporations. Today in 2015 the disabled and the unemployed are made to feel ashamed are paid well below what anyone would consider the bare minimum to survive on.

Increasingly we are told that the protection from being unemployed can be taken away or have increasingly ridiculous tasks to complete to maintain their benefit. In 2015 the spectre of the workhouse remains as it seems the current attitude is it is better to shame as this motivates.

Anyone who has felt shame will know it isn't a motivator. So perhaps now my quote at the beginning makes more sense, for during the second world war an American President who had led his country through a depression knew things must change and that new certain rights had become a must.

What has followed in America has been an erosion of these rights, and sadly in this country we are now following suit. Do I have ideas of how welfare could be reformed (real reform not IDS ideological Victorian vision of it)? I do and in the coming weeks I hope to share them in blogs.

But for now I leave you with my experiences.     

Rob Ponsford is a member of Plymouth Green Party and a Green Left supporter 

Arguments Against Benefit Sanctions

Written by Andrea Carey Fuller

The introduction of this degrading, poverty inducing, and unfair procedure is contrary to the Over-riding duty the Government has to provide for the welfare of its (most vulnerable) people.  Benefit sanctions go against the will of our post-war Nation to provide for the Health, Happiness and Freedom of its people following the Beveridge Report.  With measures such as these we, as a Nation are slipping back into the Pre-Welfare state of reckoning the country’s worth based purely not profits and not the welfare of its people.

Benefit Santions have doubled since 2006 (Webster 2014)

49,000 LONE PARENTS & 182,000 ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES WERE SUBJECT TO BENEFIT SANCTIONS BETWEEN 22ND OCT 2012 AND 30TH JUNE 2014 (Government Statistics).

Of these totals some 3,471 Lone Parents and 18,197 Disabled People were subjected to Higher Sanctions and had their benefits stopped for 3 months to 3 years!

What kind of society are we that we allow procedures like this that remove the INCOME  SAFETY NET from people who are struggling to bring up children alone and adults who have mental impairments (the highest category subject to Sanctions!) and physical impairments.

While benefits are being stopped, people are resorting (as they did in Victorian times) to charities and societies like the Trussell Trust food Banks across the UK to stop themselves from literally starving:

BETWEEN 1ST APRIL 2013 AND 31ST MARCH 2014 582,933 adults received food/assistance from the Trussell Trust AND ADDITIONALLY 330,205 CHILDREN RECEIVED FOOD/ASSISTANCE FROM THE TRUSSELL TRUST.   We are in the 21st Century now and we should not have any children in the UK who have to resort to Food Banks for their survival. 

This Government should be ashamed of itself; it is breaking it’s commitments under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and by not providing basic benefits (by making sanction decisions – which are arbitrary and unfair – see below) it is reneging on the whole premise of the Welfare State AND IS CONTINUALLY SUBJECTING CITIZENS ON BENEFITS TO DEGRADING TREATMENT (HRA Art 3).

Between 2008 and 2013 these economic factors have come into play which have made people on benefit (and others on a low income) worse:

·         Food, other goods Transport and rental costs have gone up over 20% - the Rowntree Foundation estimates this figure to be 28%.

·         Fuel costs have risen by 60%

Benefits such as JSA (job Seekers Alloance) and ESA (Employment Support Allowance) even when they are not being sanctioned do not meet today’s living costs for people and families relying upon them.  They have not kept up with the rate of inflation or the rising costs of living as detailed above.  People claiming these benefits are literally living on a hand to mouth basis and any sanctions imposed are going to induce debt through failure to be able to cover household bills and starvation.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, research into the Minimum Income Standard, evidences that people’s ability to afford basic goods and services has declined, as the cost of essential goods has risen by 28% since 2008. 

http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis?gclid=CLWF9PfivcICFSoKwwodl5YANw

Politicians are using benefit claimants as an economic scapegoat, which is untrue and unfair – once again we are heading into pre-Welfare State waters whereby people are becoming distinguished as either “deserving” or “un-deserving” poor and Benefit Sanctions are being used as punishment when people are being judged as “undeserving”!  This is wrong, unfair an unjust and is leading to dire consequences such as the death of David Clapson the diabetic ex-soldier who died starving and destitute because he missed a meeting. 

These heartless politicians are using incendiary remarks to harden public attitudes:

George Osbourne’s 2012 incendiary remark was to encourage both Government and public attitudes to harden towards benefit claimants and to thus ‘justify’ sanctions: “Where is the fairness, we ask for the shift worker leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?”

The so called justifications for giving people benefit sanctions have been documented by many MP’s who have had their constituents complain to them about unfair, inhumane, idiotic and unjust judgements being made by people who are paid by tax payers money to PROVIDE WELFARE ASSISTANCE NOT PUNISHMENT:

People have had their benefits sanctioned for

·         attending a family funeral

·         not looking for work in the two weeks prior to a new job which has just been secured starting

·         not being able to attend a job centre appointment because of it clashing with a job interview

these and many more idiotic, unjust, and stupid decisions which go against all the principles of our welfare state can been seen at:

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-11-most-senseless-benefit-sanction-decisions-known-to-man--x1dmkd2_Me

Our government has a duty of care towards all of its people and that includes upholding rights to life and a right to be treated with respect and dignity.

Andrea Carey Fuller is a member of Lewisham Green Party and a Green Left supporter

As things stand, a positive alternative to austerity won’t be the main battleground in the London elections next year. But it should be.

Jonathan Bartley speaks at a demo outside Lambeth Town Hall

Written by Jonathan Bartley who is the Convener of Lambeth Green Party and a Green Left supporter. Jonathan is a candidate for the Green Party for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly List.

When I was part of Jenny Jones’ mayoral campaign team in 2012, the focus was the usual issues of safer cycling, air pollution and London’s ongoing housing crisis. These are all important. But the problems are a symptom of a much bigger issue; every aspect of London life is being turned into a commodity.  

London increasingly knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

Commercial haulage is prioritised over the lives of cyclists. Property speculation is encouraged at the expense of those who just want a decent home. Polluters are favoured over those who want clean air to breathe. Everything is assigned a price. The highest bidder wins. 

Tory Mayoral hopeful Zac Goldsmith will try to move into ‘Green’ territory. He must not get away with it. It is his economic policies that are responsible for the great London sell-off. Labour and Lib Dem candidates will happily join in the collusion. We must fight it.  

I want to be the Green Party’s mayoral candidate so I can stand up and say that the commodification of London life isn’t just economically deluded, it is socially and environmentally destructive.  

As the Green Party’s Work and Pensions spokesperson, over the last couple of weeks I have attended three demonstrations to highlight what Zac Goldsmith’s cuts have been doing to the disabled.  

I met with campaigners when they stormed the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions. I attended Streatham Job Centre, to support those marching against the placement of therapists in job centres ( https://vimeo.com/131890530?ref=tw-share ). And on Tuesday I supported Disabled People Against the Cuts as they presented their petition at Downing Street over the pernicious closure of the Independent Living Fund ( http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-51eb-Independent-Living-Fund-laid-to-rest/#.VZkPe_kzbIU ).

The Government is getting away with their cuts because human life itself has become a commodity. And under this Tory system, those who are disabled are worth less.   

It doesn’t have to be this way. Take London’s public transport system for example. It is not really ‘public’ at all. Around 10% of London’s population are excluded from large parts of it because of their impairments. There is a 'Transport Apartheid' that would not be tolerated anywhere else.

But when the Paralympics arrived and we needed to impress the world, as it turned its gaze upon us, things changed. Magically ramps appeared in tube stations. Public sector staff were suddenly discovered to provide vital assistance.  

Then they magically disappeared again when the games were over. 

It confirms what we all know. There is enough money in the world’s fifth richest city. The problem is the political will to make things happen.

There is a chance in next year’s elections to show that there is an alternative.  During the general election campaign I challenged Iain Duncan Smith over his welfare reforms. 

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e0AGfEF6r8 ) 

As the Government’s new £12bn round of welfare and other cuts bite harder, they will impact many more people. They will impact families claiming tax credits and child benefit, and those who rely on vital public services.   And when they do, many more will wake up to the reality of what is going on.

We have already seen this begin to happen where I live in Lambeth. There we successfully saved sheltered housing from the Labour’s Council’s plans to bulldoze it. Labour shrugged its shoulders and blamed Tory cuts.  But we fought for the residents – and won. 

( http://streathamnews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/sheltered-housing-saved-in-streatham.html )

A few weeks before the general election I got a call from one of the residents, inviting me in for a cup of tea. Half way through my second biscuit, she pushed an envelope towards me. “We have got you here under false pretenses” she said. “We had a collection to support your election campaign” she said.

    

These are people who were not natural Green supporters. But they saw the threat that austerity presented. And they discovered that it was only the Greens who would fight it.

We have an aspirational vision to give to Londoners. London should lead the world. It should have world class public services. It should be the city of Good Jobs. And as austerity bites, more and more will want to hear our alternative. I want to be the mayoral candidate who delivers it. 

Twitter: @jon_bartley

Facebook: jonathan.c.bartley

Tel: 020 8769 8163

Mob: 07771 598097

Why I, as a disabled person in a mainstream world, am voting Green

'Sazzy Activist' blogs LINK on the theme 'It's my life: Life as a disabled person in a mainsteam world'

As a relatively new member of the Green Party I have continued to educate myself on what the party I have chosen to affiliate to stands for, although I have known the importance of understanding politics and the active participation in debate for many years this is the first political party that I have affiliated to. As part of my participation in the local Green Party (Luton and Bedfordshire) I will also be standing for a council seat in my area (Clapham, Bedfordshire).

So why is this? Quite simply I agree with their policies and the general ethos of the party. You may have heard the phrase ‘for the common good’ being used when discussing the Green Party. This is what all Green Party policies are based on, and simply means for the common good of everyone and everything.

Hopefully you realise that all Green Party supporters aren't vegan, hippies that belong to a ‘Environmental Party’ and that actually there is much more involved in the Green Party. The environment does require looking after and I do believe that we should do more to protect it for our children, but this is only one aspect that has encouraged me to support the Green Party and become an activist within it.

If we strive to live by the ethos of ‘for the common good’ we come to realise that all aspects of life, be it human or other, are important to the survival of our world. We need to ensure that we build a society based on care, love and respect for all, so that future generations have a world they can enjoy and be proud of, not one of destruction and despair. If we don’t take care now it is the future generations that will suffer from our recklessness.

When undertaking research for this article I visited the website www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk, this site asks you to select your top 3 reasons that as a voter, I support the Green Party. I began to realise how challenging it was was to choose just 3 policies, how can you choose when there are so many important issues that I hold as equal?

So why do I feel that the Green Party speaks for me?

As a women living with a disability, I continually experience inequality in all areas of my life. These inequalities have often been exacerbated  by successive governments making decisions made due to greed, putting profit over people. The Green Party looks to address these issues, rebalancing the emphasis back to people rather than profit.

As a women living with a disability I have continuously been disadvantaged in employment with low pay and very few career opportunities being given to me. This is sadly the norm in many cases, with people who live with a disability feeling unable to aspire to be more due to the limited opportunities available.

There are several ways in which the Green Party look to tackle inequality of individuals like myself and I aim within this article to acknowledge these further.

The Green Party identifies that the current minimum wage is not a living wage and they are committed in going further than any other main political party by ensuring that the minimum wage is increased to no less than £10 an hour by 2020. They are committed to raising the current minimum wage to £8.10 an hour immediately, to ensure an increased standard of living and equal opportunities.

This will ensure that all people in our society no matter what your current social standing is and whether a person identifies as having a disability, as LGBT or whether they belong to a minority ethnic group can be given equal opportunities. In a fair society equal opportunities are a necessity, without the support from all in society whether in power or people on the street equality cannot and will not be achieved.

As the www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk website shows “the Green Party affirms that all human rights and fundamental freedoms apply to everyone and cannot be divided. Disabled people should be guaranteed the full enjoyment of rights and freedoms without discrimination. The Green Party is committed to the maxim adopted by the Disability Movement ‘nothing about us without us’”.

To ensure the rights of all people living with disabilities are met there needs to be a system in place that seeks to assist the most vulnerable in a way that ensures their support needs are being met effectively. As Gandhi quite famously said “The True Measure of Any Society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members”.

This is why the Green Party supports an NHS that is publicly owned and run for the people rather than for profit of businesses. This is especially important for all people living with a disability as they are identified as some of the poorest in society and through no fault of their own have the highest health needs and so they require a system that they can rely on when they are in their hour of need, rather than a system that they lack confidence in and is likely to fail them.

The Green Party are also committed to ensuring that they promote gender equality and safeguard women's rights through equal pay audits, shared maternity and paternity leave and to make sure there is better support for those women in greatest need. It is clear to me that the Green Party are taking the issue of Equality seriously and that as a result of this it is clear that the policies on disability, women’s rights and general equality issues can bring about real change for minority groups. The Green Party has led me to feel that as a women with a disability I have a potential to shape the world to be a better place and that my input is equally valuable.

The Green Party recognises that it needs to ensure the rights of all are protected and so this is why they are the only party actively against TTIP. It is believed that if this trade deal goes through then it will weaken protection for workers, consumers, citizens and the environment in the EU as well as member states and trading partners. The Green Party feels that Health, workers rights, agriculture, food, cultural rights and biotech should be protected by our trade deals, not sold off to private businesses that only interest is in making a profit. The Green Party strongly believe some areas including Health, pre 18 education and water should be protected entirely from involvement in any trade negotiations to ensure continued high standards.

Another key concern with the current proposals surrounding TTIP is ISDS which stands for ‘investor-state dispute settlement’ this allows businesses to take legal action against governments if they feel that the government has acted in such a way that infringes the trade agreement. There are cases already reported where businesses have taken governments in other countries who are already in financial difficulties to court and the government has been found liable for billions of pounds worth of compensation, putting profit over society requirements with businesses gaining more power. 

The Green Party is the only main party in England who are truly against austerity. They agree that extensive investment is required to repair damaged natural environment, restore infrastructure and develop re-skilling and retraining in socially and environmentally friendly production and services. Cuts to vital services are proving that austerity does not work with the number of people in poverty at a record high. The poorest in society are unable to afford the most basic provisions and so are becoming reliant on food banks, living in substandard conditions and unable to see a way out of the current situation that they have found themselves in. How can austerity be working when our most vulnerable, poorest people are being pushed into living in standards that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemy?

I may not have convinced you to vote Green in the next election just by giving you an explanation as to why I will be, but I urge you to do your research to ensure you to make the right choice. All policies are transparent on their website unlike any other party. Their policies are voted on by party members and not just decided by a few who sit on a central committee. If you want to be part of a progressive party that wants to bring about real change then please vote with your heart and not just use a tactical vote that will give you much the same as a what we have already.

There will be lots of people who try and argue that a vote for anything other than Labour is a vote for the Tories, this plays on the misconception that everyone's vote is equal. The truth is that the election is decided in a handful of marginal seats. If you are lucky to be one of those areas as a voter you are in a powerful position. 60% of seats are deemed as ‘safe seats’ this is not a reason to not vote Green, it is more of a reason to challenge candidates and campaign for change.

There is never a better time to vote Green, people are sick of the same old politics that comes from the two main parties and are looking to the Green Party because they like what they see. Are you going to vote with your heart and for something that you believe can bring about real change or are you going to continue to play the 2 party politics that has found us in this mess in the first place? Without people challenging this system nothing will change and you will continue to be disappointed and disadvantage by a system that just doesn't care.

If you still need to be convinced to vote Green please take a look at their policies so that you can make an informed decision about yours and your children's future.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/

I hope you make the right decision for you.