Iain 'Nosferatu' Duncan-Smith - proponent of vampire capitalism

Iain 'Nosferatu' Duncan-Smith - proponent of vampire capitalism

 

The Guardian has challenged Iain Duncan-Smith to back up the claim he made that he could live on a week's benefits of £54.
 

Such meaningless exercises have been carried out in the past, Matthew Parris and Olga Maitland as I recall attempted to live on benefits for one week. They were stunts back in the 80s; and are as hollow as Duncan-Smith's  'I  could live on £54 per week in benefits a week' brag today - from a man who safely married into wealth.
 

The sight of Lady Olga preparing lunch of, if memory serves, a chicken breast, some salad and a small bottle of wine; with enough over to pour into a glass to drink to drink with the meal would have been worthy of a satirical skit had she not been deadly earnest. After all, can't let standards drop because you're living on a near-starvation income.
 

Parris admitted it was difficult - well it did come to an end when he ran out of money for the leccy; but Maitland advised benefits claimants to 'eat liver as it's cheap' while piously maintaining "...that it was quite possible to be very comfortable, even if you are on benefits, if you plan well and shop carefully".
 

Politicians who cannot live on the generous salary they're paid without inflating their expenses claims then make pointless statements. Try living on £54 for a year Iain Unctios-Smith. See how far it goes when you need to top-up your gas and electricity on a pay-as-you-go key - the only means of payment for many benefits claimants that cost 30% more than other payment methods.
 

What about keeping your PAYG mobile phone topped-up? And before a Daily Hate reader gets into an apoplectic state of high dudgeon about unemployed people having luxuries such as mobile phones, re-think. Unemployed people need mobile phones in order to apply for jobs; just as they need computer access to access the Internet. Most won't be able to afford to rent their Broad Band connections and will settle for paying by the hour in Internet cafés - a few hours of this every week will make a sizable dent in the £54.
 

Sure, ideologically driven politicians can make facile statements knowing they'll never be tested on their boast. There are still a lot of people out there for whom this kind of statement resonates - the I-didn't-get-where-I-am-today-by-considering-the-plight-of-those-worse-off-than-me entrepreneur, the hard done-by businessman who regards any taxes or stoppages as an infringement on his right to absolute greed, and the Scum and Daily Fail readers who buy these rags in order that they won't have to think for themselves.
 

As long as there are disabled cheats, unemployed scroungers, single mothers, feckless youths, bloody-foreigners-coming-over-here-taking-our-jobs-living-on-the-dole-getting-council-flats-with-60"-flat-screen-TVs yakkety, yak, yak for this government to blame, then we're fucked - unless of course we do something about it!



Stop All Cuts!

It is great to see people out marching against this invidious tax on poorer people. Yet, as has been pointed out elsewhere, an even more insidious tax is going to levied upon most benefits claimants, namely the 30% Council Tax chargeable from Monday!

Basically, Council Tax Benefit is to be abolished and replaced with a localised Council Tax support scheme, which means all but those protracted groups, pensioners, some disabled people, etc will have to pay a portion, up to 30%, of their Council Tax. Where once most unemployed people were protected, this protection will fall.

My point is this. Some weeks back I was closely involved in a bedroom tax campaign group in London. Good people campaigning against the break-up of our Welfare State. However, as I began to read deeper and deeper into this government's plans to smash our social security, it dawned on me that we're being inundated with campaigns; and almost every month an invitation comes my way to join a steering group for this project or that campaign.

Bedroom tax, 30% Council Tax imposition, the removal of the Independent Living Fund, lack of proper procedural reporting of disability hate crime in Lambeth, the closure of one-o'clock clubs, the closure of libraries, the abolishing of Disability Living Allowance in favour of a harder to access Personal Independence Payment; there are transport campaigns going on to force greater accessibility on our train systems, as well as saving thousands of jobs on the railways. And of course ongoing campaigns such as those against the horrors of ATOS medical examinations.

Oh, and Universal Credit, just to make sure we aren't caught napping!

Bit by bit this government is rolling out policies that will destroy our welfare state - not to mention the havoc they're creating in the NHS and our schools.

At every turn we attempt to deal with these issues; and its normally in the fashion I've mentioned earlier; that is we react to the new threat. At best we are fire fighting these situations.

Sadly I don't have the solution to the problem. I don't know how we can save our welfare system from the onslaught of government backed neo-liberalism. However, I do know that if we continue to form a new campaign group every time a new tax or cut is announced, I know we will end up exhausted, chasing ghosts and achieving little. What is needed is cohesion.

We as a class, as a movement need to pull our strengths together; we need a focal point, leadership. We are currently hundreds of small organisations trying to be heard in a hubbub of political activity. Unfortunately we continue to fight each other on political differences; differences often lost in the mists of time. Let's forget our differences and stop the divisiveness that will see us defeated by an opponent, equally as politically diverse as us, but who is able to focus on their commonality, greed!

Firebox

According to its Facebook blurb:

"Firebox: at the heart of a new left.

A cultural space, a meeting place, a venue for training, education and events; plus its a gorgeous sunlit cafe and media centre, right in the heart of central London."

Why in 2013 is the Left still excluding disabled people. Firebox opened last year, in 2012. It opened without making the premises accessible to disabled people, and wheelchair users like myself. Considering the Left is the progessive wing of politics it lets itself down when it excludes disabled comrades.

Things such as adapted toilets are a necessity for many of us when we go out to socialise. Firebox couldn't function if it opened without 'normal' toilets; but unless a disabled person takes the time and effort of bringing a case of non-compliance against the establishment, it can carry on ignoring our needs.

Originally I did email Firebox hopefully to speak to them on a one-to-one basis; but getting no response I thought I'd make the issue public.

Too Many Cuts Campaigns

 

Every time we set up another cuts campaign group we run the risk of overlooking other items in the cuts agenda. Sure, come out in protest about the bedroom tax; but do it as part of the larger cuts agenda.

The Left needs one centralised cuts campaign from which radiate the bedroom tax, council tax charges, universal credit, WCA, Workfare, benefits sanctions, the introduction of PIP, etc - hope I didn't miss any out, but you get my drift.

Each time a new campaign group is formed it adds another tranche of meetings to people's already crammed diaries. The Movement is so full of competing cuts campaign groups with people trying to involve themselves too thinly, that there is a danger of burnout amongst leading activists; and we need leaders.

While the political right isn't as cohesive a bloc as it would like to be, it does have a common bond, a focal point that drives it as a group, namely greed. The right succeeds because what binds it is more important than that which divides.

Let us a Left Movement put aside ideological differences, some emanating from the dark mists of the early 20^th century. Instead, move forward as the 99% and focus our energies on destroying capitalism and in particular the virulent neo-liberalism that is destroying our class.    

 

Government fails to prevent legal challenge to bedroom tax

TAKEN FROM 'WE ARE SPARTACUS' - 27th March 2013

The Government has today failed in its attempt to prevent legal action against its controversial Bedroom Tax, after permission was granted for a judicial review of the regulations to proceed in the High Court.

A judicial review of the Government’s controversial decision to deny housing benefit to people who have more than one bedroom if they are single or a couple will now be heard in early May.

Ugo Hayter from Leigh Day, who is representing a number of disabled clients challenging the legislation, said:

“This is an excellent result and the first step in over-ruling what we believe is an unfair piece of legislation which has disproportionate negative consequences for disabled people and is therefore discriminatory.

“We urge the Government to think again and not to punish the most vulnerable for what are negligible savings. The Court has ordered an urgent hearing at the beginning of May; we hope this will mean that the terrible anxiety our clients and many others are currently facing will be short-lived.”

Leigh Day are taking legal action on behalf of two disabled adults. They claim that new housing benefit regulations, due to come into force on 1 April 2013, are discriminatory, as they will have a far greater ‘devastating’ impact on disabled people than on non-disabled recipients of the benefit.

The law firm is challenging new regulation B13 introduced into the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, which will see a single person or a couple with no children having their housing benefit reduced by 14% where they occupy a two bedroom home and by 25% if they occupy a home with three or more bedrooms.

Leigh Day are arguing this will have serious impacts on disabled housing benefit claimants, including their clients Jacqueline Carmichael, who lives with her husband in a two bedroom housing association flat, and Mr Rourke.

Mrs Carmichael has spina bifida and is severely disabled. Mr Carmichael provides her with care throughout the day and night. Mrs Carmichael’s condition means that she has to sleep in a hospital bed with an electronic pressure mattress and has to sleep in a fixed position.

Mr Carmichael cannot sleep in this bed with her as it is not large enough for two people and his movements at night could cause harm. There is not enough space in her bedroom for a second bed so Mr Carmichael sleeps in a second bedroom. Mr and Mrs Carmichael cannot afford to make up the 14% benefit reduction, which will be imposed from 1 April 2013.

Mr Rourke is a widower. He is disabled and uses a wheelchair. He is a council tenant and lives in a three-bedroom bungalow. His stepdaughter is also disabled with a rare form of muscular dystrophy, a degenerative condition that attacks the lungs, heart and muscles.

She is currently a university student in her first year of a two-year web design degree. She lives in halls of residence during term time but returns home for the full summer vacation, at holiday periods and at weekends when she can.

The third ‘bedroom’, as defined by the Government, in Mr Rourke’s home is a box room measuring 8 x 9 feet which he requires to store his equipment including a hoist for lifting him, his power chair and his shower seat.

Mr Rourke has enquired in the social rented sector about the availability of two bedroom properties, which are suitable for wheelchair use, and there are none. Mr Rourke is also unable to afford to make up the 14% rent reduction, which will be imposed from 1 April 2013.

TUC won't be joining government's new disability alliance

The TUC's Disabled Workers' Committee has decided not to accept an invitation from the government to join its new Disability Action Alliance (DAA).

Disabled trade unionists feel very strongly that joining the DAA - an organisation recently set up by the Office for Disability issues to encourage groups representing disabled people to work together - would restrict the TUC's ability to campaign against government policies that are affecting disabled people.

Chair of the TUC Disabled Workers' Committee Seán McGovern said: 'The government has been attacking the living standards of disabled people for almost three years now and things are getting worse.

'Unions are working with disabled people against these brutal and inhumane cuts, and are campaigning against the government's unnecessary and damaging austerity drive.

'The ATOS work capability assessments, the closure of the independent living fund, the switch from disability living allowance to the personal independent payment, and the bedroom tax - every single one of these changes is punishing and impoverishing disabled people and their families.

'Joining this government-inspired alliance now would be to pretend that none of this is happening. We want to see all disabled people and the organisations that represent them continuing to oppose government policy and not conned into becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.'

Hurry Up and Get the Hat Trick, Johnson

Ten things Boris Johnson doesn't want you to know (but which last night's documentary revealed)...

 

Boris Johnson's Turkish Great Great-Grandfather

1.    His great grandfather (pictured) was a Turkish journalist and politician assassinated by a nationalist mob.

Good for Boris Johnson carrying on the family traditions in journalism and politics. With a bit of luck he'll achieve the hatrick before too long!

IDS - Ratbag!

Iain Drunken-Smith can use as much spin as he wants on 'managing and slowing down welfare'. It comes down to one stark truth for our class. Cuts!

His leader can grow red in the face spluttering mealy-mouthed as he tries to explain away the bedroom tax as a benefit. However, we, the 99%, know that DLA to PIP, the bedroom tax, universal credits are ideologically driven policies that will go a long way to hastening the demise of the Welfare State - an ideal that has always been anathema to the Tories; and one that complicates and creates barriers to today's vampire capitalism, namely neo-liberalism.

If we look at just one of the benefits that IDS isn't cutting, no merely 'managing and slowing down', DLA/PIP. DLA currently stands at around £12 billion per annum. In reforming DLA the government boasts it will make 20% reductions; thus a saving of £2.4 billion.

What about fraud? Doesn't it run rife in this benefit. Well, if you go by the reporting from the scum press, all DLA claimants are at it. We're either refereeing football matches at weekends or conducting tango dance classes. Some of the more heinous of us are reported for going swimming - god forbid we try to get some sort of exercise or respite in a swimming pool.

Oddly fraud runs at about 0.5%, according to the DWPs own figures. Half-a-per-cent barely registers on the fraud radar. Yet this isn't the full story. Of that 0.5% 'fraud' a proportion will be claimant error and a proportion official error! So in fact the all the horror stories we hear about disabled people running rings around doctors; faking their conditions; and generally living a life of luxury at the tax payers' expense are good old fashioned propaganda.

How Many Cuts' Groups Do We Need?

"The reason Sean McGovern that DPAC has been 'taken over' is because you (and others) are keeping their distance. Come and join us, be counted and make a difference!"

The truth Sandy is I cannot compete with time and physical energy. Instead of us having one Cuts organisation, a new one is formed every time a new cutback arises. Thus meetings pile upon meetings which suits the way the SWP operates.

We don't need a separate bedroom tax group. Why isn't this vicious attack on our class being fought against a yet another attack on our Welfare State. I get dizzy trying to keep up with the different groups that have formed over the past few years.

It's as though five Left people walk into a meeting and six new groups emerge.

Back in 2008 shouts of 'Capitalism is Dead!' could be heard echoing around Left circles. A couple of banks were partly nationalised and it was as though the ghost of Clem Attlee was amongst us. Five years down the line, and what? The banks are fat with reserves (our deficit); the rich still cheat on their taxes; and neo-liberalism basks in the wealth it has stolen from the 99%.

The rich may have their differences, but they focus on the important things; that is ensuring the poor are kept that way. Why the fuck can't we take a leaf from their book and begin focusing on issues instead of creating division...

 

 

 

Then Distance Yourself From The SWP, Jerry

"I received and accepted support from them well before I became aware of the recent allegations about sexual misconduct." So states Jerry Hicks on accusations that he is supported by the SWP, an organisation that suppresses rape allegations, therefore condones such actions.

Strange this, since stories of sexual abuse being carried out by a leading member of the SWP were in the public domain since 7^th December 2012 - http://socialistunity.com/gotcha/ - namely on Socialist Unity; and far from being a five-minute wonder the thread excited 427 responses.

Jerry, since early December there have been dozens of threads and stories about rape allegations at the top of the SWP. Indeed there was an entire transcript from an SWP conference that graphically demonstrated the whitewash carried out by the SWP's CC in defending its leadership against a young woman's rape claim.

Here we have a white male dominated middle class organisation that coerced a susceptible member of its ranks to keep things under wraps, or in the words of a leading SWP woman (Sara B): "Comrades, we have to welcome the fact that we have a disputes committee. We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice."

Jerry, you claim to have "...received and accepted support from them well before I became aware of the recent allegations about sexual misconduct." Are you seriously telling us that you had no inkling of the rape, let's not hide behind euphemisms such as 'sexual conduct', claims before the SWP formally backed your candidature recently?

Because Jerry, if you stick to this line, you're either being disingenuous or you're a liar.

The stories of rapes by leading members of the SWP have been in the common domain now since late last year. Why do you think the SWP is haemorrhaging members. Why do you think it has provoked scores of stories on the Internet and in the press?

You knew full well back in January when the SWP gave you its kiss of death of the allegations that abounded. Yet jerry, you decided to accept the resources of this discredited organisation. But anyway, had it been the case you learned late in the day. You could still have distanced yourself from an organisation that allows mates of the accused rapist investigate his guilt.

So, if as you state "...the idea of violence against women makes me sick." why allow an organisation who appear indifferent to violence against women to support and fund your candidature for GS of Unite?

JCP going on strike

 

 

Dear Sarah

Our class is being threatened with its very existence by the actions and policies of this ConDem government. A government which does not even hold a mandate to govern; yet day by day dismantles our hard fought for welfare system, including our NHS.

We see the DWP taking on private job providers such as A4E, Shaw Trust, Remploy Employment, etc, at a cost to the tax payer of billions of pounds and failing; money which could have been better deployed improving the services and terms and conditions provided by Job Centre workers.

Therefore Comrades, Lambeth Trade Council offers its solidarity and stands in support of all PCS members taking strike action on 20^th March at the following sites:

Streatham jcp
Stockwell jcp
Clapham Common jcp
Kennington Park jcp  

In the struggle

Seán McGovern

Secretary of the Lambeth Trade's Council

Unite's Branch Restructuring

Branch restructuring wasn't merely about breaking up large, too often unwieldy, composite branches, which were, sometimes, run by Secretaries who did little work, but pocketed sizable sums of money. This was an obvious problem, caused by a number of factors, including poor administration within the regions, but more importantly a loss of industrial focus and political direction from the centre.

Thus we had scores of thousands of members who were in the wrong industrial branch; in branches that held no relevance to the work in which they were engaged; and languishing in holding branches due to the reasons given above.

Of course, in a union that organises the range of sectors as does Unite; and given factors such as rural workers, spread, often thinly, over large geographical areas, we can, and do, appreciate that not all workers will conveniently fit into the ideal workplace branch.

However, Unite is right to look to the workplace branch as the ideal, while operating other types of branch to better suit the structure of the sector involved. For instance in the voluntary sector demanding all workers form into workplace branches would not be feasible given that our members are dotted around, many, in small numbers across hundreds of organisations. Typically in the voluntary sector you'll find shops and organisations ranging from less than a handful to twenty or thirty; with larger concerns, like Shelter that employ 1,000 across Britain.

While the voluntary sector is not the best example of how the branch structure operates at workplace level, it does none-the-less demonstrate that Unite has not set out to impose a one-size-fits-all policy to the restructuring of branches.

As a member of a Unite Regional Committee and F&GP, I was involved in the restructuring process; and, indeed as a Branch Secretary I had an input. Every Branch Secretary had a chance to attend an open meeting from which they could deliver information to their members; where more complex set-ups were in place some secretaries met face-to-face with the Regional Chair and a senior RIO.

In fact that the process created three main types of Branch:

1.    The workplace branch which serves Unite members in a particular workplace or workplaces;

2.    The sector branch which serves Unite members in a particular sector. These branches can be quite specialist, such as my branch which organises workers who are employed as advisors within the VS; or, the housing branch which deals with organisations such as Shelter. Therefore these kinds of branches have a sectoral and geographical role.

3.    The last is the composite branch which takes in people from different sectors within a given geographical area.

There are other types such as National Branches, but these are the exeption to the rule.

Sadly, as the restructuring began to roll out, there were individuals who felt that their right to remain in a branch which may have been their home for decades should supersede that of the industrial and political logic of placing them into properly structured groups.

More often we found secretaries of composite branches complaining when they discovered that a group of 100 members were being taken out to form a workplace branch. In one instance seven branches were formed from one 'holding' branch by the end of the process - with the holding branch remained a quite large composite branch.

Of course democracy bonds us as trade unionists. Without democracy we would fall. Yet, there are also other bonds within our organisation without which we would be equally vulnerable and weak. Where would we be without unity; without the strength of the workplace membership. The branch isn't merely an administrative construct, it should be basis of industrial power, the source by which political influence is gained  and the very bedrock of union democracy.

Anyone who regards Unite's branch restructuring as a diminution of the democratic rights of the member doesn't actually understand that allowing the individual to pick and choose his or her branch on the basis they are a member and therefore entitled to this right doesn't actually understand the democratic process, and misses by miles the whole point of unions.   

Chavez RIP

Chavez's Legacy

 

Chavez was the breath

That blew the flame

Of Bolivarian revolution;

And today his death

Is but a stage in the evolution

Of Latin America's Manifest Destiny,

Socialism from Mexico

To the foot of Chile

And, across the Caribbean isles.

 

 

 

RIP Hugo Chavez

 

 

Disabled Children Should be Put Down...

According to Colin Brewer, Cornish Independent Councillor, "Disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down."

Colin Brewer puts herod the Great to shame with his views on disabled children

There is no ambiguity to the above statement; nor I feel could there be assertions that the claim was taken out of context. No, these appear to be the words, and as a natural extension, the thoughts of a man holding elected office.

 

For anyone to hold such thoughts is a sad and frightening indictment of the country and times in which we live. But, for that someone to hold public office, with the potential to have influence over a council's budget, including expenditure on children's' services; then we should all fear for the disabled children who are unfortunate enough to have this man legislating on their behalf.

"While I meant no offence by my remarks to you I can see, in retrospect, that they were ill judged and insensitive and should not have been made at all."

Here we have a person who is quite capable of getting himself elected, as an Independent at that, onto a council, yet he is unable to make comments without the gift of hindsight. As children most of us are able to make that link between thought and speech, because it is a real social necessity to process your thoughts and deliver them to the ears of others through speech; a must for politicians at all levels.

 

I hear Brewer has resigned. Good riddance to bad rubbish.     
 

Hicks Demands Hustings (three years too late)

Why would Jerry Hicks' achieving the necessary number of nominations to get him onto the ballot paper shock anyone? Jerry is a seasoned election campaigner, in my estimation he has been electioneering now for around 6-years (almost non-stop). Jerry's quest for the 'big job' in first Amicus and now Unite has the quality of The Man Who Would Be King about it.

 

However, when we strip back the David and Goliath analogy things aren't quite so one-sided as Jerry would have us believe.

 

In the first instance, Jerry has one resource none of his previous, or present, opponents had, that is all the time in the world to commit to electioneering.

 

Hicks has also got the entire membership of the SWP and their funding on which to fall back - as well as donations from branches (one gave him £1000). Again, a not inconsiderable resource.

 

McCluskey on the other hand has a union to head up. Sure, he attends meetings, but these are carried out in his own time; unlike Hicks who can call and attend meetings any time of the day.

 

"I issue a challenge to Len McCluskey to set up regional hustings so that Unite members could here what the two candidates had to offer."

 

Why Jerry? So you can do another runner? Remember September 2010 in Manchester when you lost your bottle and ran away from those hustings. I do; and so do hundreds of others.

John Pring's Disability News round-up, week ending 15 February 2013

15

Feb 2013

By admin

For the full stories, please click on the links:

• A disabled woman awaiting a second kidney transplant was “harassed” by her local jobcentre during an emergency blood transfusion, because they wanted to know when she would be well enough to attend a back-to-work interview.

• The government looks set to force tens of thousands more working-age disabled people to pay towards their long-term care and support than was recommended by an independent commission.

• A major new government report has painted the “most comprehensive overview” since 2005 of the disadvantage and barriers faced by disabled people in the UK.

• An insurance company set to make huge financial gains from incapacity benefit (IB) reform bragged about “driving” the government towards those reforms, evidence obtained by Disability News Service (DNS) has revealed.

• A minister has been accused of hypocrisy after pledging to break down thebarriers to disabled people’s access to public transport, only days after confirming lengthy delays to new European bus and coach access rules.

• One of the Metropolitan police’s own disabled advisers has warned that cases of discrimination and human rights abuse by the force’s own officerscould become more common because of government funding cuts.

• Two nurses who resigned from the government’s “fitness for work” contractor Atos Healthcare because it was “cut-throat” and “ruthless” have described how they were criticised by their managers for being “too nice”.

• A disabled peer has attacked a “mean-spirited”, “miserable” and “dishonest” government bill that will see disabled people in 3.4 million households across Britain facing further cuts to their income.

• Britain’s Paralympians have welcomed the news that Channel 4 has secured the UK television broadcast rights to both the Rio 2016 Paralympics and the Sochi 2014 Paralympic Winter Games.

• Transport staff who fail in their duty to provide an accessible service for their disabled passengers should face disciplinary action, a former Disability Rights Commission director has told a parliamentary meeting.

As Empty as a ConDems Promise

In the summer of 2011 when the damning Sayce Report on 'Disability Employment Support for the Future' was published Sayce and Marie Miller (Minister for Disabled People) sounded the death knell of all Remploy factories, consigning thousands of disabled Remploy workers to a future without work, ultimately leading to poverty.

Last summer most of the remaining Remploy factories closed, leaving a rump, who learned their fate in December - that is the majority would close with the attendant loss of jobs.

Again promises were given by this government that all that could be done to secure work in mainstream employment would be done by the agencies set up by the DWP.

While not actually promising to place ex-Remploy workers into employment, Miller promised: "Any disabled member of [Remploy] staff who is made redundant will receive an offer of individualised support for up to 18 months to help with the transition from government-funded sheltered employment to mainstream employment." Indeed, the government stated they would put ringfence £8 million for specialist employment support for the group.

Well, as we all know, a Tory promise is only binding up until the next policy crisis they create for themselves. Of the 1,000 Remploy workers sacked last year 35 have found new jobs. For the number crunchers among you, that's 0.035% in work!

Yes Duncan Smith, Miller and McVey - we did tell you so; over and over again, we told you that a combination of discriminatory employers and lack of jobs, due to your austerity fuelled triple-dip recession, militates against disabled people in the field of employment.

Recently a group of Remploy workers met in Barking. To the horror of an ex-Remploy shop steward (currently on ESA) and a Unite organiser the overwhelming majority of those ex-Remploy workers were not only unemployed, but almost all were on JSA, and none was in receipt of the individualised support promised by the ConDems.

What makes this neglect so damning is this. When an unemployed person signs up to JSA they sign a contract stating they are prepared to work at least 40 hours per week and travel up to a radius of 90 minutes to and from work. Many disabled people can't manage these times. While most Remploy workers were contracted to a 35-hour week; some worked shorter weeks; and few would have had three hours per day added for travelling.

Given that this group has not been properly advised there is a risk that if a job becomes available that they are not able to take up due to length of week and distance to travel they would be in breach of JSA and liable to benefit sanction.

Being denied proper advice could also mean that many of this group are not receiving the correct levels of benefit  to which they are entitled. Thus, rather than receiving individualised help after being thrown out of their jobs; this group has been shafted from pretty much every direction possible.

High Court Finds Most Back-To-Work Schemes Unlawful

Well done Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson for your doggedness; for not letting this government off the hook with its unlawful back-to-work slave labour schemes.

Reilly was forced to work without wages, or lose benefits, at a Poundshop, even though the meaningful voluntary work she was carrying out in a museum was more relevant to her qualifications.

While Wilson, an unemployed lorry driver, had his benefits sanctioned for refusing to take on an unpaid cleaning job.  

Today a panel of High Court Judges found that that rules underpinning most back-to-work schemes to be unlawful and quashed them.

The sheer arrogance of this government reaches new heights on a daily basis. Today the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has, on hearing of a ruling against them on one of their back-to-work schemes, vowed it will not recompense anyone sanctioned by them who haven't been seriously seeking work. Indeed, it is examining 'options' to avoid compensating people unlawfully sanctioned.

The two halves of this government do not properly fit together. It is fundamentally a weak government full of unimaginative and lazy ministers who lurch from one 'quick-fix' solution to the next. We must be vigilant and continuously searching the fault lines in their policy; chipping away at their weaknesses - that is an inability to govern through fair measures.

Why focus on the obvious when the less obvious is your ideological goal?

The answer is so obvious. Employ more tax inspectors! If this shower of shites (the Tories) harassed and chased the tax dodgers of this country with a fraction  of the energy they pour into harrying benefits' 'cheats' (many of whom are 'cheating' to put food on their families tables and clothes on their kids backs).

Benefits' officers cost us money. The amounts they individually save the state by catching benefits' 'cheats' doesn't cover their salaries.

Conversely, tax inspectors actually make a return on their earnings; in reality they cost us nothing as they often claw back four, five or six times their salaries from tax cheats.

So, why is it in times of austerity this government sheds tax inspectors while taking on more benefits' officers?

Maybe, just a scintilla of a maybe, it is because this government is so ideologically driven that it ignores the obvious while blithely carrying out the perverse. After all, tax cheats are more likely to come from the same stable as most of our cabinet; and, I'd bet a piund to a pinch of shit they share the same trough!  

A Home

A roof over the heads

Of those you cherish;

A secure environment

In which to flourish,

Nurture and grow.

The sound of tears

Resound through the years

Tempered and drowned

By laughter

As kids

In their gaggles

Giggle away

Their fleeting youth.

A lifetime's memories

Adults fears

For future years.

You've no wealth

Except the health

And happiness

Of your own

Which

Fills the family coffers.

But now, today,

They say

You must move

Give up your home

Your nest

So heavily invested

With blood, sweat, tears and love.

Yet, leave you must,

Or go bust,

Trying to pay the blood money

Demanded by the vampires

Who preside over

The country's fate

As though a giant jugular

For them to sate

Their greed

Thus, sealing and stealing our future.

Stir up Socialist Unity

Comrades

I know many of you pop into Socialist Unity for a read and to debate some of the day's issues. For my part I find the site overly panders the SWP almost to the exclusion of any other serious debate - in the last month alone 20 threads were launched with over 3000 postings about the SWP.

In the same period threads associated with social issues such as the welfare state were barely taken up.

Come on United Left. Let's get onto Socialist Unity and drive the debate in the direction it should be going, that is with Universal Credit, bedroom tax, ATOS abuse, etc leading the way!

http://socialistunity.com/the-bedroom-tax-shames-britain/#comment-636851

While people's lives are being smashed to bits by this government's relentless destruction of our welfare state; while millions of people in the UK will soon find themselves struggling to access benefit, money needed to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. While all this is happening the readers of Socialist Unity devote their time to debating on countless threads the plight of a moribund political organisation, a party that has run out of both time relevance - the SWP.

Just look at the excessive introspection of the SWP occurring on SU over the past month. In that time around 20 separate threads have opened discussing the former glories and current goings-on in this small, and in my view now fairly insignificant, group; and has excited over 3,000 postings.

Of course the Left should discuss what interests it; that which stimulates debate and furthers our political aims, objectives and class struggle. However, I don't currently see this being achieved when nearly all other issues are ignored to allow this excessive pandering to a bunch of yesterday's revolutionaries - and pretty poor ones at that.

The bedroom tax, along with the wider range of benefits' cuts and caps, is a burning issue for us on the Left. Universal credit along with measures such as scrapping Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in favour of a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are about to visit misery and poverty upon working, disabled and unemployed people alike; yet, Socialists and Lefties on this site largely ignore these topics when they present themselves - this thread alone has been live for a day and only attracted 13 responses.

Julia Jones' story, horrific as it is, will be repeated a thousand fold across the country in the coming months. Even after all she has undergone, Julia is willing to give these politicians the benefit of the doubt in that she doesn't believe Cameron to be evil, but rather he misunderstands the consequences of his policies. For my part, he understands exactly what he is doing and the consequences; but is indifferent.

Comrades, we need more Julia's to come on Socialist Unity; and, we must engage in serious debate around these issues. This government and its plans to destroy all that we hold dear in our welfare state and NHS is what where must concentrate our energies. The SWP should be part of that struggle, not the main feature, a distraction. 

Funny Irish News Story

On a cold miserable winter's day this RTE video warmed me up a bit.

The Man Who Would Be King

The Morning Star announced today that the SWP has decided to back Jerry Hicks for the Unite GS election.

Jerry Hicks in a usual pose, giving two fingers to the world...

Now there's a surprise.

Whatever is said against McCluskey, it can never be said that he has not got the courage of his convictions. Just as several years ago he promised to abide by the decision of the hustings in Manchester, he has this time put himself in front of the United Left NCC, the UL National Supporters Meeting and the Executive Council, all of whom have endorsed Len's candidature.

To whom is Jerry Hicks answerable? Has Jerry presented himself in front of the Grassroots Left and sought endorsement? Indeed, Jerry wasn't even present at the Grassroots Left 3^rd National Conference on 17^th November 2012 held in Birmingham!

What Have the Unions Ever Done for Remploy?

Dan, up until last autumn I was the Branch Secretary for the Remploy London factories, a position I held for some 16 years. During this entire period I spent my time representing disabled workers in disciplinarians and grievances; I assisted with the application of social security benefits all the way through to appeal stage.

Over this period I got to know Remploy workers in London and around the country very well. In times of strife and struggle our Branch answered the call. When 13-years ago we needed bodies for a 24-hour vigil outside parliament to stop a proposed closure of anything up to 16 factories, the 1971 Remploy Branch sent along its members; a couple of us braved the freezing February weather staying out for the complete period.

Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Disabled People at the time, called the unions and company to a meeting a few days later where a moratorium on closures was imposed. The upshot of this was that a couple of sites did close, but their workforces were subsumed into local factories.

We were at the Emirates several years ago fighting for a new factory for the Holloway Remploy Comrades displaced by the new Arsenal ground. When I say we, I mean the trade union movement. Hundreds of non-Remploy union activists turned up on that Saturday and helped get the message across to the Remploy board that they had a duty to spend the money received from the Gunners to re-house their employees.

Within weeks they had a replacement factory a couple of miles away off Green Lanes, Finsbury Park. Without the sell-out trade unions this factory would have gone to the wall.

Further evidence of perfidious trade union action can be traced back to August 2007 when those back-stabbing bastards from the union side of the Remploy Consortium launched a nations-wide crusade to save thousands of their members' jobs. Over a number of months a coach made its way from Aberdeen to Penzance visiting every Remploy factory, and garnering support along the way. The crusade culminated at the Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth, where thousands and thousands of trade unionists from around the UK and Ireland to lend their voices to those of their Remploy Comrades.

In addition to the crusade Remploy Branches and factories in towns throughout England, Scotland and Wales organised their own rallies and demos throughout 2007 and 2008. I know as I travelled thousands of miles criss-crossing the countries from Stirling to Poole and Cardiff to Norwich joining thousands of other trade union activists in our fight to save the jobs of our disabled Comrades.

Sadly Labour did not listen; and the following year 30 factories. Of course this made it easy for the Tories to come along a few years later and finish the job; and despite the Sayce Report that hammered home the last nails in the Remploy coffin, the trade union movement still brought the fight to the government, arranging lobbies in parliament, setting up meetings of Friends of Remploy MPs to listen to Remploy workers' concerns. The 1971 Branch held a public meeting with a top table full of Remploy workers past and present who gave heart stirring testimonies of their working lives in Remploy; how they had fought every form of adversity before coming to work at Remploy; and how a sense of uselessness descended upon them as their factory gate slammed shut in 2008. One Comrade solemnly admitted to having become suicidal such was his feeling of hopelessness for the future.

To say the unions let down Remploy is both a lie and a slur on the character of all the disabled trade unionists who fought until they could fight no longer against the forces of intransigent ideology.

DWP ESA Migration Figures for November 2012

Here are the DWP's November 2012 headline figures for ESA migration.

Figures in this issue cannot reflect the final outcomes, because they do not include:

·       effect of appeals still lodged in the legal system; and 

·       claims with no outcome yet recorded.  

For these reasons it is likely that the statistics underestimate the proportion of

claimants who will ultimately be awarded ESA, by greater amounts for more recent

periods. 

Outcomes of initial assessments adjusted to account for outcomes after appeals for

incapacity benefits claimants referred for reassessment between December 2011 and

February 2012 show:

·       91 per cent of claimants have an outcome i.e. decisions have been made on

         their claims; 

·       3 per cent of claimants had their claim closed before having an outcome; and

·       6 per cent of claimants were still undergoing assessment.  Claimants with an outcome for their claim can be broken down as follows:

·       64 per cent of claimants were entitled to the benefit.  Within this – 

o   39 per cent of claimants were placed in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG),

o   25 per cent of claimants were placed in the Support Group (SG); and

·       36 per cent of claimants were assessed as Fit for Work (FFW) and are not

         entitled to ESA.

Welfare for All

The British Legion and the Poppy Appeal boasts that some of the monies collected by the poppy sellers from the public goes towards helping the wounded from British conflicts overseas.

Last year £90 million was spent on health and welfare; £20 million towards personnel recovery centres; and £18 million in individual grants - some of these grants probably for making homes of disabled service personnel accessible, no doubt.

As I speak we still have a welfare state. Though no great fan of the British military machine and the wars in which it becomes embroiled in at the behest of double dodgy governments, I am nonetheless a Socialist and hold strongly to the belief that the NHS and welfare state take care of the needs of our citizens as and when they present themselves; and that our NHS and welfare state are funded through NI and general taxation.

Disabled service people should not have to depend on charitable handouts, no more than any other person living in this country should. (Sorry, I am aware that hundreds of thousands of people, including children, are doing exactly that in soup kitchens and at food parcel distribution points up and down the country).

Ex-service personnel should not have to depend on 'charitable' handouts from the British Legion (BL). Sadly, the BL tradition is being rolled out in different forms up and down the country; and more and more of us will have to depend on the munificence of Lord and Lady Bountiful in the near future. And of course we all know there is always a price to pay for anything 'given' to you in the name of charity.

Do Epetitions Make a Difference?

A post on Socialist Unity questioned the effectiveness of epetitions as a political weapon. Personally, I'm ambivalent as to whether they achieve as much as the time and resources put into them. However, I am certain of one thing and that if a petition is going to be put forward that it meets a certain criteria. It should be presented in plain understandable language; it should be factually correct; and the subject matter should be inclusive so as not to antagonise the target audience, or those who have a stake in the issue.  

Below there are three petitions that I took from the SU post. The ICC petition and the one calling for ministers within the DWP to be investigated for corporate manslaughter are certainly worth signing. However, the one asking for exclusion for people with mental health 'problems' from DLA assessments in 2013 should not, in my view, be supported.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41070

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/letter-to-the-icc-at-the-hague-re-mistreatment-of-the-disabled-and-sick

The petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35092 is poorly worded and phrased as well as factually inaccurate and divisive.

The appeal confuses the situation by stating people will be assessed in 2013 for DLA, when the assessment will be for PIP (personal independence payment), and according to the rules of the new benefit which are more stringent than those of the current DLA.

Anyone going for assessment can be accompanied by a friend or representative. This is not to say being accompanied will necessarily improve your chances of receiving benefit; nor, according to people who've undergone ATOS assessments for ESA, will it stop ATOS assessors from manipulating medical evidence in order to downgrade results.

While those being wrongly assessed for ESA, including people with terminal illnesses, are being forced to present themselves as 'fit' for work in order to receive JSA, the PIP assessments are being not carried out to assess fitness for work; instead they are to assess whether a disabled person fulfils new criteria introduced in order to qualify for personal independence payment.

Finally, the disability movement, while recognising that people with mental health illnesses are subject to a range of difficulties unmet by others, does not support making distinctions when it comes to fighting against the inherent injustices manifold within the new PIP benefit.

Disabled people must be as one when fighting against the inequities embodied within the personal independence payment. When presenting petitions it is imperative we present our arguments fluently and factually. The petition in question does not lay out its case factually; and is, in my view divisive in its call to just exclude one group of disabled people, but not only that, its call for exemption implies acceptance of the new benefit and its rules.