When Remploy closed down 30 of its factories 18 months ago it justified their actions on the grounds of the cost of employing disabled people within a factory setting. At the time they produced highly inflated costs per capita for factory workers while making wild claims that they could get 20,000 people a year into ‘mainstream’ employment at a fraction of the cost of factory employees.
Remploy has not achieved anything remotely close to their over-inflated projections. Indeed, they, like the other players in the employment services for disabled people, have fallen woefully – Remploy boast 10,500 jobs found this year up from 7,200 for the previous 12 months. Remploy and the other ‘providers’ blame the recession; yet, in 2007/8 they only managed 6,500 jobs.
Many people connected with Remploy are also aware of the double counting that goes on with these figures. For instance they may find me a job in June which I hold down for seven months – this kind of revolving door employment being typical for lots of disabled people; especially those with poor qualifications – then find me another, say three months later.
If this happens with a small amount, say 20% of 6,500; this then skews the figures quite significantly. Rather than finding jobs for 6,500 individual disabled people; they’ve in reality found work for 5,200. It may not surprise you that Remploy used similar inventive mathematical reckoning when calculating that each factory employee was subsidised by £23,000 per annum; and, that Remploy could place disabled workers into ‘mainstream’ employment for around £3,500 each.
On the issue of the over-inflated figure of £23,000 per person, the company calculated all the running costs and the overheads of the entire company into this figure, including their Interwork arm. Add to this the fact that the company has largely ignored favourable public procurement regulations that if properly fought for would fill the factories order books – Remploy currently receives about 20% from public contracts.
I had a discussion with an ex-Remploy worker yesterday; the man (call him J) is disabled and worked in a Remploy factory for quite a few years (having a disability being a prerequisite to employment at Remploy when he joined) before taking voluntary redundancy in March 2008; and, he’s been unemployed since.
J told me he’d attended his local Remploy Branch (he does this in conjunction with his JSA agreement) and was told that as from 20 October he’d no longer qualify for the services Remploy offers. Apparently, despite years of service in one of their factories, the principle criteria being he had a disability, Remploy is re-categorising him as able-bodied. Miraculously, Remploy has laid hands upon him and deemed him ‘fit’ to go out in the wide world and compete with other ‘fit’ people!
Remploy is undoubtedly looking ahead at the oncoming cuts; no bad thing for any organisation funded by central government. However, instead of standing up for and defending disabled people it would appear that they’re going through their books trying to redefine the disability status of their ex-employees, and maybe even those remained employed by them after their factories closed.
This kind of behaviour from one of Britain’s largest employers and provider of employment services of disabled people is shocking. Not satisfied with taking peoples’ livelihoods away and throwing them on benefits they are now attempting to rid themselves of the very people they were set up to help back in the late 1940s.
This kind of behaviour is symptomatic of the direction our society is heading. We, in the trade union movement, were always mistrustful of Remploy. We were aware that, ultimately, Remploy only served one purpose; and, that was to look after a few people at the top while paying lip service to its workers or work seekers.
Well, the Remploy Board has had a good run for its money. When the cuts come they will follow any government decision without putting up a fight. Their employees and others who look to them for support will end up with nothing while they’ll get paid-off handsomely with money, titles and honours.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Trade Union Activism
Evan, sorry for exposing my trade union activist credentials; you know, the reservoir of knowledge I’ve gained as a rep. That is, working as a rep in the real world not acting like a virtual working class hero on the Internet!
I know about redundancies because I’ve been at the sharp end; both negotiating for members as a shop steward and becoming redundant myself.
When we conducted redundancies a few years ago at Remploy members with over 30 years service received around the £30,000 mark. Good in that they, mainly, escaped taxation; bad in that they were so poorly valued for such loyal service.
Evan, don’t you dare insult me when I pull you up on, for me and thousands like me, a very important issue of redundancy and taxation. If you wish to float in the deep end of the pool of ignorance, do so; but, don’t be surprised when others pull you up.
Incidentally, the overwhelming majority of my Remploy Comrades are still after 18 months are still without work; and, likely to be so, many forever. Despite the fact the jobs they seek are those that only pay out low wages; they find themselves, nonetheless, discriminated against.
When Jerry speaks of taking a working wage; what is he talking about? Is it £150,000 per annum a Unite IT consultant might be paid; or, is it the £10,000 per annum that an ex-Remploy member is earning as a part-time cleaner; because, his idea of a working wage and my members’ reality will likely differ.
So, forgive me when I pull up another Comrade for trying to pass off misinformation as fact; who also feels justified in making a derogatory comment to another Comrade who for the sake of objectivity puts him straight.
Evan, may I suggest you look to your own postings and conduct on this site before attempting to claim the high ground.
Nadia, you accuse another of being anti-union whilst singing the praises of someone who has, and still is, running his campaign on an anti-Unite basis. Listening to his speeches and reading his words people are struck by his total grasp of propriety when attacking Unite victories and disputes currently running.
If people were to believe Hicks and his coterie of nay sayers Unite has never accomplished a thing for its members; that their leadership is betraying them at every turn; and, that anyone employed by the union is a class traitor.
Even when Comrades are in the middle of disputes he criticises the running or the progress of the action. It’s bad enough Simpson putting in his unwanted views - but, at least he’s rewarded with a healthy condemnation from the Left. But Jerry, continues to denounce and condemn an action that is essentially run by BASSA, lay members, while it’s in progress – wonder what the BA hierarchy think of that.
If during the Remploy Campaign, an event very much lay-member led, we’d had to put up with inappropriate condemnation from somebody running their own private agenda; we’d have told them where to go.
“How about divulging the campaign expenses and the access to union information, including membership databases and email addresses that these full times union offciers and their supporters have?”
Nadia, mind explaining to me how Jerry Hicks got access to my home address and email address? Now ask yourself this question: what course of action would Brother Hicks have taken if he knew of blatant rule breaking. I think you know the answer, don’t you – no, you’re a hypocrite.
He’d go to the Certification Officer and report the wrongdoing. Maybe I should be thinking along the same lines as Brother Hicks, and report him for breaking the rules of the GS nomination process – except, I won’t because the tradition I come from you don’t go running to the authorities
Nadia, many on the UL within Unite can also see an unaccountable egoist who refuses to recognise or work within any form of discipline; whose actions last September were the antithesis of trade unionism, rather the actions of a man who believes himself born to a position.
Clown or hypocrite? I’ll go with the clowns; at least there is rich vein of dignity and pride in that profession.
I know about redundancies because I’ve been at the sharp end; both negotiating for members as a shop steward and becoming redundant myself.
When we conducted redundancies a few years ago at Remploy members with over 30 years service received around the £30,000 mark. Good in that they, mainly, escaped taxation; bad in that they were so poorly valued for such loyal service.
Evan, don’t you dare insult me when I pull you up on, for me and thousands like me, a very important issue of redundancy and taxation. If you wish to float in the deep end of the pool of ignorance, do so; but, don’t be surprised when others pull you up.
Incidentally, the overwhelming majority of my Remploy Comrades are still after 18 months are still without work; and, likely to be so, many forever. Despite the fact the jobs they seek are those that only pay out low wages; they find themselves, nonetheless, discriminated against.
When Jerry speaks of taking a working wage; what is he talking about? Is it £150,000 per annum a Unite IT consultant might be paid; or, is it the £10,000 per annum that an ex-Remploy member is earning as a part-time cleaner; because, his idea of a working wage and my members’ reality will likely differ.
So, forgive me when I pull up another Comrade for trying to pass off misinformation as fact; who also feels justified in making a derogatory comment to another Comrade who for the sake of objectivity puts him straight.
Evan, may I suggest you look to your own postings and conduct on this site before attempting to claim the high ground.
Nadia, you accuse another of being anti-union whilst singing the praises of someone who has, and still is, running his campaign on an anti-Unite basis. Listening to his speeches and reading his words people are struck by his total grasp of propriety when attacking Unite victories and disputes currently running.
If people were to believe Hicks and his coterie of nay sayers Unite has never accomplished a thing for its members; that their leadership is betraying them at every turn; and, that anyone employed by the union is a class traitor.
Even when Comrades are in the middle of disputes he criticises the running or the progress of the action. It’s bad enough Simpson putting in his unwanted views - but, at least he’s rewarded with a healthy condemnation from the Left. But Jerry, continues to denounce and condemn an action that is essentially run by BASSA, lay members, while it’s in progress – wonder what the BA hierarchy think of that.
If during the Remploy Campaign, an event very much lay-member led, we’d had to put up with inappropriate condemnation from somebody running their own private agenda; we’d have told them where to go.
“How about divulging the campaign expenses and the access to union information, including membership databases and email addresses that these full times union offciers and their supporters have?”
Nadia, mind explaining to me how Jerry Hicks got access to my home address and email address? Now ask yourself this question: what course of action would Brother Hicks have taken if he knew of blatant rule breaking. I think you know the answer, don’t you – no, you’re a hypocrite.
He’d go to the Certification Officer and report the wrongdoing. Maybe I should be thinking along the same lines as Brother Hicks, and report him for breaking the rules of the GS nomination process – except, I won’t because the tradition I come from you don’t go running to the authorities
Nadia, many on the UL within Unite can also see an unaccountable egoist who refuses to recognise or work within any form of discipline; whose actions last September were the antithesis of trade unionism, rather the actions of a man who believes himself born to a position.
Clown or hypocrite? I’ll go with the clowns; at least there is rich vein of dignity and pride in that profession.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Wheelchair Bound
I knew I was kinky when I found,
It sexually exciting to be bound,
Trussed and tied to my wheelchair,
With no clothes on; completely bare,
Wondering what would happen next,
To this poor virgin so undersexed.
My temptress slim and in leather clad,
Taunted me saying ‘You’re a bad lad’;
And so, teasing me with her sexy ways,
Left me panting for more and in a daze.
There’s a moral to this tale of sleaze,
If it’s being offered say, ‘Yes please!’
It sexually exciting to be bound,
Trussed and tied to my wheelchair,
With no clothes on; completely bare,
Wondering what would happen next,
To this poor virgin so undersexed.
My temptress slim and in leather clad,
Taunted me saying ‘You’re a bad lad’;
And so, teasing me with her sexy ways,
Left me panting for more and in a daze.
There’s a moral to this tale of sleaze,
If it’s being offered say, ‘Yes please!’
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Wheels for Wellbeing
Cycling would be very expensive for me. The minimum price I’ve seen handcycles selling for is just short of a grand. That’d be an upright all-in-one handcycle. Problem there is I wouldn’t be able to get it into my flat; and, would also have problems fitting it in my car.
I could opt for the type of handcycle that fits onto a wheelchair; but, that’d be even more expensive; £1200-£1500 for the front wheel and gears (the handcycle bit) and a further £1000-£1500 for a decent rigid wheelchair (I’m currently using a horizontal collapsible wheelchair) – so anywhere from £2200 to £3000.
As for using the thing in town; handcycles are not practicable for use on busy urban roads for some disabled people. As someone who is hemi-plegic most of my strength comes from one arm; which would make me slow moving; which would be a greater problem at traffic lights.
Of course this then only leaves the countryside at my disposal. Which is great. Once I can afford to buy a suitable machine. Until then I’ll try to use Wheels for Wellbeing; weather permitting.
I could opt for the type of handcycle that fits onto a wheelchair; but, that’d be even more expensive; £1200-£1500 for the front wheel and gears (the handcycle bit) and a further £1000-£1500 for a decent rigid wheelchair (I’m currently using a horizontal collapsible wheelchair) – so anywhere from £2200 to £3000.
As for using the thing in town; handcycles are not practicable for use on busy urban roads for some disabled people. As someone who is hemi-plegic most of my strength comes from one arm; which would make me slow moving; which would be a greater problem at traffic lights.
Of course this then only leaves the countryside at my disposal. Which is great. Once I can afford to buy a suitable machine. Until then I’ll try to use Wheels for Wellbeing; weather permitting.
Anti-Trade Union Laws
Arguing for a blanket repeal of the Anti-Trade Union Laws is the wrong strategy. We don’t even have the support of all trade union members here; many wouldn’t want a return to the closed shop or going back to the days of a show of hands to determine strike action. How exactly would that be achieved with today’s fractured and dispersed industrial composition.
Breaking the law in order to change it only works when sufficient numbers are involved – by the way Omar, it’s a Tory government we’re now dealing with. As for having the moral high ground on the BA dispute; the courts don’t make decisions on moral grounds they do so on points of law - or at least that’s the way the law is supposed to operate; I imagine the law makers believe that any law they pass is by definition morally fit for use.
BASSA and Unite did have massive support for its actions both against BA and the Anti-Trade Union laws. And, we won some important victories at the High Court. However, these judgements weren’t given on moral grounds; no, we won because we left little or no room for BA’s lawyers to introduce spurious and frivolous breaches of the law as cause for action; because there was no room for the judge to misinterpret our balloting procedures.
There is a sense out there, propagated by some of the more revolutionary minded amongst us, that the British working class is ready to rise against the injustices that have rained down on them for the past 20 or 30 years. I don’t feel a sense of this at all. ‘The Cut’s are spoken of in terms of the catalyst by which the revolution will take form.
In some ways I wish this was true; but, in reality I look around me and despair of the Left. The Left is as fragmented and full of ideological splits as ever it was. There is no cohesion in our ranks; we’re disparate groups fighting for control of an ever shrinking Left base. Until we can get our act together we’re destined to scribble away in the margins of politics while the pages are written by others.
Breaking the law in order to change it only works when sufficient numbers are involved – by the way Omar, it’s a Tory government we’re now dealing with. As for having the moral high ground on the BA dispute; the courts don’t make decisions on moral grounds they do so on points of law - or at least that’s the way the law is supposed to operate; I imagine the law makers believe that any law they pass is by definition morally fit for use.
BASSA and Unite did have massive support for its actions both against BA and the Anti-Trade Union laws. And, we won some important victories at the High Court. However, these judgements weren’t given on moral grounds; no, we won because we left little or no room for BA’s lawyers to introduce spurious and frivolous breaches of the law as cause for action; because there was no room for the judge to misinterpret our balloting procedures.
There is a sense out there, propagated by some of the more revolutionary minded amongst us, that the British working class is ready to rise against the injustices that have rained down on them for the past 20 or 30 years. I don’t feel a sense of this at all. ‘The Cut’s are spoken of in terms of the catalyst by which the revolution will take form.
In some ways I wish this was true; but, in reality I look around me and despair of the Left. The Left is as fragmented and full of ideological splits as ever it was. There is no cohesion in our ranks; we’re disparate groups fighting for control of an ever shrinking Left base. Until we can get our act together we’re destined to scribble away in the margins of politics while the pages are written by others.
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Handcycles
Handcycles are coming down in price. In the last couple of days I’ve found one for under a thousand pounds, £930! This particular machine is an integral three-wheel upright handcycle that doesn’t have the added complication of the handcycle that bolts onto a wheelchair; and, way way cheaper.
When I first looked at getting a handcycle, a couple of years ago, I was quoted around £1600-£1800 for the front wheel and gears and anything from £1000-£1500 for the accompanying wheelchair – a whopping £2700 to £3300! At that time all-in-one handcycles were being advertised in the USA for around £900.
Now I’ll take advantage of ‘Wheels4Wellbeing’, a cycling scheme that operates in Croydon and Lambeth. This organisation specialises in hiring out a range of cycles to people with disabilities. For £3, for up to a 3-hour session, I can hire out a handcycle and ride to my heart’s content.
Once I’ve used one of these machines for a while I may consider buying a machine for myself. It’d be great to be able to get out of London, or on to Hampstead Heath and have some freedom. Wheelchairs, while affording me more freedom than I had when I walked with a stick (I could only manage to walk about 10 meters before the pain became unbearable) are still quite restrictive – as a hemi-plegic I’ve a weakness in my left side; and, my right hand is quite painful these days.
When I first looked at getting a handcycle, a couple of years ago, I was quoted around £1600-£1800 for the front wheel and gears and anything from £1000-£1500 for the accompanying wheelchair – a whopping £2700 to £3300! At that time all-in-one handcycles were being advertised in the USA for around £900.
Now I’ll take advantage of ‘Wheels4Wellbeing’, a cycling scheme that operates in Croydon and Lambeth. This organisation specialises in hiring out a range of cycles to people with disabilities. For £3, for up to a 3-hour session, I can hire out a handcycle and ride to my heart’s content.
Once I’ve used one of these machines for a while I may consider buying a machine for myself. It’d be great to be able to get out of London, or on to Hampstead Heath and have some freedom. Wheelchairs, while affording me more freedom than I had when I walked with a stick (I could only manage to walk about 10 meters before the pain became unbearable) are still quite restrictive – as a hemi-plegic I’ve a weakness in my left side; and, my right hand is quite painful these days.
Grass Always Seems Greener on the Other Side
Rhys has a point. We hear much spoken from different groups within the Left about the need for taking unofficial action. These same people constantly condemn the leadership of Unite as being weak and even as selling out their class. In the same breath of condemnation they then call for our leaders to be more like, the estimable, Bob Crow; they put forward Mark Serwotka and Matt Wrack as shining examples of Left leaders who do the business.
Off hand, and no doubt I’ll be corrected, I can’t think of any significant unofficial action being called and officially supported by any of these three leaders – and, this isn’t a criticism of other Comrade trade unionists; no, it’s the real world.
Bob Crow has actually been criticised by his own members thus: “It was a cause for concern, he concluded, that Bob Crow and the RMT Executive complied with the laws and actually repudiated unofficial strike action.” http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1390,0,0,1,0
So, let’s not run away with the idea that if Jerry Hicks became GS that he’d be supporting every action, official or unofficial, that landed on his desk. To begin with he’d need the support of the Executive, and hopefully, it’ll be a better one than we’re currently labouring under. Then, we would, I say ‘we’ because ultimately any decision reached could impact on the entire union, have the courts to contend with.
Most of us know the battles we’ve had with the High Courts when endeavouring to take legitimate industrial action. Imagine, under a Tory government - forget the charade of an alliance, the other mob’s insignificant as events will soon reveal - taking unofficial action with a judiciary primed to respond.
Are there any of us out there who don’t doubt that a cartel of bosses isn’t just waiting for such an eventuality to occur? We had a tough ride under New Labour. The Tories business backers are looking for a return for their money. The dissolution of trade unions through sequestration and likely bankruptcy – this a reality, if the likes of BA came after us for a sum of £40 million we’d be in trouble – would fit in well with the break-up and selling off of our Welfare State.
The grass may well appear greener on the other side; but, in amongst the green grass blades are still nasty weeds; and, anyway grass, even the greener kind on the other side, needs attending and looking after.
Now, I’m off to take a bit of official action against my dinner. Spag bol; and, a few glasses of Rioja, mmmmmmmm.
Bon appétit; merci, don’t mind if I do, guvnor.
Off hand, and no doubt I’ll be corrected, I can’t think of any significant unofficial action being called and officially supported by any of these three leaders – and, this isn’t a criticism of other Comrade trade unionists; no, it’s the real world.
Bob Crow has actually been criticised by his own members thus: “It was a cause for concern, he concluded, that Bob Crow and the RMT Executive complied with the laws and actually repudiated unofficial strike action.” http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1390,0,0,1,0
So, let’s not run away with the idea that if Jerry Hicks became GS that he’d be supporting every action, official or unofficial, that landed on his desk. To begin with he’d need the support of the Executive, and hopefully, it’ll be a better one than we’re currently labouring under. Then, we would, I say ‘we’ because ultimately any decision reached could impact on the entire union, have the courts to contend with.
Most of us know the battles we’ve had with the High Courts when endeavouring to take legitimate industrial action. Imagine, under a Tory government - forget the charade of an alliance, the other mob’s insignificant as events will soon reveal - taking unofficial action with a judiciary primed to respond.
Are there any of us out there who don’t doubt that a cartel of bosses isn’t just waiting for such an eventuality to occur? We had a tough ride under New Labour. The Tories business backers are looking for a return for their money. The dissolution of trade unions through sequestration and likely bankruptcy – this a reality, if the likes of BA came after us for a sum of £40 million we’d be in trouble – would fit in well with the break-up and selling off of our Welfare State.
The grass may well appear greener on the other side; but, in amongst the green grass blades are still nasty weeds; and, anyway grass, even the greener kind on the other side, needs attending and looking after.
Now, I’m off to take a bit of official action against my dinner. Spag bol; and, a few glasses of Rioja, mmmmmmmm.
Bon appétit; merci, don’t mind if I do, guvnor.
No Time for Complacency
At this stage in the GSD elections I wouldn’t write off any of the candidates; and, if the Left fights with itself we could leave the door wide open for Bayliss to stroll through. What the Left cannot afford is a split in its vote.
The reason we conducted a hustings last September was because we wanted one candidate to stand for and represent the Left of the union. This didn’t happen; and, I won’t bother to bore people on this to death with another re-run of that day.
However, having a single Left candidate would have been preferable. But, since we now have two we must fight the harder to ensure the candidate with the mandate of the UL, Len McCluskey wins; and, dismissing Bayliss as ‘unelectable’ is a complacency we can’t afford.
On the Labour Party leadership I agree; we, trade union members, should have the right to expect any candidate we promote to give us assurances on scrap those parts of the anti-trade union laws we want repealed.
We need also to be specific what we mean by repealing the anti-trade union laws. Because, there are parts of those laws that we won’t get changed, such as the re-establishing of the closed shops and show of hands ballots in canteens and carparks; which allow Labour MPs a get-out when we call for repeal – David Milliband used these examples for not supporting repeal at the Labour Leadership Hustings held by Unite a few weeks ago.
So, let’s not use catch-all phrases that allow MPs a get-out. Let’s tell them what we want; the right to strike without fear of losing our jobs; the right to secondary picketing; simpler balloting procedures; to make it more difficult for employers to use, often spurious and frivolous, technicalities to stymie action decided on by legitimate ballots; to force employers to furnish unions with true and accurate employee records when legitimate ballots are called.
Because, these are reasonable and achievable targets; yet, no matter how reasonable they are we’re not going to succeed under a Tory regime. Yet there are those in our number who appear to be calling for these measures to implemented now. The BASSA dispute is ongoing; and, McCluskey is showing good leadership. However, even a BASSA victory will not bring about a change in Tory culture.
We are living with uncertainty over our economic future. That is, working people and those of us who depend on public services are looking at a perilous existence. Personally, I’m looking at losing a care package that has enhanced my quality of life over the past four or so years.
It could be that with no improvement in my physical wellbeing; nor any change in my care needs that I’ll nonetheless be deemed capable of doing things I couldn’t do a few seconds before someone in Social Services brings down the axe – I’m not actually blaming the Care Manager of my Local Authority; executing these cuts will not be easy for them.
Finally, I hope Omar and our Comrades in BASSA are reinstated in the near future; I hope BASSA prevails over the bully boy Willy Walsh; I pray, which for an atheist can pose problems, that this ConDem Junta implodes; and, that the whole venture is thrown into disarray in the very near future. But, if it’s not let’s get ready to fight the cuts.
The reason we conducted a hustings last September was because we wanted one candidate to stand for and represent the Left of the union. This didn’t happen; and, I won’t bother to bore people on this to death with another re-run of that day.
However, having a single Left candidate would have been preferable. But, since we now have two we must fight the harder to ensure the candidate with the mandate of the UL, Len McCluskey wins; and, dismissing Bayliss as ‘unelectable’ is a complacency we can’t afford.
On the Labour Party leadership I agree; we, trade union members, should have the right to expect any candidate we promote to give us assurances on scrap those parts of the anti-trade union laws we want repealed.
We need also to be specific what we mean by repealing the anti-trade union laws. Because, there are parts of those laws that we won’t get changed, such as the re-establishing of the closed shops and show of hands ballots in canteens and carparks; which allow Labour MPs a get-out when we call for repeal – David Milliband used these examples for not supporting repeal at the Labour Leadership Hustings held by Unite a few weeks ago.
So, let’s not use catch-all phrases that allow MPs a get-out. Let’s tell them what we want; the right to strike without fear of losing our jobs; the right to secondary picketing; simpler balloting procedures; to make it more difficult for employers to use, often spurious and frivolous, technicalities to stymie action decided on by legitimate ballots; to force employers to furnish unions with true and accurate employee records when legitimate ballots are called.
Because, these are reasonable and achievable targets; yet, no matter how reasonable they are we’re not going to succeed under a Tory regime. Yet there are those in our number who appear to be calling for these measures to implemented now. The BASSA dispute is ongoing; and, McCluskey is showing good leadership. However, even a BASSA victory will not bring about a change in Tory culture.
We are living with uncertainty over our economic future. That is, working people and those of us who depend on public services are looking at a perilous existence. Personally, I’m looking at losing a care package that has enhanced my quality of life over the past four or so years.
It could be that with no improvement in my physical wellbeing; nor any change in my care needs that I’ll nonetheless be deemed capable of doing things I couldn’t do a few seconds before someone in Social Services brings down the axe – I’m not actually blaming the Care Manager of my Local Authority; executing these cuts will not be easy for them.
Finally, I hope Omar and our Comrades in BASSA are reinstated in the near future; I hope BASSA prevails over the bully boy Willy Walsh; I pray, which for an atheist can pose problems, that this ConDem Junta implodes; and, that the whole venture is thrown into disarray in the very near future. But, if it’s not let’s get ready to fight the cuts.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Who Caused the Deficit?
The banks refusing to furnish businesses with loans, especially those banks that we refinanced, is an act bordering on the criminal. We bailed the banks out not so as they could re-stock their vaults with cash, I think re-liquidate was the term being used; we did so in order that they operate as banks, which is to give loans to companies for them to manage their cash flow situations.
The banks instead acted more like caricatures of the miser sitting in his heavily barred house counting his accumulated wealth by candlelight. Of course the government of the day must accept some of the blame; once they had the majority shareholdings of these organisations they should have put in place policy that ensured small businesses were not left high and dry; and, safeguards for homeowners whose mortgages we now had control over.
New Labour is not fully to blame for the world recession that we’re still enjoying. However, the neo-liberal economics it slavishly signed up to is to blame. The fact that when neo-liberalism finally came crashing down with the collapse of the banking, mortgage and insurance systems pretty much across the developed world opportunities, such as the nationalisation of banks etc, were not taken.
We all know that a period of restructuring will take place; and, government will use the recession and its attendant deficit to as an excuse for swingeing reform. The banks won’t be punished for their gross mishandling of affairs. Because, merging them and sacking half the staffs isn’t punishing the banks, no it is penalising the, for the most part, lower grade staffers who had the least involvement in the debacle.
No, we and people across all work sectors are paying the price of the speculators; you know the ones; the people paid ridiculous sums of money for gambling with other people’s money; who when they get it criminally wrong go crying to the us the tax-payers to bail them out; and, then expect to receive bonuses because their contracts demand this.
Ordinary working people and service users are the victims of these high rollers. The ConDem axis knows the situation full well. After all it was their kind that played hard and fast with our economy. They also know that the public deficit, though high, doesn’t have to be paid off quickly; excuses about a lack of confidence in the pound and City because of our debts is a smoke screen.
I’ve stated before our debt from World War 2 was over three times as large as the current one. Back in the 1970s we were in a worse situation than we are now; back then we had to go to the IMF for assistance. Periods of economic instability come and go. Yet, we as a country full of many natural resources manage to pull back to a position of relative stability; and, with our Welfare State, more or less, still intact.
The Tory government (because, let’s be honest, the other mob are a bolt-on of no real significance; there merely to give the Tories a majority therefore a ‘mandate’ to govern) is aware that it could ride out the recession and pay off the deficit, admittedly slower, by a series of income tax increases, a Robin Hood tax and National Insurance hikes.
It would still be hard on lots of people; but, it would spread the pain more evenly. While some jobs within the higher ranks of the public sector would inevitably be sacrificed; the mass redundancies this government proposes would be contained. People like paying taxes marginally less than death. But, if laid out properly with commonsense explanations the Tories could be on a winner by going down the less draconian route of taxation over mass unemployment and most likely a double-dip recession – which we’ll hardly be out of by the time of the next election.
Ideology, I’m afraid will stymie any thoughts of the Tories acting responsibly for the majority of the country. The need to capitalise on any given situation and in the process enrich their own narrow class is firmly embedded in their mindset. They look at Treasury figures; they see the high amounts of OUR taxes that go towards servicing OUR Welfare State; and, they don’t see a resource that benefits millions of people through direct employment, government contracts and services provided; instead they see exploitative opportunity.
They see, maybe the last, chance to smash the Welfare State; and, from the smashed fragments they can divert profits into the pockets of their class. Councils and the NHS will in the future be, a bit like the railway system but on a macro scale, fragmented into smaller organisations. Medical disciplines competing with one and other; what were council departments will be disparate sections fighting for the same funding streams whilst not operating holistically – which means the links between, say, health, housing, social care, the environment etc will be broken making life even more difficult for service users. Accountability will become the province of the anonymous.
The banks instead acted more like caricatures of the miser sitting in his heavily barred house counting his accumulated wealth by candlelight. Of course the government of the day must accept some of the blame; once they had the majority shareholdings of these organisations they should have put in place policy that ensured small businesses were not left high and dry; and, safeguards for homeowners whose mortgages we now had control over.
New Labour is not fully to blame for the world recession that we’re still enjoying. However, the neo-liberal economics it slavishly signed up to is to blame. The fact that when neo-liberalism finally came crashing down with the collapse of the banking, mortgage and insurance systems pretty much across the developed world opportunities, such as the nationalisation of banks etc, were not taken.
We all know that a period of restructuring will take place; and, government will use the recession and its attendant deficit to as an excuse for swingeing reform. The banks won’t be punished for their gross mishandling of affairs. Because, merging them and sacking half the staffs isn’t punishing the banks, no it is penalising the, for the most part, lower grade staffers who had the least involvement in the debacle.
No, we and people across all work sectors are paying the price of the speculators; you know the ones; the people paid ridiculous sums of money for gambling with other people’s money; who when they get it criminally wrong go crying to the us the tax-payers to bail them out; and, then expect to receive bonuses because their contracts demand this.
Ordinary working people and service users are the victims of these high rollers. The ConDem axis knows the situation full well. After all it was their kind that played hard and fast with our economy. They also know that the public deficit, though high, doesn’t have to be paid off quickly; excuses about a lack of confidence in the pound and City because of our debts is a smoke screen.
I’ve stated before our debt from World War 2 was over three times as large as the current one. Back in the 1970s we were in a worse situation than we are now; back then we had to go to the IMF for assistance. Periods of economic instability come and go. Yet, we as a country full of many natural resources manage to pull back to a position of relative stability; and, with our Welfare State, more or less, still intact.
The Tory government (because, let’s be honest, the other mob are a bolt-on of no real significance; there merely to give the Tories a majority therefore a ‘mandate’ to govern) is aware that it could ride out the recession and pay off the deficit, admittedly slower, by a series of income tax increases, a Robin Hood tax and National Insurance hikes.
It would still be hard on lots of people; but, it would spread the pain more evenly. While some jobs within the higher ranks of the public sector would inevitably be sacrificed; the mass redundancies this government proposes would be contained. People like paying taxes marginally less than death. But, if laid out properly with commonsense explanations the Tories could be on a winner by going down the less draconian route of taxation over mass unemployment and most likely a double-dip recession – which we’ll hardly be out of by the time of the next election.
Ideology, I’m afraid will stymie any thoughts of the Tories acting responsibly for the majority of the country. The need to capitalise on any given situation and in the process enrich their own narrow class is firmly embedded in their mindset. They look at Treasury figures; they see the high amounts of OUR taxes that go towards servicing OUR Welfare State; and, they don’t see a resource that benefits millions of people through direct employment, government contracts and services provided; instead they see exploitative opportunity.
They see, maybe the last, chance to smash the Welfare State; and, from the smashed fragments they can divert profits into the pockets of their class. Councils and the NHS will in the future be, a bit like the railway system but on a macro scale, fragmented into smaller organisations. Medical disciplines competing with one and other; what were council departments will be disparate sections fighting for the same funding streams whilst not operating holistically – which means the links between, say, health, housing, social care, the environment etc will be broken making life even more difficult for service users. Accountability will become the province of the anonymous.
Back to Benefit Fraud!
“I’m both curious and a little perplexed. Benefit fraud is running at around £1.1 per year (some of which is actually not fraud but error on the part of benefit’s agencies in areas such as Tax Credits) less than 1% of benefit paid out. Tax fraud accounts for anything from £40 billion to £100 billion+ (difficult to estimate because the fraudsters pay very clever people to hide the money); yet, this government targets those that steal the least.
This isn’t value for money. As a tax payer I’m incensed that the government spends scores of millions chasing peanuts; when, for the same money it could be bagging the big boys. A benefits inspector costs the tax payer money as their salaries are twice what they claw back; a tax inspector working in fraud can expect to claw back three times what she or he earns.
Do the sums. It isn’t too difficult, is it?”
This isn’t value for money. As a tax payer I’m incensed that the government spends scores of millions chasing peanuts; when, for the same money it could be bagging the big boys. A benefits inspector costs the tax payer money as their salaries are twice what they claw back; a tax inspector working in fraud can expect to claw back three times what she or he earns.
Do the sums. It isn’t too difficult, is it?”
Friday, 13 August 2010
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Hip Surgery
My sister, who is 51, was diagnosed 15 months or so with sciatica. Not being terribly medically minded; not much of a fan of self-diagnosis; nor, indeed the Internet as a source of information she accepted her GPs diagnosis.
Some months ago the company she works for offered, in conjunction with a health company, the opportunity to see a chiropractor. She attended a diagnostic at which the practitioner worked on her back and lower spine. Feeling good afterwards she decided to sign up for the package – x sessions for £xx.
On further investigation and with the assistance of x-rays it transpires that my sister has an arthritic hip; and, the ‘wear and tear’ is quite advanced. While Sis could afford a few hundred quid for the chiropractor activities there’s no way she can afford the roughly 10 grand to go privately.
She visited her GP a couple of weeks ago and explained that she’d seen a chiropractor; the diagnosis from the chiropractor was arthritis not sciatica as diagnosed by another practice GP; and, as she was in quite considerable pain what could be done. The GP read the notes from the chiropractor, and while not disagreeing didn’t agree either.
The GP wasn’t too happy about her using non-NHS services; and, told my Sis in no uncertain terms that she couldn’t have a hip replacement operation until she was 60! Ok, my Sis is probably jumping the gun. She needs to first to get the x-rays from the private company to her GP.
Here’s my question. Given that she does need a new hip is it written in stone somewhere that the NHS won’t carry out hip replacement operations until the patient reaches 60?
Some months ago the company she works for offered, in conjunction with a health company, the opportunity to see a chiropractor. She attended a diagnostic at which the practitioner worked on her back and lower spine. Feeling good afterwards she decided to sign up for the package – x sessions for £xx.
On further investigation and with the assistance of x-rays it transpires that my sister has an arthritic hip; and, the ‘wear and tear’ is quite advanced. While Sis could afford a few hundred quid for the chiropractor activities there’s no way she can afford the roughly 10 grand to go privately.
She visited her GP a couple of weeks ago and explained that she’d seen a chiropractor; the diagnosis from the chiropractor was arthritis not sciatica as diagnosed by another practice GP; and, as she was in quite considerable pain what could be done. The GP read the notes from the chiropractor, and while not disagreeing didn’t agree either.
The GP wasn’t too happy about her using non-NHS services; and, told my Sis in no uncertain terms that she couldn’t have a hip replacement operation until she was 60! Ok, my Sis is probably jumping the gun. She needs to first to get the x-rays from the private company to her GP.
Here’s my question. Given that she does need a new hip is it written in stone somewhere that the NHS won’t carry out hip replacement operations until the patient reaches 60?
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Politics of Greed
Thanks for the wake up call but i am wide a wake and have been since 6 this morning when i went to the gym for a 2 hr work out before work.
You have the luxury to spend two hours in the gym before work. For far too many that would be the height of self-indulgence. Those two hours would be more profitably spent in one of their two or three minimum wage jobs; and, that just to keep their heads above water.
As a disabled person who works I can’t 1) afford the subscriptions to a local gym, 2) access the equipment in the gym or 3) have the energy after maybe an hour or two’s sleep to complete a workout.
Most of what you have written is well i dont agree with it but then again that wont surprise you and i cant be bothered to get into a discussion about legal tax structuring, ineffecient non accountable govt depts, hyper fat civil service etc etc...as its been discussed before.
Of course you ‘...can’t be bothered...about legal tax structuring...’ that’d be tantamount to turkey’s voting for Christmas. Shhh, let’s leave well alone. After all, why draw attention to the scores of billions fraudulently withheld by businessmen and the wealthy each year? Why should the rich be expected to bear their share of the burden; they’ve never done so before.
What i do agree with you , shock horror, is that we are running a big risk with as you say the rich / poor divide getting wider and it will cause massive social problems. The solution probably a reality check all round on expected profits, on investment in plant and people, on wages and the cost of living needs to dramatically fall with that. Also, from my history i think the benefits system was supposed to be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice which for some it is.
Part of the solution to the poor/rich divide would be the rich paying their way instead of expecting the poor to prop up the Treasury while they, the rich, pass more laws that protect their wealth. Until the wealthy realise their responsibility to society in general they’ll remain the vampiric caricatures they’ve become.
It ridiculous that other european people flock to this country to work for wages that you say are third world, they cant be that bad if that is the case. I mean the Romanian president called us lazy. It ridiculous that the cost to manufacture goods in this country is so high (most of it due to wage inflation) that most of it has gone abroad.
Most other European people have stopped coming to this country because the work is drying up. Those that are coming in are not as you so Daily Heilishly put it flocking in; no, they’re being coerced by capitalist organisations to come to the UK in order to drive down wages and T&Cs.
Capatilism is actually about responsibilty. Being responsible for your own actions, deeds and efforts. Its about being responsible for your own future and your own destiny, getting out what you put into it, being rewarded for taking risks and working hard should they pay off, and being helped back on the ladder if they dont. Its about being responsible socially with the wealth that one hopefully generates whether that is to the people one employs or the lifestyle and excess money there work brings. Its not about being taxed to the enth degree by an ineffecient govt to pay for a bloated civil service and benefits system that isnt supporting those that need it and providing a lifestyle for the workshy.
Yes, capitalism is about responsibility. It’s about class responsibility. It’s about brokering wealth and keeping it within the parameters of those deemed responsible – the wealthy. Capitalism is about denying society and ensuring that you and yours are looked after.
Capitalism isn’t about taking risks. Where’s the risk in banks playing hard and fast with our economy; going bust; and, getting bailed out by the tax payer. Capitalism seems to me a situation where the risk is socialised while profits remain in private hands.
Capitalism being described in socially responsible terms is both risible and insulting. Even when making ‘charitable’ donations capitalists need to do so with a fanfare on primetime TV, corporate image a mile high; and, at the same time entering some kind of tax covenant to claw money back – that’s not charity, it’s cheap publicity.
Capitalists do not employ people on a benevolent basis; employees are a means to an end. In the first instance we’re the means to create the goods and subsequently the wealth that capitalists luxuriate in; and, second we act as the customers to buy back the goods and services we produce and carry out at inflated prices – that’s the profit.
Capitalists are not taxed to the Nth degree. Proportionately they pay less than their workers, the true wealth creators. Indeed, some pay no taxes whatsoever. Capitalists don’t pay for our Welfare State; they never have and never will. We, the ordinary workers pay for our NHS, education, social services, etc; we even pay for the wars that capitalists become bloated on.
As for workshy. I’d be looking in the direction of the progeny, the issue of the wealthy for sheer work shyness. The fatcats who after a few years in the City ripping off millions retire early on their ill-gained filthy lucre.
Most people in the third world would give their back teeth for the opportunities people are born into in this country the trouble is there are a number of people who forget that and think they can all be premiership footballers or glamour models and therefore dont need to work at school.
Have you seen the state of many of the sink schools that Gove has resigned to more years of misery. Are the issue of the Bullingdon Club sending their kids to rotting schools; to schools where lessons are conducted in huts? Are their kids trying to do homework in cramped conditions; having to wait for sisters and brothers to vacate a table; or, waiting their turn to get onto a computer that keeps breaking down.
It’s easy to make social commentary on a class of people you don’t know who you have nothing in common with. It’s easy, and extremely insulting, to pontificate on issues of social exclusion as you sit their purring and preening your sleek coat – insulation from poverty is a great gift; you should cherish it.
Pavement Politics
My campaigning, though not exclusively, is for disability access. By access I mean anything from receiving readable communications to venues with sound loops to pubs and restaurants with level entry access or lifts as well as accessible toilets to public transport from which I can enter and alight with minimum difficulty – not just ‘do you have a ramp?’
My campaigning also involves reading and responding to government and local authority consultation documents – a recent one was concerned with the use of motorised wheelchairs and scooters on pavements.
As for pavement safety; this is not an area I’ve covered – apart from my response to motorised wheelchairs and scooters; which, for the record I believe should involve mandatory training and the vehicles should be insured – the same should apply to cyclists.
The campaigning I do really does take up most of my time; indeed, it increasingly encroaches into my social life. However, if some of the cyclists on U75 were to throw up some suggestions as to how we can make roads safer for cyclists to use, I’d be receptive.
Personally, the two main problems, three if you count dog shit, I encounter on pavements is too many cyclists and crossfalls that are too steep – from kerb up. The first, cyclists, terrify me; and, the second, steep crossfalls, make it impossible for me to independently push. Ironically, one of the few relatively even surfaces in London runs along the South Bank. However, more and more cyclists are using this route; and, the already crowded nature of the place makes it very hazardous for me as a wheelchair user.
Since there are far more cyclists than wheelchair users in London I don’t expect things to get any better for me.
My campaigning also involves reading and responding to government and local authority consultation documents – a recent one was concerned with the use of motorised wheelchairs and scooters on pavements.
As for pavement safety; this is not an area I’ve covered – apart from my response to motorised wheelchairs and scooters; which, for the record I believe should involve mandatory training and the vehicles should be insured – the same should apply to cyclists.
The campaigning I do really does take up most of my time; indeed, it increasingly encroaches into my social life. However, if some of the cyclists on U75 were to throw up some suggestions as to how we can make roads safer for cyclists to use, I’d be receptive.
Personally, the two main problems, three if you count dog shit, I encounter on pavements is too many cyclists and crossfalls that are too steep – from kerb up. The first, cyclists, terrify me; and, the second, steep crossfalls, make it impossible for me to independently push. Ironically, one of the few relatively even surfaces in London runs along the South Bank. However, more and more cyclists are using this route; and, the already crowded nature of the place makes it very hazardous for me as a wheelchair user.
Since there are far more cyclists than wheelchair users in London I don’t expect things to get any better for me.
Unions and Strikes
“I rate Matt Wrack, Mark Serwotka and Bob Crow as the best of the current generation and Jerry would ably compare with these.”
Undoubtedly good people; good Socialists and leaders one and all. Both Wrack and Crow holding considerable industrial clout. Even though Bob Crow has repudiated unofficial strike action in the past - http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1390,0,0,1,0 – doesn’t make him a class traitor.
I haven’t heard of either Matt or Mark endorsing unofficial strike action by their members; again, this doesn’t mean they are in the pockets of the bosses. Yet, when it comes to disputes such as Vestas, Visteon and BA the Unite leadership are class traitors.
Bob Crow arrived on the Isle of Wight during the Vestas sit-in; how many people flocked to join the ranks of the RMT? Did the RMT do what they had accused Unite of failing to do? Did they save the jobs? No, they didn’t, unfortunately. This doesn’t stop Jerry berating Unite; for blaming Unite for all the ills that befall industry.
A couple of years back Len McCluskey was accused at a United Left meeting of selling out the ex-Shell tanker drivers after they settled for a 14% pay rise. The accusation came from someone very high in Jerry Hicks’ leadership campaign team.
Despite the fact that the BA dispute is being run by lay members who instruct the leadership in the directions they wish to go; all we hear from Jerry is ‘betrayal!’ I know some of the lay leadership of the BA strike very well. They know that their membership was never prepared to take unofficial action.
Yet, certain elements within the Left will not believe this. They cannot countenance the fact that not all workers share their revolutionary zeal; that a lot of the UK workforce lean politically towards the right. No, they’re not raving racists nor are they BNP supporters. They’ve simply been brainwashed and manipulated by the media and circumstances for far too long.
This is the audience that both McCluskey and Hicks are pitching their brand of trade unionism. A largely apolitical audience – by this I mean, they’re unaware of the political animal within – most of whom are concerned first for their jobs; second that they have a roof over their heads; third they can feed their families; and, so on down the line.
Jerry is less likely to attract votes with his ultra-critical delivery; with his message that strike action is the only way forward – if that isn’t what Jerry is saying; it is the way the message comes across. In fact Jerry’s condemnatory approach to trade unions is more likely to see members leaving.
Undoubtedly good people; good Socialists and leaders one and all. Both Wrack and Crow holding considerable industrial clout. Even though Bob Crow has repudiated unofficial strike action in the past - http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1390,0,0,1,0 – doesn’t make him a class traitor.
I haven’t heard of either Matt or Mark endorsing unofficial strike action by their members; again, this doesn’t mean they are in the pockets of the bosses. Yet, when it comes to disputes such as Vestas, Visteon and BA the Unite leadership are class traitors.
Bob Crow arrived on the Isle of Wight during the Vestas sit-in; how many people flocked to join the ranks of the RMT? Did the RMT do what they had accused Unite of failing to do? Did they save the jobs? No, they didn’t, unfortunately. This doesn’t stop Jerry berating Unite; for blaming Unite for all the ills that befall industry.
A couple of years back Len McCluskey was accused at a United Left meeting of selling out the ex-Shell tanker drivers after they settled for a 14% pay rise. The accusation came from someone very high in Jerry Hicks’ leadership campaign team.
Despite the fact that the BA dispute is being run by lay members who instruct the leadership in the directions they wish to go; all we hear from Jerry is ‘betrayal!’ I know some of the lay leadership of the BA strike very well. They know that their membership was never prepared to take unofficial action.
Yet, certain elements within the Left will not believe this. They cannot countenance the fact that not all workers share their revolutionary zeal; that a lot of the UK workforce lean politically towards the right. No, they’re not raving racists nor are they BNP supporters. They’ve simply been brainwashed and manipulated by the media and circumstances for far too long.
This is the audience that both McCluskey and Hicks are pitching their brand of trade unionism. A largely apolitical audience – by this I mean, they’re unaware of the political animal within – most of whom are concerned first for their jobs; second that they have a roof over their heads; third they can feed their families; and, so on down the line.
Jerry is less likely to attract votes with his ultra-critical delivery; with his message that strike action is the only way forward – if that isn’t what Jerry is saying; it is the way the message comes across. In fact Jerry’s condemnatory approach to trade unions is more likely to see members leaving.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Jerry Hicks and Passionate Speeches
This is the first time I’ve heard Jerry Hicks speak at length. Why do people who have to shout in order to deliver a message put it down to passion? Shouting your message instead of delivering it in a moderate volume doesn’t make your message or the messenger more passionate; no, it makes the messenger sound like a shoutey person.
Good speakers deliver their message in a number of ways. But, ultimately the content of the message will rise above the volume of the voice or the rhetoric therein; and, the message itself will win or lose support.
Having sat through 11 minutes of Jerry Hicks delivering a largely negative message I remain unconvinced that he can deliver anything progressive to the running of an organisation as large and complex as Unite. Jerry appears to be stuck in a groove of his own making. The one message he continuously tries to deliver is one which trade unionists, let alone the workforce of the UK, is not ready for – a General Strike.
There are 28 million workers out there; 6.5 million of whom belong to trade unions – mostly in the public sector. Those millions currently working in the public sector are scared stiff of losing their jobs. Rather than preparing to go out on strike for their jobs they are looking at ways to stay in employment; and, who can blame them when the alternative is so bleak. If made redundant they’ll receive a pittance; not for them some massive payoff that will at least keep them financially insulated for a few years.
I wish I knew the answer to getting our Comrades motivated; to instil in them a sense of let’s-get-out-and-fight. People talk of the Poll Tax Riots and how that moment in history forced a Major u-turn in Tory policy. The Poll Tax was a great unifying injustice. It hit us all up and down the country; this drew us together as a class.
Although, the cuts that are with us and those to come over the next few years will affect us as a class, they’ll attack disabled people, elderly, kids in inner city and rural schools, single mothers, people in low paid public sector jobs ad infinitum, they’ll not focus in the same way as the Council Tax did.
The cuts, though universal in nature, will not necessarily be applied universally. For instance, my child is grown, so the education cuts won’t impact on me in the same way they will friends with kids at school. Conversely, care packages won’t directly affect most of my friends as they have no use for these services at the moment; yet, my standard of living, and probably health, will plummet should I lose the care I currently receive.
While we can all point to a service or services whose withdrawal or cutting will make life more difficult; the overall affect will be spread around. Just as Lindsey, Visteon, Vestas and the current BA disputes were or are not the rallying cry for a General Strike we must nonetheless build and organise for the propitious day when we can in solidarity and commonality all down tools and walk.
Good speakers deliver their message in a number of ways. But, ultimately the content of the message will rise above the volume of the voice or the rhetoric therein; and, the message itself will win or lose support.
Having sat through 11 minutes of Jerry Hicks delivering a largely negative message I remain unconvinced that he can deliver anything progressive to the running of an organisation as large and complex as Unite. Jerry appears to be stuck in a groove of his own making. The one message he continuously tries to deliver is one which trade unionists, let alone the workforce of the UK, is not ready for – a General Strike.
There are 28 million workers out there; 6.5 million of whom belong to trade unions – mostly in the public sector. Those millions currently working in the public sector are scared stiff of losing their jobs. Rather than preparing to go out on strike for their jobs they are looking at ways to stay in employment; and, who can blame them when the alternative is so bleak. If made redundant they’ll receive a pittance; not for them some massive payoff that will at least keep them financially insulated for a few years.
I wish I knew the answer to getting our Comrades motivated; to instil in them a sense of let’s-get-out-and-fight. People talk of the Poll Tax Riots and how that moment in history forced a Major u-turn in Tory policy. The Poll Tax was a great unifying injustice. It hit us all up and down the country; this drew us together as a class.
Although, the cuts that are with us and those to come over the next few years will affect us as a class, they’ll attack disabled people, elderly, kids in inner city and rural schools, single mothers, people in low paid public sector jobs ad infinitum, they’ll not focus in the same way as the Council Tax did.
The cuts, though universal in nature, will not necessarily be applied universally. For instance, my child is grown, so the education cuts won’t impact on me in the same way they will friends with kids at school. Conversely, care packages won’t directly affect most of my friends as they have no use for these services at the moment; yet, my standard of living, and probably health, will plummet should I lose the care I currently receive.
While we can all point to a service or services whose withdrawal or cutting will make life more difficult; the overall affect will be spread around. Just as Lindsey, Visteon, Vestas and the current BA disputes were or are not the rallying cry for a General Strike we must nonetheless build and organise for the propitious day when we can in solidarity and commonality all down tools and walk.
Monday, 9 August 2010
Get the Infrastructure Right Before Introducing 'Green' Cycle Hire Schemes
Before we argue whether or not Johnson should be making handcycles available to disabled, or other, London cyclists we need to address the current perilous state of our pavements.
There are parts of London I can no longer safely push my wheelchair because bicycles are taking over. As our public transport system becomes more expensive and less reliable more people are taking to two-wheels. This should be heartening leading to less motorised vehicles clogging up our roads and lungs.
If the migration was from the car to the bicycle we’d definitely see a greater greening of London. However, the largest migration is from public transport to the bicycle; many of whom will have abandoned a hit-and-miss and expensive tube system. Thus, we’re experiencing a greater volume of bicycles coming into a system unable to cope.
Just as with schemes such as Canary Wharf that opened some years ago without a proper public transport infrastructure in place; so Johnson has rolled out a cycle hire scheme without first ensuring there is an infrastructure to support it.
Too many cyclists choose to use pavements (I’m not referring to cycle paths) illegally; when asked why some will admit it is to avoid a one-way system; others that it meant they didn’t wait at a red light; but, most will admit that they find the roads too dangerous.
Thus, as cycling increases so our pavements will be invaded more and more. The two groups who will suffer from this are mobility impaired disabled pedestrians (I include manual wheelies in this category) and infirm elderly people.
When a cycle is bearing down on you at speeds of 10-12 mph it is difficult for someone with a mobility impairment to take evasive action – indeed, it is difficult if the speed is a mere 4 mph. Over the years, as a walking ped, I’ve been hit six times by cyclists; four times on the pavement, knocked over once; and, twice whilst legally crossing the road, again knocked over once. As a wheelchair user I’ve been hit twice – caught once on the hand and a front wheel hit me on the knee.
I wish the cycling scheme good luck. However, I do ask that greater consideration be taken by all cyclists; and, that they remember they are also bound by the laws of the land and road.
There are parts of London I can no longer safely push my wheelchair because bicycles are taking over. As our public transport system becomes more expensive and less reliable more people are taking to two-wheels. This should be heartening leading to less motorised vehicles clogging up our roads and lungs.
If the migration was from the car to the bicycle we’d definitely see a greater greening of London. However, the largest migration is from public transport to the bicycle; many of whom will have abandoned a hit-and-miss and expensive tube system. Thus, we’re experiencing a greater volume of bicycles coming into a system unable to cope.
Just as with schemes such as Canary Wharf that opened some years ago without a proper public transport infrastructure in place; so Johnson has rolled out a cycle hire scheme without first ensuring there is an infrastructure to support it.
Too many cyclists choose to use pavements (I’m not referring to cycle paths) illegally; when asked why some will admit it is to avoid a one-way system; others that it meant they didn’t wait at a red light; but, most will admit that they find the roads too dangerous.
Thus, as cycling increases so our pavements will be invaded more and more. The two groups who will suffer from this are mobility impaired disabled pedestrians (I include manual wheelies in this category) and infirm elderly people.
When a cycle is bearing down on you at speeds of 10-12 mph it is difficult for someone with a mobility impairment to take evasive action – indeed, it is difficult if the speed is a mere 4 mph. Over the years, as a walking ped, I’ve been hit six times by cyclists; four times on the pavement, knocked over once; and, twice whilst legally crossing the road, again knocked over once. As a wheelchair user I’ve been hit twice – caught once on the hand and a front wheel hit me on the knee.
I wish the cycling scheme good luck. However, I do ask that greater consideration be taken by all cyclists; and, that they remember they are also bound by the laws of the land and road.
How to Improve London’s Public Transport System
Extend the Congestion Charge to the M25 at the same time as making all public transport free at the point of use. When the GLC brought in their ‘Fares Fair’ policy in 1981 there was a massive uptake. Thousands of people abandoned their cars to travel on affordable public transport.
Couldn’t have that now, could we. A transport scheme that actually offered people cheap travel. A system that was taking cars off the roads. No we couldn’t; and so, the car industry, tyre manufacturers and petrol companies got into their tame poodles in government and when wealthy Bromley Council won a case on the grounds of fiduciary duty against ‘Fares Fair’ it scuppered any chances London had of having a decent public transport system and less congested roads.
The year following the scrapping of the scheme saw an increase of 6,000 serious accidents. Nobody will ever know how many, hundreds of thousands possibly, extra cases of asthma the short-term-ist scrapping caused.
Vested interest is a hard one to fight. When it comes to the few protecting their narrow interests through the structures and mechanisms of state and beyond the rest of us don’t stand a chance.
Couldn’t have that now, could we. A transport scheme that actually offered people cheap travel. A system that was taking cars off the roads. No we couldn’t; and so, the car industry, tyre manufacturers and petrol companies got into their tame poodles in government and when wealthy Bromley Council won a case on the grounds of fiduciary duty against ‘Fares Fair’ it scuppered any chances London had of having a decent public transport system and less congested roads.
The year following the scrapping of the scheme saw an increase of 6,000 serious accidents. Nobody will ever know how many, hundreds of thousands possibly, extra cases of asthma the short-term-ist scrapping caused.
Vested interest is a hard one to fight. When it comes to the few protecting their narrow interests through the structures and mechanisms of state and beyond the rest of us don’t stand a chance.
Congestion on the South Bank
The poor old South Bank; a recipe for carnage. First of all fill the pot with thousands of tourists who are in no particular hurry to get no place in particular; add to this pedestrian Londoners on their way to work, or someplace particularly; throw in a few skateboarders heading for their spot in the Queen Elizabeth Hall’s undercroft; sprinkle around a score or more of those painted idol-curios who though standing still draw the attention of the idle-curious; into this mess of potage throw dozens of red-faced panting sweating joggers; and, then drizzle the whole thing with a few hundred cyclists...oh, and me in my wheelchair being walked over by Tommy tourist as he takes just one more step backwards in his quest to get all seventeen of his party into the shot with the man dressed as a something-or-other and painted slate grey!
Pavement Cyclists – again!
Cyclists have the same option we all have – don’t break the law. As a disabled person I’ve lobbied government on a number of issues. Some have been successful others less so. Rather than break the law cyclists should lobby government in order to get improvements to the woefully inadequate infrastructure they have to contend with.
There are very hot debates on other sites about pavement cyclists. Alas, far too many of the cyclists believe it is their right to mount pavements whenever the going gets tough; a lot of them are of the opinion it is fine to run red lights.
When challenged about their illegal, dangerous and blatantly anti-social attitudes they go on the attack blaming motorists for all their ills.
As a non-driver who gets about London a fair bit as a car passenger I see things from quite a unique position. In my estimation it is nip and tuck as to who is the greater offender, motorists or cyclists.
I’ve observed some incredibly stupid, nigh on suicidal, cycling stunts pulled – especially by ‘guerrilla’ cyclists attempting to undertake lorries the size of small buildings. This is either bravado or reckless endangerment to their own health and safety.
On the other hand, I’ve spotted drivers turning from side roads onto major roads without giving passing cyclists the chance to clear their paths. You know, the driver spots a gap in the traffic; and, vroom off he goes to nick his bit of road; in such instances cyclists are not part of the traffic – I must say the latter occurs far more than the undertaking instance.
There are very hot debates on other sites about pavement cyclists. Alas, far too many of the cyclists believe it is their right to mount pavements whenever the going gets tough; a lot of them are of the opinion it is fine to run red lights.
When challenged about their illegal, dangerous and blatantly anti-social attitudes they go on the attack blaming motorists for all their ills.
As a non-driver who gets about London a fair bit as a car passenger I see things from quite a unique position. In my estimation it is nip and tuck as to who is the greater offender, motorists or cyclists.
I’ve observed some incredibly stupid, nigh on suicidal, cycling stunts pulled – especially by ‘guerrilla’ cyclists attempting to undertake lorries the size of small buildings. This is either bravado or reckless endangerment to their own health and safety.
On the other hand, I’ve spotted drivers turning from side roads onto major roads without giving passing cyclists the chance to clear their paths. You know, the driver spots a gap in the traffic; and, vroom off he goes to nick his bit of road; in such instances cyclists are not part of the traffic – I must say the latter occurs far more than the undertaking instance.
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Rhydian Fôn James
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 08.00 BST
“According to the national statistics, there is a benefit worth £8.2bn a year where fraud runs at 1%, twice the rate of both disability living allowance and incapacity benefit. These benefits are the pension credit and the state pension, and a pilot review in 2005-06 estimated the cost to the taxpayer up to £51m a year in fraud.
The vast majority of pension credit claimants make genuine claims for money to support them in old age. Only a few very strange people would suggest that pensions should be cut for everyone, just because a handful of pensioners play fast and loose with the system. And yet, that is the argument made for the sick and disabled. Why? It is all about the tabloid-stoked perception of anyone claiming disability-related benefits as potential scroungers who are able to work. This line of thought suggests that most disabled people are capable of some kind of work – however minimal – and that benefits disincentivise work. Such thinking allows the government to take a hacksaw to the welfare state in the guise of benevolence aimed at reducing fraud.
Incapacity benefit (IB) supports those too ill to work, and disability living allowance (DLA) helps claimants meet the extra costs of their disability whether in work or not. DLA is not – cannot be – a disincentive to work as it is paid to support the costs of disability, whether in work or not, and paid for the most part at the rate of £19 per week. IB could, potentially, be a disincentive, but only if a claimant suddenly recovered and yet managed to fool the already stringent assessment procedures. The only reason why some people with serious conditions would choose to subsist on these benefits rather than work is more about the difficulty of findingsuitable, accessible, and flexible work.
Finding work is difficult enough for the fit and healthy, but if you are one of the 11 million people – from cabinet office estimates – in Britain who is disabled, injured, or suffers from ill-health, then your condition may make it harder to move beyond the interview stage. Enabling most claimants to work means that jobs would have to be tailored to their needs. This means taking account for weeks and months off work, short days, regular shifts in working hours, work days and deadlines, the distraction of severe pain, post-medication sleepiness or sickness, susceptibility to colds, flu and bugs, and the need for home-working.
At least a couples of these issues will affect most claimants, no matter what their level of mobility. This fact makes a poor joke of the idea that most disabled people, even if capable of some work-related task, would be able to cope with employment not adjusted to their symptoms. Employers already complain about statutory maternity leave, so how would they cope with making adjustments to complex and long-term needs, affecting their profitability? And how can people be declared "fit" to work if employers won't give them jobs because of their illness?
The access to work scheme has been partly successful in removing the physical barriers to work, but there is more to true accessibility than a disabled toilet and accessible office. Many more disabled people could work than the current number, but this would require a huge change in the employment market beyond the "reasonable adjustment" required by the disability discrimination act. Such a change would require huge investment by the government. Rather than facilitating the transition of some claimants into work they can do, it is cheaper to cut people's benefits and set them up to fail in a dog-eat-dog labour market.
The "migration" of IB claimants to the new employment support allowance(ESA) is a warning for DLA claimants. George Osborne recently announced a new medical-test for DLA claimants to reduce nonexistent disincentives to work, and to tackle the miniscule level of fraud. It will probably be the same type of unfair programme, run by private contractors Atos, aimed at reducing the caseload for DLA by 20%. This implicit target for throwing people off DLA is easily seen in June's budget.
As for fraud, there is little justification for a catch-all punishment. Atos will get £500m over seven years for kicking people off benefits, while fraud in IB over this period will add up to around £250m: the tests intended to stop the fraud cost twice as much as the actual fraud! This means that the only way Atos can be value-for-money is if they cut £250m off the ESA caseload – so that there is indeed an implicit target, just as there is for the DLA caseload. The real story isn't of cheating disabled people, but of a government with a badly hidden agenda.”
“According to the national statistics, there is a benefit worth £8.2bn a year where fraud runs at 1%, twice the rate of both disability living allowance and incapacity benefit. These benefits are the pension credit and the state pension, and a pilot review in 2005-06 estimated the cost to the taxpayer up to £51m a year in fraud.
The vast majority of pension credit claimants make genuine claims for money to support them in old age. Only a few very strange people would suggest that pensions should be cut for everyone, just because a handful of pensioners play fast and loose with the system. And yet, that is the argument made for the sick and disabled. Why? It is all about the tabloid-stoked perception of anyone claiming disability-related benefits as potential scroungers who are able to work. This line of thought suggests that most disabled people are capable of some kind of work – however minimal – and that benefits disincentivise work. Such thinking allows the government to take a hacksaw to the welfare state in the guise of benevolence aimed at reducing fraud.
Incapacity benefit (IB) supports those too ill to work, and disability living allowance (DLA) helps claimants meet the extra costs of their disability whether in work or not. DLA is not – cannot be – a disincentive to work as it is paid to support the costs of disability, whether in work or not, and paid for the most part at the rate of £19 per week. IB could, potentially, be a disincentive, but only if a claimant suddenly recovered and yet managed to fool the already stringent assessment procedures. The only reason why some people with serious conditions would choose to subsist on these benefits rather than work is more about the difficulty of findingsuitable, accessible, and flexible work.
Finding work is difficult enough for the fit and healthy, but if you are one of the 11 million people – from cabinet office estimates – in Britain who is disabled, injured, or suffers from ill-health, then your condition may make it harder to move beyond the interview stage. Enabling most claimants to work means that jobs would have to be tailored to their needs. This means taking account for weeks and months off work, short days, regular shifts in working hours, work days and deadlines, the distraction of severe pain, post-medication sleepiness or sickness, susceptibility to colds, flu and bugs, and the need for home-working.
At least a couples of these issues will affect most claimants, no matter what their level of mobility. This fact makes a poor joke of the idea that most disabled people, even if capable of some work-related task, would be able to cope with employment not adjusted to their symptoms. Employers already complain about statutory maternity leave, so how would they cope with making adjustments to complex and long-term needs, affecting their profitability? And how can people be declared "fit" to work if employers won't give them jobs because of their illness?
The access to work scheme has been partly successful in removing the physical barriers to work, but there is more to true accessibility than a disabled toilet and accessible office. Many more disabled people could work than the current number, but this would require a huge change in the employment market beyond the "reasonable adjustment" required by the disability discrimination act. Such a change would require huge investment by the government. Rather than facilitating the transition of some claimants into work they can do, it is cheaper to cut people's benefits and set them up to fail in a dog-eat-dog labour market.
The "migration" of IB claimants to the new employment support allowance(ESA) is a warning for DLA claimants. George Osborne recently announced a new medical-test for DLA claimants to reduce nonexistent disincentives to work, and to tackle the miniscule level of fraud. It will probably be the same type of unfair programme, run by private contractors Atos, aimed at reducing the caseload for DLA by 20%. This implicit target for throwing people off DLA is easily seen in June's budget.
As for fraud, there is little justification for a catch-all punishment. Atos will get £500m over seven years for kicking people off benefits, while fraud in IB over this period will add up to around £250m: the tests intended to stop the fraud cost twice as much as the actual fraud! This means that the only way Atos can be value-for-money is if they cut £250m off the ESA caseload – so that there is indeed an implicit target, just as there is for the DLA caseload. The real story isn't of cheating disabled people, but of a government with a badly hidden agenda.”
Friday, 30 July 2010
John McDonnell's not on the Ballot Paper
On the issue of John McDonnell; unfortunately, John didn’t get on the nomination paper the last time, or this. Yes, we did put in place a policy which called for John McDonnell to be put on the ballot paper. The problem is that Unite isn’t the Labour Party; and, the fact that we put forward motions doesn’t mean they’re implemented by the Party.
The question we need to ask is why there aren’t enough Socialist MPs left in the Labour Party; MPs who have living breathing links with the trade unions through their CLPs and constituents – in a discussion a couple of years ago we, the T&G side, could only think of one ‘blue’ collar MP, Clive Efford, a ex-cabbie.
As a union we need to identify good people from our membership; bus drivers, factory workers, health workers, social service delivers, chippies, IT workers, bank staff. The current crop of Labour MPs with, embarrassingly, few exceptions look the same as their counterparts on the benches opposite.
The men in conservative suits with their conformist, don’t-bend-the-trend-lest-they-tell-us-apart, haircuts; and, the women in their Stepford Wives, look-at-me-I’m-cabinet-material-and-will-sell-out-my-sex-to-break-the-glass-ceiling, get-ups.
Come on David; you’re a bright lad. Let’s get you some training; I’m sure we can knock you into shape by the next election.
Seán
The question we need to ask is why there aren’t enough Socialist MPs left in the Labour Party; MPs who have living breathing links with the trade unions through their CLPs and constituents – in a discussion a couple of years ago we, the T&G side, could only think of one ‘blue’ collar MP, Clive Efford, a ex-cabbie.
As a union we need to identify good people from our membership; bus drivers, factory workers, health workers, social service delivers, chippies, IT workers, bank staff. The current crop of Labour MPs with, embarrassingly, few exceptions look the same as their counterparts on the benches opposite.
The men in conservative suits with their conformist, don’t-bend-the-trend-lest-they-tell-us-apart, haircuts; and, the women in their Stepford Wives, look-at-me-I’m-cabinet-material-and-will-sell-out-my-sex-to-break-the-glass-ceiling, get-ups.
Come on David; you’re a bright lad. Let’s get you some training; I’m sure we can knock you into shape by the next election.
Seán
Diane Abbott's Failure to be Nominated by Unite's NPC
Diane Abbott received the support of the London and Eastern Political Committee. The fact that Diane attended the hustings and gave as good an account of herself as any of the others, in some areas even exposing her Leftist leanings, was why we opted for her.
Ed Balls take on the deficit were probably more to our liking. That is rather than, Diane Abbott’s view which is 50% from taxation and 50% from cuts; Balls’ would raise NI, the top rate in income tax and make efficiency savings in the public sector – sure, that’d call for cuts; but, nothing on the scale Abbot proposed; and, nowhere near the levels about to be delivered by the ConDems.
Last week I attended the Vauxhall CLP hustings. Four of the leadership candidates sent along representatives – two were former Labour ministers; and one, quite refreshingly an 18-year old researcher. Diane Abbott didn’t deem this hustings important enough to send anyone; indeed, she didn’t even send a letter for the Chair to read out on her behalf.
It’s not as though Diane doesn’t know anyone in the CLP. She knows Kingsley; and, she knows me after Kingsley introduced us at the hustings two-weeks ago. Why didn’t she ask Kings or me to speak on her behalf – a simple script would have sufficed. Despite this I voted for Diane; and, she still managed to poll around 4-votes.
By this Saturday, the day of the Unite NPC, the word was out that Ed Milliband should be the preferred candidate. If you’re not aware, the NPC has a built-in right-wing majority. Add to this the fact that around 8 United Left members of the Committee were absent; we had a stark choice.
The overwhelming right majority wasn’t going to entertain Diane; and, we were a pitiful minority. Chances are that had we pushed for Abbott; the hard rightists may have gone for their (real preferred) choice, David Milliband. As it was there was a real sense amongst the NPC that the soft right would support Ed Milliband; but, under no circumstances Diane Abbott.
When confronted with such dilemmas it is sometimes prudent to opt for a lesser evil. That’s what we did.
As for the Executive; they didn’t really have a choice given that the NPC had voted by 24 to 4 to 4 to 1 to 1 for EM. Had the vote been closer; then they could have argued there was no mandate; but, for one candidate to beat his nearest opponents by 20 in a 5-way ballot where only 34 votes were cast – I rest my case...
Seán
Ed Balls take on the deficit were probably more to our liking. That is rather than, Diane Abbott’s view which is 50% from taxation and 50% from cuts; Balls’ would raise NI, the top rate in income tax and make efficiency savings in the public sector – sure, that’d call for cuts; but, nothing on the scale Abbot proposed; and, nowhere near the levels about to be delivered by the ConDems.
Last week I attended the Vauxhall CLP hustings. Four of the leadership candidates sent along representatives – two were former Labour ministers; and one, quite refreshingly an 18-year old researcher. Diane Abbott didn’t deem this hustings important enough to send anyone; indeed, she didn’t even send a letter for the Chair to read out on her behalf.
It’s not as though Diane doesn’t know anyone in the CLP. She knows Kingsley; and, she knows me after Kingsley introduced us at the hustings two-weeks ago. Why didn’t she ask Kings or me to speak on her behalf – a simple script would have sufficed. Despite this I voted for Diane; and, she still managed to poll around 4-votes.
By this Saturday, the day of the Unite NPC, the word was out that Ed Milliband should be the preferred candidate. If you’re not aware, the NPC has a built-in right-wing majority. Add to this the fact that around 8 United Left members of the Committee were absent; we had a stark choice.
The overwhelming right majority wasn’t going to entertain Diane; and, we were a pitiful minority. Chances are that had we pushed for Abbott; the hard rightists may have gone for their (real preferred) choice, David Milliband. As it was there was a real sense amongst the NPC that the soft right would support Ed Milliband; but, under no circumstances Diane Abbott.
When confronted with such dilemmas it is sometimes prudent to opt for a lesser evil. That’s what we did.
As for the Executive; they didn’t really have a choice given that the NPC had voted by 24 to 4 to 4 to 1 to 1 for EM. Had the vote been closer; then they could have argued there was no mandate; but, for one candidate to beat his nearest opponents by 20 in a 5-way ballot where only 34 votes were cast – I rest my case...
Seán
John McDonnell - not appreciated by all
“John McDonnell is an excellent candidate, in fact the best we have, to deliver votes to the Party using true left policies. If you don’t think the policies would be massively popular if only well presented why do you bother to stay on this list? Why bother being a socialist at all?”
John McDonnell has a number of excellent Left policies; policies that chime with the policies of Unite – though by all means not all.
Talking to family and friends I’ve found that Left policies aren’t as well received by others. To me, they make eminent sense; to my sister, a bright enough mother of three, they’re not the universal solution to this country’s problems; so, we agree to disagree – the bond of sibling love is a tight one.
Friends of mine argue against some of my Socialist ideas and ideals. They’re not right wing reactionaries; they just don’t have a sense that life can be lived along socialist lines; so, we agree to disagree – the bond of friendship can be a solid one.
Thus, looking around myself, and particularly outside my trade union and movement friends, Comrades and associates, I get the impression that John McDonnell’s policies, and John himself, are considered too radical; radical to the point of unworkable.
Some may view those thoughts of mine as a form of blasphemy. If that’s the case there is no way I’m going to change such an intransigent mind-set. Though, please accept that these are not my views; no, they’re merely my observations.
How then do we get past this sticking point at which we’ve arrived? How as Socialists do we make our policies more palatable to those who, if they only realised, are our natural allies. Inviting sceptical non-Socialists to the average Leftist meeting isn’t going to win over the multitudes we need to win the struggle – even I’ve been known to fall into the arms of Morpheus on occasions when one or other of our more soporific speakers launches into an interminable discourse...
The answer, of course, is we become relevant to them – but how?
I stay a Socialist because I can still remember the time I wasn’t a Socialist.
Seán
John McDonnell has a number of excellent Left policies; policies that chime with the policies of Unite – though by all means not all.
Talking to family and friends I’ve found that Left policies aren’t as well received by others. To me, they make eminent sense; to my sister, a bright enough mother of three, they’re not the universal solution to this country’s problems; so, we agree to disagree – the bond of sibling love is a tight one.
Friends of mine argue against some of my Socialist ideas and ideals. They’re not right wing reactionaries; they just don’t have a sense that life can be lived along socialist lines; so, we agree to disagree – the bond of friendship can be a solid one.
Thus, looking around myself, and particularly outside my trade union and movement friends, Comrades and associates, I get the impression that John McDonnell’s policies, and John himself, are considered too radical; radical to the point of unworkable.
Some may view those thoughts of mine as a form of blasphemy. If that’s the case there is no way I’m going to change such an intransigent mind-set. Though, please accept that these are not my views; no, they’re merely my observations.
How then do we get past this sticking point at which we’ve arrived? How as Socialists do we make our policies more palatable to those who, if they only realised, are our natural allies. Inviting sceptical non-Socialists to the average Leftist meeting isn’t going to win over the multitudes we need to win the struggle – even I’ve been known to fall into the arms of Morpheus on occasions when one or other of our more soporific speakers launches into an interminable discourse...
The answer, of course, is we become relevant to them – but how?
I stay a Socialist because I can still remember the time I wasn’t a Socialist.
Seán
Sunday, 25 July 2010
The Public Deficit
The current deficit is only 30% of the one we found ourselves with in 1945; yet, we went ahead and created a Welfare State; as well as funding a massive 1 million social housing project.
We could also look to raise revenue by:
• Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on banks;
• Raising tax thresholds on earners over £100,000;
• Pursuing the tax cheats who cost the country anything up to £100 billion a year.
The ConDem’s plans to slash public service/sector budgets by anything up to 40% will lead to anything up to ¾ of a million jobs losses. As many public contracts are won by companies in the private sector we’ll also see massive job losses here as contracts, such as those for schools, are shelved.
The idea that the private sector will somehow take up the slack from this debacle is risible. Manufacturing is on its knees. Look at the markets that would attract our manufactured goods: Europe, an economic basket case; USA, sliding back into recession; China and India, both these powers are looking at a downturn in growth.
If this regime carries out its plans, we’ll slip into a double-dip recession next year. We could then be looking at 4-5 million unemployed. But then, the last time the Tories were in power they were quite happy to allow mass unemployment to seize the country.
Wealthy Tories can afford to take these kinds of hits every so often; they even act as a catharsis. When the corner is turned they’re presented with millions of hungry eager people willing to take on any work under any conditions.
By the time we come to a lull in this recession (they never really end; merely stop to take breath) we’ll have sold off the NHS and most of our social services will be in the voluntary sector. Employees will be increasingly taken on under short-term contracts; the zero-hour contract will be a familiar form of ‘employment’; and, the poverty gap will become a chasm.
We need to open our eyes. The summer of 2010 is the beginning of a new class war. The enemy has positioned itself; it’s fired off a few salvos. If we don’t begin to defend our positions they will roll over us and smash us to pieces.
We could also look to raise revenue by:
• Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on banks;
• Raising tax thresholds on earners over £100,000;
• Pursuing the tax cheats who cost the country anything up to £100 billion a year.
The ConDem’s plans to slash public service/sector budgets by anything up to 40% will lead to anything up to ¾ of a million jobs losses. As many public contracts are won by companies in the private sector we’ll also see massive job losses here as contracts, such as those for schools, are shelved.
The idea that the private sector will somehow take up the slack from this debacle is risible. Manufacturing is on its knees. Look at the markets that would attract our manufactured goods: Europe, an economic basket case; USA, sliding back into recession; China and India, both these powers are looking at a downturn in growth.
If this regime carries out its plans, we’ll slip into a double-dip recession next year. We could then be looking at 4-5 million unemployed. But then, the last time the Tories were in power they were quite happy to allow mass unemployment to seize the country.
Wealthy Tories can afford to take these kinds of hits every so often; they even act as a catharsis. When the corner is turned they’re presented with millions of hungry eager people willing to take on any work under any conditions.
By the time we come to a lull in this recession (they never really end; merely stop to take breath) we’ll have sold off the NHS and most of our social services will be in the voluntary sector. Employees will be increasingly taken on under short-term contracts; the zero-hour contract will be a familiar form of ‘employment’; and, the poverty gap will become a chasm.
We need to open our eyes. The summer of 2010 is the beginning of a new class war. The enemy has positioned itself; it’s fired off a few salvos. If we don’t begin to defend our positions they will roll over us and smash us to pieces.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Disability Hate Crime
We’ll probably never know whether the feckless character of Lou has directly contributed any disability hate crimes. Just as it would be difficult to prove that rags such as the Heil incite demonization of disabled people – although the on-line replies to Daily Heil stories do go some way to opening a window to the viciousness and nastiness of many of their readers.
The problem with the Andy and Lou sketches and the repeated attacks on disabled people by the scurrilous right wing media is that some of it rubs off. A few years ago paedophiles were flavour of the month. Elements within the right-wing press began to act as judge and jury; and, as a result their reckless actions whipped up a vigilante attitude in several parts of the country.
People came out onto the streets baying for the blood of paedophiles. Sickening sights of toddlers displaying placards scrawled with hate were across our screens. There were even cases of men being wrongly identified as child molesters (due to a similarity in name) and driven from their homes.
In one incident someone got paedophile and paediatrician mixed up daubing the outside of a paediatrician’s house with the ‘PAEDO’ mark of shame.
When we are dealing with people who are so susceptible to exterior influences such as the word of a newspaper; is it so wide of the mark that they’ll react to what is supposed to be a comedy sketch. Especially, when the right wing press actually go out of their way to take the comedy sketch out of its comedic context and use it as an example of disabled people cheating the system.
After all, when columnists like Rod Liddel from such respected publications as the Times call upon readers to drag people from their wheelchairs and take them by the scruff of their necks off to the nearest Job Centre; what hope is there for us being treated with fairness?
The problem with the Andy and Lou sketches and the repeated attacks on disabled people by the scurrilous right wing media is that some of it rubs off. A few years ago paedophiles were flavour of the month. Elements within the right-wing press began to act as judge and jury; and, as a result their reckless actions whipped up a vigilante attitude in several parts of the country.
People came out onto the streets baying for the blood of paedophiles. Sickening sights of toddlers displaying placards scrawled with hate were across our screens. There were even cases of men being wrongly identified as child molesters (due to a similarity in name) and driven from their homes.
In one incident someone got paedophile and paediatrician mixed up daubing the outside of a paediatrician’s house with the ‘PAEDO’ mark of shame.
When we are dealing with people who are so susceptible to exterior influences such as the word of a newspaper; is it so wide of the mark that they’ll react to what is supposed to be a comedy sketch. Especially, when the right wing press actually go out of their way to take the comedy sketch out of its comedic context and use it as an example of disabled people cheating the system.
After all, when columnists like Rod Liddel from such respected publications as the Times call upon readers to drag people from their wheelchairs and take them by the scruff of their necks off to the nearest Job Centre; what hope is there for us being treated with fairness?
Andy and Lou's Tired Routine
Andy and Lou’s routine had a scintilla of humour about it for the first three hundred and seventy eight variations on the theme. However, by the 400 mark it was becoming a tad tired; passé, may I say, even.
Like many modern comedians Lucas and Walliams have a narrow range of material. The fact they get the opportunity to slightly reformat the same sketches for American and Australian tastes actually makes them lazy. For them it is much easier to regurgitate the same old guff with an American or down-under twist than to stretch their talents and abilities towards new horizons.
What a shame. These two comedians looked as though they had the potential to break new ground in comedy. Instead, they stoop to flogging the same dead horse from the BBC to the more lucrative commercial channels in a bid to squeeze every penny out of the dusty hides of Lou and Andy.
Like many modern comedians Lucas and Walliams have a narrow range of material. The fact they get the opportunity to slightly reformat the same sketches for American and Australian tastes actually makes them lazy. For them it is much easier to regurgitate the same old guff with an American or down-under twist than to stretch their talents and abilities towards new horizons.
What a shame. These two comedians looked as though they had the potential to break new ground in comedy. Instead, they stoop to flogging the same dead horse from the BBC to the more lucrative commercial channels in a bid to squeeze every penny out of the dusty hides of Lou and Andy.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
EDM 393 DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE - July 2010
Hoey, Kate edmi.parliament.uk/E...
“That this House urges the Government to recognise that the intention behind disability living allowance was not to award benefit based on a particular disabling condition but on the extent to which a severely disabled person has personal care or mobility needs as a result of living with their disability; understands that medical assessments and questionnaires cannot in practice be worded perfectly to reflect the legislation and case law; acknowledges that it is the role of the decision maker to determine a person's eligibility, based on all the relevant evidence, both medical and non-medical; considers that the administrative cost of medical assessments could be better used to make the benefit application process easier for disabled people to complete and to better support the decision maker; and calls on the Government to re-consider its decision to introduce medical assessments for new and existing claimants of disability living allowance.”
“That this House urges the Government to recognise that the intention behind disability living allowance was not to award benefit based on a particular disabling condition but on the extent to which a severely disabled person has personal care or mobility needs as a result of living with their disability; understands that medical assessments and questionnaires cannot in practice be worded perfectly to reflect the legislation and case law; acknowledges that it is the role of the decision maker to determine a person's eligibility, based on all the relevant evidence, both medical and non-medical; considers that the administrative cost of medical assessments could be better used to make the benefit application process easier for disabled people to complete and to better support the decision maker; and calls on the Government to re-consider its decision to introduce medical assessments for new and existing claimants of disability living allowance.”
I’m a Realist and a...
I’m a realist, a pragmatist, an optimist and a pessimist, depending on a given situation. Different circumstances call for different attitudes and views on life.
When it comes to my condition, at 53, I’m quite realistic about the chances of a cure – pretty minimal. Yet, the pragmatist in me tells me that, though in severe and constant pain, life’s still there to be lived and enjoyed.
At times I’m optimistic about my condition, in that if I look after myself properly; eat a balanced diet; and, do some exercise. This may arrest the speed of decline in my condition. Conversely, when the pain is in ascendancy my pessimistic nature kicks in; and, I wonder to myself how long I can endure this sort of life.
When it comes to my condition, at 53, I’m quite realistic about the chances of a cure – pretty minimal. Yet, the pragmatist in me tells me that, though in severe and constant pain, life’s still there to be lived and enjoyed.
At times I’m optimistic about my condition, in that if I look after myself properly; eat a balanced diet; and, do some exercise. This may arrest the speed of decline in my condition. Conversely, when the pain is in ascendancy my pessimistic nature kicks in; and, I wonder to myself how long I can endure this sort of life.
Fear of Fear Itself
Fear, which is quite unnecessarily propagated by the scum press. The rampant xenophobia dripping from the pages of these rags. Witch hunts against one group or another; invariably those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Fear, unfortunately, sells tabloids; often fear and loathing of those things people don’t properly understand. Disability is a good example.
Scurrilous right-wing rags such as the Heil whip-up a frenzy of fear amongst their Middle England readers. Millions and millions of disabled people are every day defrauding the system, they rant. By their reckoning benefits fraud is dragging the country into the Third World.
Child molesters stalk our streets; so, we must cosset our kids. All old people are the prey of muggers and confidence tricksters. Drug addicts roam our neighbourhoods looking to addict our teenagers with their evil.
Yes, all the things I’ve mentioned occur. However, much of this has been happening since the dawn of time. Sadly, children have been sexually abused ever since men (and it is predominantly men) have had a need to exert power over others.
But, rags such as the Heil set out to exploit our fears; and, in doing so often inculcate us with the need to fear, or hate, that we’re told will harm us. The Heil is so addicted to propagating hate and fear it can’t help itself. We should do the proper thing and stop feeding this particular Troll’s habit.
Fear, unfortunately, sells tabloids; often fear and loathing of those things people don’t properly understand. Disability is a good example.
Scurrilous right-wing rags such as the Heil whip-up a frenzy of fear amongst their Middle England readers. Millions and millions of disabled people are every day defrauding the system, they rant. By their reckoning benefits fraud is dragging the country into the Third World.
Child molesters stalk our streets; so, we must cosset our kids. All old people are the prey of muggers and confidence tricksters. Drug addicts roam our neighbourhoods looking to addict our teenagers with their evil.
Yes, all the things I’ve mentioned occur. However, much of this has been happening since the dawn of time. Sadly, children have been sexually abused ever since men (and it is predominantly men) have had a need to exert power over others.
But, rags such as the Heil set out to exploit our fears; and, in doing so often inculcate us with the need to fear, or hate, that we’re told will harm us. The Heil is so addicted to propagating hate and fear it can’t help itself. We should do the proper thing and stop feeding this particular Troll’s habit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)