Who now is the benefit scrounger? Running backwards to the 19th Century

Many times I have said how much I love the internet and how often it alerts me to a piece of commentary I may have otherwise missed. This morning, whilst catching up with various cousins: wishing one a happy 18th birthday; four of us having an inappropriate giggle over a silly news item; finding out how a dear friend in the US is faring healthwise; smiling at the latest cute picture of Second Youngest Granddaughter - I was alerted by a facebook 'political friend' to a piece in yesterday's Guardian by Suzanne Moore.

Lots has been written about Monday evening's Channel 5 programme 'The Big Benefit's Row'. With a title like that it really was not worth watching, but in the true 'Triumph of Hope Over Experience' spirit and because some good people were on it I thought I would give it a whirl. I didn't take into account that because it also boasted some people who I dislike, the whole thing could turn into a shambles ......

So, in my opinion, the show consisted of people like Ken Livingstone, Jack Monroe, Annabelle Giles, 'White Dee', Owen Jones putting [or rather attempting to put across] reasoned arguments for, statistics about and true case studies of those receiving welfare benefits Edwina Currie and Katie Hopkins hurled abuse and shouted down everyone with whom they disagreed. Yes those two woman really were that bad.

Audience members were not exempt from the opprobrium of the two women. One woman in the audience said she was out every day looking for a job, Currie shouted back at her 'Try harder'.  Panel member Rachel Johnson [editor of 'The Lady' and sister of Boris] put her arm round Jack Monroe and tried to defend her from the worst attacks of Currie and Hopkins. In my last blog I mentioned how benefits campaigner and disabled rights activist Sue Marsh was asked to come on the show and then sidelined and forgotten about. You can read her account here.

And of course someone had to mention during the programme how that dreaded and now demonised group - PENSIONERS - are taking the biggest chunk out of the welfare budget. How DARE they! Most of them having worked for forty plus years, paid tax and national insurance [okay some received Family Allowance. Big deal. Seven shillings and sixpence a week [thirty seven and a half pence] for the SECOND child was my stipend in 1975. And then - oh my - we were granted it for the first child also around 1978. I holidayed in Florida on that. NOT.

It was truly an awful programme. But it seems people are still talking about it [so am I, here!] and when I went out with a large group of friends the evening after the programme it seemed as if the discussion naturally turned to the programme. We all went to uni together back when rocks were soft and now we seem to represent all shades of political opinion and life experience, all of us aged around the 60 age mark, some of us now drawing our state pension. One of our number, who has suffered some truly calamitous life events and after her employer was forced, due to the recession, some years ago to close down his business can only find a job with one of the biggest employers in her village. She 'admitted' that - as she is only paid the minimum wage for her 40 hour week - she needs benefits to top up her wage. In fact most of the employees in her factory have this top up. But her employer is a respected local employer with all the trappings of a wealthy man? Sound familiar to students of the 19th? Who now is the benefit scrounger? The employees or the employer?

I could also talk about my niece who has been for so many job interviews, told on one occasion she must attend wearing a 'business suit' and yet when she arrived was told the person she was to see was 'out for the day'. No-one repaid her travelling expenses or for the suit she had bought [the job centre hadn't sanctioned it. The call for the interview had only been made the night before so presumably the interviewer had had a better offer between making the call and my niece arriving, despite having demanded the correct wearing apparel]; I could talk about the young man I was trying to help find a job for weeks by letting him use my lap top to search the job centre web site. Lots of jobs, pages and pages from one of the pizza delivery shops: zero hours contracts and must provide own car. However tips could be kept; I could talk about the cousin who was struck off DLA by ATOS despite a letter from her consultant and walking with two sticks, and how she had tried for two years to get smaller social housing from her council as she could not afford the heating bills only to be told there was nothing smaller in the area but as soon as the 'bedroom tax' came into force she was fined for having a spare bedroom; I could talk about the single mother who forced to move because of the 'bedroom tax' applied for a bus pass for her son to get to school only to be told he was not eligible as she had 'chosen' to move.

I could talk about all these immoral acts - but what would be the point when those like Edwina Currie, Katie Hopkins and members of this uncaring coalition government would not listen, care or shout me down?



The picture above is from January 2013, I could not access a more upto date one. Below are the figures for 2011/2012, which will obviously have changed thanks to ATOS and the 'bedroom tax'.

A Lesson in Double Standards or an Open Blog to Lord Rothermere

When teaching, especially small children, sometimes the easiest way to teach literary terms, everyday sayings, proverbs etc is to give an example of the point under discussion.

So today's example for the saying under discussion 'Double Standards' was provided nicely for me by a discussion on last night's BBC2 Newsnight programme. If you missed the piece in question you can view it here.

The piece featured an interview with Jon Steafel, the deputy editor of the Daily Mail followed by a discussion between Steafel and Alistair Campbell on the subject of the Mail's article by Geoffrey Levy published last Saturday attacking Ed Miliband's father Ralph. 

Interviewed by Emily Maitlis, Steafel defended his paper's decision to publish the article by suggesting that Ed Milliband must have been influenced by his father's 'dangerous' political views which commenced with a diary entry of a boy of seventeen, quoted out of context* . However when Maitlis asked whether the paper's owner - Lord Rothermere - had been influenced by his g.grandfather's publication in 1934 of the article written by him [and adult!!] Hurrah for the Blackshirts 

Steafel insisted it would not have done! I was surprised that the walls of the studio did not fall in with such a blatant example of Double Standards.

In the interview on Newsnight, Alistair Campbell displays - imo - a righteous anger against the Daily Mail. Today's edition of the Daily Mail shows no repentance. 

Normally I try to inject a bit of humour into my blogs. I cannot find anything funny in this subject.

*In an article in today's Guardian the author of Ralph Miliband and the Politics of the New Left (Merlin Press, 2002), Michael Newman explains how the Mail distorted quotes from his book.

Top pic taken from: http://www.theyuniversity.net/post/4302918770/unfortunately-double-standards-exist-everywhere

What Offends You?

Photograph courtesy of The Guardian

There was a very interesting article in yesterday's Guardian's [20th September] 'Comment is Free' by Lemn Sissay about the sale of Golliwogs in a shop in the Shetland Isles. Like Lemn, I am always very offended if I see these 'dolls' on sale in a shop - but instead of complaining to the shop owner, Lemn blogged about the experience and then wrote about the effects of this blog and how he felt in the Guardian yesterday.

After his original blog, there was quite a furore in Shetland and the shop owner was rather upset. The article in the Guardian yesterday is - I think - Lemn justifying his blog. It is very interesting as it details the history of Golliwogs [I do hate that word] but in a way displays a lack of understanding about the way a previous generation [he talks about an grey lady, and elderly lady. Probably my age for goodness sake!] played with these dolls without any awareness of their duplicitous meaning. Now I am older and wiser [well perhaps] and would never have bought these dolls for my children and grandchildren.

Whilst I completely agree your feelings, Lemn, when you saw the dolls on sale [I don't even want to use the 'descriptive' name of them because I feel it is that offensive] and I think your blog is fair because it describes your feelings, I think it would have been even fairer if you had explained to the little old lady that you objected to the sale of the dolls, and why.I remember having one of these dolls as a child, reading about them in Enid Blyton's books and collecting the replicas on jars of jam to get an enamel brooch [I am so ashamed of these I won't even sell them on ebay!!] But that was then, I was tiny and it was the 1950s. Now I know better and when I was staying at a resort a couple of years ago where the shop was selling plastic 4 inch such  dolls I complained to the owners and they have been taken from sale. However in the Lake District last year, where all sizes of Peter Rabbits, Jemima PuddleDuck et al were being sold [at rather inflated prices] in many shops in many towns it became impractical to complain in everyone, packed as they were with tourists eager to part with their money. Was I a coward? Probably.
The photograph of you and the dolls is probably the most powerful statement of the whole piece, btw.Michael Rosen's advice was excellent. Because what children learn, the adult teaches. So Lemn, what do I conclude? Keep on blogging and complaining about the racist connotations of these iniquitous dolls.  But if it is any use to you, I always warn 'subjects' if I am going to 'use' them in a rant and credit the photos. So take this as notice that I will do both! Haven't written the blog yet but it will be on http://rephidimstreet.blogspot.co.uk/ Don't worry, I have nowhere near as many readers as you!

Sometimes we get so absorbed in our justified passions that we find it difficult to step outside ourselves to see another's point of view. I can be as guilty of this as the next person. I have also been in the position where someone has unwittingly insulted me - when - as too often happens - someone shouts at me 'Are you deaf?' I don't actually feel offended because I am deaf, usually I find it funny because I realise I have covered it up rather well. On the odd day when I am in a bad mood this can upset me!! But we do need to always allow the other person to express their point of view. Even if we think, ultimately, that it is rubbish.

What offends you?

You Really Couldn't Make This Up, Sadly

Something I love about facebook is the way that it can spark a train of thoughts which ends up as a blog on this site! But a post from one of my friend's today had me almost speechless [odd I know!] and wondering if I have somehow 'shifted' into some kind of parallel, satiric world.

The link which this friend posted was to Wings Over Scotland
which is a 'Scottish political website, which focuses particularly on the media – whether mainstream print and broadcast organisations or the online and social-network community – as well as offering its own commentary and analysis' [to quote from their 'about us'] and the post upon which I am concentrating is from July 31st and entitled The Pride of Britain. Do please read it.

The premise of the article - which shows photos of various MPs [across parties] - opening food banks up and down Britain - is how can representatives of the people look so happy to be opening what is surely symbolic of something which shows the shame of Britain. The idea that food banks are necessary in the 21st century because welfare benefits and wages are insufficient for many to be able to feed themselves and their families surely must fill any caring citizen with concern? The idea - boasted about in parliament last week - the job centres refer claimants to food banks - is, to me, toxic. Patrick Butler wrote an excellent blog about the the DWP shenigans via the job centres  in the Guardian earlier this month. Please read this too.

I have 'lifted' the photograph above from the Wings over Scotland article. In their words it shows

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander MP, opening a foodbank with a cretinous smile on his face as if being a member of the government of a modern industrial nation in need of foodbanks was something to be happy about

In the 60s satirical TV programmes arrived on our TV screen and were welcomed by my generation and shocked the older generations. We laughed at the scenarios posed by That Was The Week That Was, The Frost Report, Rowan and Martyn's Laugh-In, At Last The 1948 Show and more. Nothing approached this true life stupidity.

I have posited before that we are returning to the 19thC ideals of the 'Deserving Poor'. [BTW that link refers to the Disraeli novel Sybil, subtitled Two Nation another prase often heard. Read it and weep]

Well, I seem to have given you all a lot of reading homework. I must have temporarily forgotten that I am retired and no longer lecturing. But if we don't learn the lessons of the past and additionally remain aware of what is going on in our present, we will have severe problems in the future. 

So this 'Bedroom Tax' saves money?

Sometimes I think that I am remarkably thick. I obviously don't understand economics. You see this 'Bedroom Tax' that the Coalition Government introduced was said to be the way to saving lots of money. I couldn't understand that at the time, but then my degree is not in economics. I have only run household accounts and back when rocks were soft I worked in accountancy as a pa, preparing accounts to draft account levels. Oh and did the accounts for a few charities and organisations. But I am not a government guru or anything like that. Obviously.


So when I read this in the Guardian this morning:

More than 25,000 people applied for DHP [Discretionary Housing Payments] to help cover April rent, compared with 5,700 in same month last year

I felt a renewed faith in my own Economics theories.

But what can never be 'measured' in any scale, graph or pie chart is the untold misery that Welfare cuts like the 'Bedroom Tax' bring - not just to individuals involved but to their extended families and friends.

I have a young relative who is one of those that has had been put into considerable hardship by more than one of the cruel moves - intended to save 'taxpayers money' by the government. Jo was a taxpayer for many years, with a good job gained after years of qualifications studied for and passed. In a relationship with one child. But then life tripped Jo up, almost literally. The relationship broke down and the partner disappeared to another country, out of the reach of the CSA. No matter, Jo's job could support Jo and one child - just. No need to move, living in a three bedroomed social housing Jo could pay all the bills and send child to the good local school and then hopefully to university.

Then came the 'trip up'. Jo had an accident at work, who informed Jo that there was no case for a compensation claim after the period of statuary sick pay had expired. Consultants at the hospital forbade Jo to attempt to resume the job that had caused the injury. As some days Jo could not get out of bed there was no other course but to claim disability benefit.

Eighteen months ago Jo asked the council for a move into a smaller property as the three bedroom house was not only too big but too costly to heat. The council could not find anything smaller so Jo and son had to continue living in a house that they would love to leave due to the expenses and realised as soon as the 'Bedroom Tax' was  mooted Jo knew would not be able to afford.

Fortunately at the last minute Jo managed to do a 'private' exchange, but with all savings gone Jo's OAP parents had to helped out financially and physically with the removal. However Jo's son now has to pay fares to school, and has been refused a bus pass because Jo CHOSE to move and there is a school near to there new home - even though he is taking his 'O' levels in a couple of months. 

What makes it even harder is whilst all this has been happening Jo has been appealing an ATOS ruling at the moment who have deemed Jo fit to work despite all the medical advice and records. 

Jo is not an unusual case. Google and lots of such histories can be found, one heartbreaking example is Diary of a Benefit Scrounger   People in Jo's situation must honestly feel that society are against them - and why shouldn't they.

I know I have said this before, but to me, frighteningly, this apology for a government seems intent on returning to 19thC values. That is, the ideals of 'deserving poor' and the 'Protestant Work Ethic'. However this Government's deserving poor don't seem to exist to them at all and the Protestant Work Ethic seems only to work in one way - the poor should work but get shafted by the Patriarchial Society until they drop dead with cold, exhausation or hunger. But never mind, there will be another one [unemployed] along in a minute whom we can exploit. And if I sound cyncial and bigoted, maybe it is because I am.

I do like to have a bit of humour in my writing. Today my humour has gone walk about and is hopefully is helping those marching in London in support of the NHS. I am there in spirit but Other Half has been on another demo and I have been dispensing Grandmotherly duties.

Useful Links:

Shelter: Bedroom tax from April 2013

Facebook: B.A.C.T Bedroom and Council Tax Advice and Support.

ATOS Victims Group: http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/

Photo above courtesy of birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com

It's only words.......*

Words have always been important, of course. But with the rise of social networking and blogging perhaps the power of 'written words' in the 21st century has re-gained a prominence that has not occured since the rise of newcasting and documentary programmes in audio/visual media.

Newspapers now also have an online presence. They get two 'goes' at getting their stories across to those of the public who have access to the world wide web. An overheard comment about, f'r instance, a story in The Sun can send one scurrying to its' url. [Actually that happened this morning. I would never buy that paper but heard on the news that they feel mandated - tongue in cheek - to reply to the President of Argentina's letter which appeared in the Guardian and Independent yesterday. But I digress]

However the potentional to misuse words within the social networks is immense. Bullying becomes easy - and not just between teenagers. Discussions can turn into slanging matches and there are several markers to watch out for:
1. But - What I have just said was reasonable, now I am going to say something really nasty/racist/sexist , which is what I really think.
2. No offence intended - I can now be as offensive as I like because I have said I don't mean it but I really do.
3. Don't get me wrong but - Both of the above, really.
4. I am only telling you for your own good - Because I have a different opinion to you, you are WRONG.
5. Making an insulting comment humourous^ does not lessen its' potential to hurt [see^ below]

But bullying seems to be invading our society, sadly. David Cameron is only too good at it. Listen to him [yes I know it is hard] in Prime Minister's Questiontime. When he is answering something he does not like, a hectoring tone enters his voice and if he can slip in a pejorative comment about his questioner/the question subject he will. Other politicians are guilty of this too.

Face to face discussions all too readily descend into slanging matches. Watch Newsnight or Questiontime, listen to Any Questions or a 'phone in radio programme. Where are those debating skills of which we used to be so proud? Some individuals think they can deliver a really cutting comment to another and laugh, thus 'easing' the pain they have just inflicted. Well it doesn't, actually.

Cabinet ministers deliver bullying speeches - by suggesting that many benefit claimaints do not deserve their welfare benefits or are lazy etc. I suspect that many elderly people felt guilty at taking the measly amount that is paid out as the heating allowance [cut from what it was a couple of years ago btw] after all the media attention given to various [better off] elderly people [celebrities mostly] and government spokespeople were stating publicly that many pensioners did not need the payment. Forget the years that many of us have paid tax to receive these 'benefits'. Change the word to 'entitlements' and see the perspective change. And 'better off pensioners' of course pay tax and if the automatic 'entitlements' are included as taxable income...... work it out George Osbourne. Oh sorry, perhaps you can't?^ [See how easy it is to make a nasty, bullying quip?]

Please, let us start this New Year by being kinder to one and other. Bullying is too easy to do and hard from which to recover.

Wishing you all a Peaceful and Joyous 2013.





* Apologies to the Bee Gees

The picture above is of a poster for the 2010 film The Social Network

The Day that Murdoch [should have] cried*

I have never admired Rupert Murdoch since his company took over the Sun newspaper in 1969. As I wrote on the 20th July last year:

I have to declare my interest here. I have never liked Rupert Murdoch's business style or ethos. He bought The Sun in 1969, five years after it had morphed from the sadly missed Labour Party Daily Herald into a new left leaning broadsheet called The Sun in 1964. Rupert Murdoch then changed it into the tabloid that everyone knows today. My father was a lobby correspondent on the old Daily Herald and transferred to the new Sun until his death in 1967. I have never bought The Sun since 1969.

A headline to a Guardian article today giving the findings of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee declares:

Rupert Murdoch 'not fit' to lead major international company, MPs conclude.
Select committee also says James Murdoch showed 'wilful ignorance' of extent of phone hacking at News of the World

Here is a link to the Guardian Report.

Do I sound vindictive? That honestly is not the intention. This morning I was discussing press releases with a comrade and we were lingering for some time over exact wording and ensuring that an MP was not mis-quoted. Something I consider even more important now that newspaper quotes can be disseminated even further afield thanks to the internet. Its a shame that the Murdochs of this world did not take their respnsibilities so seriously. They besmirch the good name of good journalists and media commentators everywhere.

And before it is too late, Fraternal May Day greetings to you all!

*Apologies to Don McLean and American Pie

Power in the Union

Owen Jones has written a very uncomfortable blog in The New Statesman : Ed Balls' surrender is a political disaster. Uncomfortable for lots of reasons and for lots of people. Uncomfortable for its truthful content and uncomfortable to those who have caused him to find it necessary to write it. Please read it.

I cannot write anything like as well as Owen does. I remember him from the days when he was a political aide to the wonderful John McDonnell MP and it has been great to see Owen's journalism and writing becoming more and more successful. So whilst I have been still trying to work out how to put into words my feelings about Ed Balls comments last week, Owen has got there ahead of me and in a far better way. But enough of all this grovelling praise, and now for the reply I posted to his blog:

As an LRC member, a Unite member and a 40 year plus Labour party member what can I add Owen, except that I am also struggling to know what to say to those rubbing their hands with glee at what Balls said last week. Usually I can ‘PollyAnna’ most things and have managed to stay in the party all these years by thinking that there are some good people left who will fight their corner with me. Now it is getting harder to remain in the party. My constituency and local Labour party is full of good friends who I have known for many years and mostly feel like me, I would feel awful to leave them behind if I left. My parents and grandparents fought many elections, marched on many rallies and demos under Labour banners and saw the lot of the working man and woman improve in their lifetime. Their children and grandchildren received the university education of which they could only dream. Medical care at the point of need became a reality and not just an aspiration. I could say much more.However I have always said that the Unions have had the interests of the working class [and increasingly the non-working class due to the terrible unemployment figures - which in real terms are far higher than the published statistics] more in their sights than any political party. The unions after all ‘set up’ the Labour Party through the original Labour Representation Committee all those years ago. Trade Union power has been eroded by successive governments since the 1960s – perhaps this is where we should concentrate our efforts and give all our support – and hope.

And here's what the General Secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, had to say about Ed Balls comments in the Guardian this morning: Ed Miliband's leadership is threatened by this Blairite policy coup By embracing cuts, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband have left all those who stand against them disenfranchised






Photograph taken from http://owenjones.org/about/

#TheGoveBoat

There is a new hashtag #TheGoveBoat on twitter and it also a new subject trending. So I have taken the hashtag as my title for this blog, my alter ego has already fired off several angry tweets on the subject this morning!

I wake up to the news on the radio and often am motivated by items thereon. This is a handy method of getting me out of bed and into the 'working' day. Thus I often find myself mentally composing emails and other great works of literature whilst also doing the mundane jobs of finding matching shoes and tracking down a clean mug with which to start the day. But today the news that Michael Gove has suggested - in a letter leaked by the Guardian started with me in a furious mood.

I like to be calm first thing in the morning. Calm I am not. To quote a couple of Gove's 'ideas' [and so far this is only an idea, which is the only thing which is keeping me this side of laying on the floor and having a full blown tantrum. And I am a pacifist....]:

In spite, and perhaps because of the austere times, the celebration should go beyond those of previous jubilees and mark the greater achievement that the diamond anniversary represents.

Actually, not a bad idea of a way to mark the diamond anniversary, if thought necessary, would be to endow a new hospital, say, or build/repair some schools? And:

I feel strongly that the diamond jubilee gives us a tremendous opportunity to recognise in a very fitting way the Queen's highly significant contribution to the life of the nation and the Commonwealth.

Aren't the proposals for street parties and banquets and Royal tours and all the other things that are already in place enough?

The Guardian goes on to add [not a direct quote from Gove's letter]:

Gove ends his letter by suggesting that if insufficient taxpayer funds are available a private donation could be sought

I believe that the Queen is one of the richest women in the country. So does she really need a present of £60million from all its citizens, many of whom are struggling to survive?

BTW it has been suggested that a new Royal Yacht could be a bit of a poisoned chalice with all the Coastguard cuts...

I really cannot understand Gove's reasoning. We have pensioners in this country at the moment who have had their extra winter fuel allowance cut. We have disabled people who are fighting for [and too often losing] the continuation of disability living allowance. We have young people not able to attend universities due to fears of debts that could be incurred through the student grant system. A great lack of social housing. Libraries closing. Schools that need repairs having leaking roofs, inadequate heating and more. Hospitals existing by luck more than judgement due to inadequate staffing and buildings also needing attention. And so much more. But oh yes, let's build a Royal yacht. Of course it might give British manufacturing a boost. If it hasn't already been destroyed and broken up and much engineering knowledge lost due to the processes Maggie Thatcher started.

Maybe my prejudices are showing. Maybe I am ranting. Maybe others agree.


The picture is Vincent van Gogh's Fishing Boat's on the beach at Saint Maries de la Mer. I couldn't think of anything more beautiful to use than this today. Bringing me back to the calmer waters and mood that I prefer.