Showing posts with label Grant Shapps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grant Shapps. Show all posts

Tuesday, 28 September 2021

Another 'stunning success' for the Tory rail privatisation agenda


The hated Southeastern rail franchise has finally been cancelled after the private operators were caught stealing £25 million in public funds since 2014.

Despite a long track record of delays, cancelled services, appalling working conditions, strikes, and lamentable customer service, this woeful franchise had been repeatedly extended by the Tory government since 2014, but the axe has finally fallen to the relief of passengers across the south east.

It turns out the private profiteers were running the services so inefficiently that the only way they could even spin a profit was to embezzle public cash!

And similar to the failure of all the other private rail franchises over the years, the public sector is going to have to step in at the last minute to take over operations.

The most absurd example being the way private operators have abandoned the flagship north east mainline franchise three times, with the public sector taking over at the last minute each time, running the service better, and gradually returning profits to the public finances, only for the Tories to hand it over to another bunch of profiteers who cut and run again, as soon as it becomes unprofitable to them.

This endless cycle of private operators extracting the profits, and public cash being used to clear up their mess is entirely consistent with the Tory ideology of "privatise the profits, nationalise the losses".

As a result of this spectacularly failed rail privatisation agenda, not only does the rail network cost more in subsidies to private franchises than it did to run the entire rail network when it was privatised in 1994, the government has built up a secret £50 billion+ black hole of rail debt from renting the track out to these profiteers at miles below the actual cost of maintaining them.
 
An overwhelming majority of the public want to see the rail network renationalised, and run as an integrated not-for-profit public service.

Yet the Tories persist with this shambolic mess of private profiteers extracting profits, then offloading operations onto the public whenever the profitability dries up.

Labour should be absolutely hammering the Tories over this, not just on the principle that rail privatisation has proven to be an absolute disaster, but for the sheer incompetence of allowing a private rail operator to steal £25 million from under their noses.

But unfortunately Keir Starmer is too busy waging internal factional war against his own party to care about establishing a critical narrative, and his shadow finance minister Rachel Reeves has only just been pledging her undying loyalty to the interests of capitalist profiteers, by swearing she'll ignore economic common sense, and the will of the British people, when it comes to the need to renationalise vital national infrastructure.

And to make matters worse the Tory Transport minister Michael Green Grant Shapps is seeking to protect the shambolic rail privatisation agenda by hiding it behind a fake renationalisation, whereby private operators keep extracting their publicly subsidised profits, but under a unified brand of "Great British Railways".


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. Access to my online writing will always remain free. If you see some value in what I do, please consider supporting my work with a small donation/subscription.



OR

Thursday, 7 July 2016

Why do Tories adore the professional bullshitter so much?


It's funny how history repeats itself. Back in 2001 (after William Hague became the first Conservative leader in history to resign without serving as Prime Minister) the Tories fell for the distortions of a bullshitter with a CV full of exaggerations and made up rubbish. His name was Iain Duncan Smith and he was so unpopular with the general public that the Tories soon stabbed him in the back before he even got to lead them into a single General Election*.

Now loads of Tories are falling for another bullshitter with a CV full of exaggerations and made up rubbish. Her name is Andrea Leadsom. Her claims about having had a high flying career in finance seem to be just as reliable as Iain Duncan Smith's claimed university qualifications (which didn't exist) and his high flying army career (which was massively over-exaggerated).

Iain Duncan Smith and Andrea Leadsom are not the only complete bullshitters the Tory faithful have fallen in love with by a long stretch. David Cameron was such an egregious bullshitter it still baffles me that a huge percentage of the British public actually considered him to be "statesmanlike". 

Cameron lied so fluently and so often that it seemed that he'd rather tell a lie even when it would have been easier to tell the truth, yet he was apparently so good at it that he convinced the Tories to make him their leader, then the general public to make him their Prime Minister.

Then there's Michael Green Grant Shapps or whatever he's calling himself these days. How on earth did an Internet scam artist like that ever climb all the way up to being Chairman of the Tory party without the Tories adoring the slick polished lies of a professional bullshitter?

What is it in the Tory psyche that doesn't just prevent the natural human revulsion at professional bullshitters like Leadsom, IDS, Cameron and Green Shapps, but actually fills them with admiration instead?

It's hard to come to conclusions on such a question without generalising about Tory voters, because there don't seem to have been any scientific studies into why right-wing people seem to accept and admire professional bullshitters so easily and so regularly.

There do seem to be two main options. Either they're so gullible that they actually buy into all of the obvious bullshit and distortions, or, like the rest of us, they can actually see it for what it is, but they believe that the ability to lie, distort, manipulate and con in order to achieve an objective is a core skill for a member of the political class, and something to be admired rather than despised.

Whatever the case, one thing is sure: The high-flying careers within the Tory party for absolute bullshitters like Iain Duncan Smith, David Cameron and Michael Green Grant Shapps, and the rising star of another transparently dishonest bullshitter like Andrea Leadsom demostrate that Tories really do love a bullshitter.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

* = The Tory self-preservation instinct resulted in them overthrowing Iain Duncan Smith as the leader of their party because of his ineptitude and transparent dishonesty. The fact that they subsequently allowed him to conduct a six year long reign of terror over the lives of millions of the most vulnerable people in the country during his tenure as butcher in chief at the DWP is highly illustrative of the callous Tory mentality. They recognised that IDS was far too inept to lead their own party, but they have such little regard for the most vulnerable people in society that they put a man they clearly knew to be inept in charge of the DWP for six torturous years.

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Natalie Bennett's "brain freeze" interview




When Natalie Bennett was interrupted an incredible 125 times by the ex-Murdoch hack Andrew Neil in January 2015, opponents of the Green Party gleefully used clips of it as ammunition to shoot at the Green Party. Few of them seemed to care that later in the very same show Andrew Neil went on to give an incredibly lenient interview to the Tory party chairman Michael Green Sebastian Fox Grant Shapps (or whatever he's calling himself these days), in which he allowed Green Fox Shapps to endlessly repeat himself instead of answering any of the questions he was being asked.

Having seen what an enormous PR disaster a poor interview can be, Natalie Bennett had absolutely no excuses for the "car crash" interview she did with Nick Ferrari (another ex-Murdoch hack) on LBC just a few weeks later.

If we listen to the full interview, she actually does reasonably well for the first few minutes, talking up Caroline Lucas' exemplary record as an MP, mentioning how the Scottish independence debate has re-energised political discourse in Scotland, explaining how Green Party policies are the most popular of all on the Vote for Policies blind test and criticising the Tories butchering of the NHS in order to hand out the dismembered pieces to their party donors.

The problems started when she couldn't answer a seemingly simple question about how much Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) debt legacies are costing the NHS. The answer is not an easy one to find because both the Tories and Labour before them have been understandably keen to hide these enormous debts from the public, so there is actually no easy answer.

What is clear however, is that these costs are enormous. Even back in 2012 PFI debt legacies were estimated to be worth £300 billion, and the coalition government has still been signing up to more and more of them. It's also an established fact that many of the most financially unstable NHS trusts are ones that are tied in to paying off these vast PFI debt legacies.

Natalie Bennett was right to raise the issue of these rip-off deals, but wrong to be so hopelessly unprepared to speak authoritatively about a subject that she had actually raised herself!

Once the interview got onto the subject of Green Party housing policy, the interview went every bit as badly as Nigel Farage's infamous LBC "car crash" interview from May 2014. Once again Natalie Bennett was exposed as being hopelessly unprepared to answer basic questions about her own parties policies.

Natalie couldn't explain how the pledge to build 500,000 affordable houses was going to be funded, and failed badly to explain the fact that investment in social housing returns at least £2.40 to the economy for every £1.00 spent by the government. In my view it is actually a positive that she tried to raise the important macroeconomic theory of fiscal multiplication, however it's something that hardly anyone is going to have heard of, so a garbled explanation (like the one she gave) is certain to sound like a load of completely made-up rubbish to a significant proportion of the public. Sometimes it's better to not say anything, than to give a totally incoherent explanation of something important.

Damage to the Green Party 

    
People who follow my work will know that I'm broadly sympathetic towards the Green Party (they're in the same quadrant of the political compass as I am, so it's no surprise I agree with quite a few of their policies) but when it comes to problems with the party, I'm not going to pull my punches.

The Andrew Neil interview was perhaps excusable because she was heckled and interrupted to an incredible extent by a blatantly biased interviewer, but to go into another interview with another ex-Murdoch hack just a few weeks later in the same state of unpreparedness was a terrible blunder.

What the LBC interview has done is created a perfect piece of evidence for the anti-Green brigade to post every time they want to make the Greens look like a clueless bunch of amateurs. And unlike the Andrew Neil interview, there is no possibility of offering the defence that she "lost it" because she was being heckled and interrupted so rudely, because the worst you could say about Nick Ferrari is that he was a tad condescending.

Anyone who tries to deny that clips of the last minute or so of that Nick Ferrari interview are going to damage the Green Party by dissuading a lot of potential Green Party voters is quite frankly deluding themselves.

Damage to the anti-austerity movement

A few people have raised concerns that Natalie Bennett is in danger of damaging or derailing the anti-austerity movement with her inability to answer seemingly basic questions.

It is of fundamental importance that left-wing and centre-ground politicians begin to show how ideological austerity has failed in its own terms (George Osborne has missed all of his 2010 economic projections by absolutely miles) and explain that it doesn't work because it's nothing more than a crackpot right-wing agenda that ignores the fundamental basics of macroeconomics.

Thankfully Natalie Bennett isn't the only politician arguing against ideological austerity. In fact she's not even the most important one in the UK. When it comes to the pre-election leaders' debates, Nicola Sturgeon from the SNP and Leanne Wood from Plaid Cymru will be there; they're both anti-austerity; and they're both competent public speakers. Nicola Sturgeon is particularly good judging by the well crafted demolition of Tory ideological austerity she presented in a speech in early February.

Looking beyond the UK, the emergence of high profile anti-austerity figures elsewhere in Europe is an important factor. The new Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis clearly knows what he's talking about (I've been following his excellent blog for a few years) and Pablo Iglesias has taken the anti-austerity Podemos (We Can) party to the top of the Spanish polls, even though the party was only founded in March 2014!

In my view, the idea that more of Natalie Bennett's stumbling and mumbling might deliver a death-blow to the anti-austerity movement is completely unwarranted hyperbole.

Excuses and justifications

I've heard a lot of excuses from Green Party loyalists, and none of them are particularly convincing.

One of the most commonly proffered tropes is that the other parties can afford loads of image consultants to help them look slick and professional, whilst on their shoe-string budget (the Greens don't accept donations from millionaire tax-dodgers), the party simply can't afford it. The problem with this excuse is that there is a vast difference between being not having been coached to appear slick and professional, and being woefully ill-prepared for an important public interview.

Other Green Party supporters have tried to say that Natalie's woeful performance was okay because "we all make mistakes" and "at least it shows that she's human". While there is an element of truth to both of these points, it doesn't prevent the fact that many thousands of potential Green Party voters will have been put off by this performance, and Green Party critics will now be able to use it as ammunition for the remainder of Natalie's tenure as Green Party leader.


Some people have tried to offer the defence that "policies are more important than personalities", which again is a fair point when considered in isolation. However if the politician who you've chosen to be the figurehead of your party is incapable of offering a coherent explanation of the carefully costed policies that you've been working on, and in fact makes them appear to be a bunch of made-up nonsense, then that's not a matter of "personality politics" at all, its a matter of basic competence.

Sometimes it is important to look beyond our desire to defend people with whom we have an affinity, and realise that making excuses for them isn't going to help. The only thing that is going to actually help is if we let them know that they've made a mistake, tell them that we expect better, and offer them the support that they need in order to avoid making that same mistake again.

Natalie's apologies

Natalie Bennett has tried to mitigate the damage by making a lot of apologies for her "brain freeze", including this one in the Guardian.

Making such apologies is clearly the right thing to do in the short-term, because she has damaged the Green Party and disappointed an awful lot of Green Party supporters. However such apologies are not going to win over very many neutrals.

It is certainly important to apologise when we've let people down, but something my mother always tried to instill in me was that the most important part of the apology is not actually the words that comprise it, but the effort we make to not do the same thing again.

What Natalie Bennett needs to do now is to work out a strategy so that she doesn't end up getting all flustered like that again the next time she's asked for specific facts and figures, because it's now absolutely certain that almost every interviewer she faces is going to try to catch her out again so that they too can go viral like Andrew Neil and Nick Ferrari have.

What the Green Party can learn


The Green Party have learned that Natalie Bennett is limited when it comes to remembering specific facts and figures, thinking on her feet and answering questions under stress. It's far too close to the election for her to stand down, so the Green Party are just going to have to play with the hand they've got.

The fact that Natalie Bennett struggles in interviews is a very serious problem, but it is a problem that can be mitigated through the use of a few simple tactics (tactics that anybody can use).

  • Always agree the topics of discussion with the interviewer beforehand, then make sure you're well prepared on those subjects.
  • If you're going to talk about something that the majority of people aren't aware of (like fiscal multiplication) you've got to make sure you give a very clear and authoritative explanation, because if you don't, it will sound like completely made-up rubbish to most of your audience.
  • Always take detailed notes so that you can look up specific figures if you forget them under pressure.
  • Remember that taking a moment to look up a specific figure actually gives you the time to prepare a nice clear answer to the question.
  • If any interviewer attacks you for not knowing a specific figure off the top of your head, turn it back on them by asking whether they want to know the precise answer to their question (in which case they'll have to wait a moment while you look it up) or whether they want to have a completely different debate about your personal ability to accurately memorise thousands of precise figures.
Conclusion

I've always had my reservations about Natalie Bennett as leader of the Green Party, but rather than make a song and dance saying "I told you so didn't I?", I've decided to try to give a more-or-less neutral appraisal of the damage Natalie Bennett's stumbling and mumbling is doing to the Green Party and to the wider anti-austerity movement, and offer some advice on how the Green Party can try to mitigate these problems in future.

     
 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.





Flattr this





MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
What is ... fiscal multiplication?
           
Ukippers say the funniest things
                     
The remarkable rise of Podemos in Spain
       

The pre-election contract the Tories want you to forget all about
                             
Why you should use your critical thinking skills, no matter what the information source
                                         
Why 73% of UKIP supporters should actually vote Green
                          
Why you should question everything, even me!
                
Why do so many people trust Osborne with the UK economy?

If the Green Party have the best policies, how come hardly anyone votes for them?
                                
The rise of the non-traditional parties in UK politics
  




Wednesday, 1 October 2014

"We've cut the deficit by a third" - the worst boast in politics


"We've cut the deficit by a third" has been the endlessly repeated mantra of the Tory party for the last couple of years. This is a quite extraordinary boast to anyone who knows what the deficit is, and is capable of remembering what the Tories were saying about the deficit when they were enabled into power by the Liberal Democrats back in 2010.

Debts and deficits
[Main article]

The first thing to note is the way that several of the Tories who endlessly repeat this mantra of 
"we've cut the deficit by a third"  seem to be economically illiterate, or outright lying in the hope that the public confuse the meanings of the words deficit and debt.

In 2013 David Cameron lied that the Tories are "paying down Britain's debts" in a party political broadcast, presumably hoping that the public could be hoodwinked into believing that borrowing a few billion less per year than their predecessors were at the very peak of the global financial sector insolvency crisis is exactly the same as actually reducing the debt.

The Tory economic spokeswoman Claire Perry even went as far as claiming that the debt and the deficit "are the same thing" in a BBC radio interview! No wonder the economy crashed and has suffered 0% growth for seven long years if Tory economic spokespeople who used to work in the financial sector are so economically illiterate that they don't know the difference between a debt and a deficit.

What the Tories were promising back in 2010

Here's a direct quote from George Osborne's incredibly hubristic budget statement in June 2010, where he claimed that as a result of his ideological austerity experiment the budget deficit would be completely eliminated by 2014-15, and that by now the budget would be in surplus and the national debt would be falling.

"[The] deficit will then be eliminated to plus 0.3 per cent in 2014-15 and plus 0.8 per cent in 2015-16. In other words, it will be in surplus. Public sector net debt as a share of GDP will be 62 per cent this year, before peaking at 70 per cent in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69 per cent in 2014-15" [source]
A look at the reality shows us that the deficit is still absolutely enormous. Instead of reducing net borrowing to zero as he promised, he's still borrowing almost as much as Labour were at the very peak of the economic crisis. By the end of 2014-15 Osborne will have borrowed over £207 billion more than he said he would, and the economy will be over £127 billion per year smaller than he claimed it would be. In fact George Osborne has already created more debt in four years than all of the Labour governments in history combined!

Instead of the national debt falling to 69% of GDP this year, George Osborne's 2014 budget statement admitted that it would rise to 77.3% of GDP and wouldn't start coming down until 2018-19. It's hard not to notice that in 2010 he claimed that it would take four years to eliminate the deficit, yet four years later he's still claiming that it will take four years to eliminate the budget deficit!

Upon realising how spectacularly inaccurate his predictions have proven to be, it's hard to understand how the public aren't completely furious about this abject incompetence.

Eventually it's possible to understand how the public have been duped into trusting this over-privileged towel folder by looking at the way the mainstream media reports his failures. Instead of holding him to account by comparing his latest increased borrowing figures and downgraded economic growth figures with what he originally claimed, the media compares them with his previous set of
 increased borrowing figures and downgraded economic growth figures, meaning that his failures are dished out incrementally, rather than being held up against his ridiculously hubristic promises in 2010 that he would have eradicated the entire budget deficit by now.

Excuses, Excuses

The excuses for the failure of Osborne's ideological austerity experiment have been as laughable as the "wrong kind of snow" and "wrong kind of leaves" excuses used by rail operators to excuse disruption to train services.

In 2012 when Osborne had managed to turn a recovering economy back to negative economic growth, the Tories even tried to blame the results of their economic mismanagement on stuff like the Royal Wedding and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, but the most feeble excuse of all has been to blame the Eurozone Crisis for the failure of "Osbornomics". The reason that the Eurozone has been suffering poor economic growth is exactly the same as the reason Osbornomics has failed; imposition of ideological austerity on economies like Spain, Portugal and Greece that desperately needed investment in the productive economy and financial sector restructuring instead.  

Conclusion

When you've promised to cut something by 100% by a certain point, endlessly bragging that you've cut it by significantly less than half is an absolutely ridiculous tactic. The only possible explanation for this idiocy is that whoever writes up these ridiculous political soundbytes for the Tory party to repeat is so out-of-touch and contemptuous of the public that they imagine that people don't know what the deficit actually is, and that they don't have the capacity to even remember what the very same people were saying about it just four years ago.


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, it would be massively appreciated.


Flattr this




MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
What is ... the difference between a debt and a deficit?
           
The terrifying scale of political illiteracy in the UK
                     
George Osborne's economic blunders
       

How the Liberal Democrats are just as compassionless as the Tories
                             
The "unpatriotic left" fallacy 
                                         
Who is to blame for the economic crisis?
                          
"Bedroom Tax" - tax the poor to subsidise the rich
                
Asset stripping "bankrupt" Britain with Gideon & Dave
                      
The Tory ideological mission
                                
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
  



Friday, 28 February 2014

The bizarre Tory effort to rebrand themselves as "The Workers Party"


If you ever needed another demonstration of how insanely out-of-touch the Tories are with reality, you just need to consider the plan by Tory party chairman Grant Shapps Michael Green to rebrand the Tory party as "The Workers' Party".


There is so much wrong with this proposed rebranding it's incredible. It would be funny if it weren't so Orwellian.

Party funding
[Main article]
         
The Tories, and their braying supporters in the corporate controlled press have constantly attacked the Labour party over the fact that their party is mainly funded by small donations from hundreds of thousands of ordinary workers, via democratically organised institutions (the trade unions). Meanwhile the Tory party is funded by a rogues gallery of extremely dodgy rich people, without the faintest trace of democratic accountability.

How on earth could anyone be stupid enough to expect a political party that is majority funded by donations of over £50,000 a shot from the super-rich, to represent the interests of ordinary workers?

How on earth could anyone be stupid enough to expect a political party that has a secretive inner cabal of super-rich donors that it refers to as "The Leaders Group", to represent the interests of ordinary workers?

How on earth could anyone be stupid enough to expect a political party that allows their wealthy donors to write up their own wish-list of anti-worker legislation as official Tory party policy, to represent the interests of ordinary workers?
         
Wage Repression
[Main article]

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Tories actively work against the interests of ordinary workers is the fact that since they came to power in 2010 the ordinary workers of the UK have suffered the longest sustained fall in real incomes since records began!

The Tories have fueled this decline in real incomes with their derisory increases in the minimum wage, their attacks on public sector pay, their refusal to legislate against companies that employ the majority of their staff on Zero-Hours Contracts, their massive expansion of Stalinist forced labour schemes, their cuts to in-work social security payments and their constant claims that "Britain is Bankrupt".

All of these factors have driven down the incomes of the poor and ordinary. What makes this deliberate Tory campaign of wage repression even worse is that the super wealthy elite have spent the last four years making themselves richer than ever.


Workers rights

The Tories have a long history of attacking workers rights. Just think of their ideological attacks on the trade union movement during the 1980s. These attacks have continued under the current government. There's the financial attack against people that have been unfairly dismissed, the revocation of established workers rights from people forced onto Iain Duncan Smith's Stalinist mandatory labour schemes, the increase in the state pension age, George Osborne's ludicrous "Shares for Rights" scheme, the parts of the "Gagging Law" designed to silence trade unions from speaking out on behalf of their members, and there's also the element of the "Gagging Law" designed to attack the right to privacy of trade union members.

If the Tories were really "The Workers' Party" would they really have spent the last four years deliberately undermining workers rights?

      
International Labour Day
[Main article]

If there is one thing that illustrated the Tory contempt for the value of labour more than any other, it must have been their plan to scrap the May bank holiday, which is celebrated worldwide as International Labour Day.

Grant Shapps Michael Green



I don't normally go in for the personality politics side of things, but it is impossible not to note that the man behind this ludicrous Tory rebranding exercise is the Internet conman turned Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps Michael Green. Grant Shapps' Michael Green's Internet con involved selling a programme that stole the creative content of other websites, changed a few keywords, then packaged the stolen content up into fake websites, in order to cash in on Google Ads. As he was doing this scam, he hid behind the false name Michael Green, and allegedly a number of other fake names too.

When Google figured out his scam, they blacklisted any site using the Grant Shapps Michael Green programme from their Google Rankings. Grant Shapps Michael Green is a man so corrupt that his dodgy Internet scams have even been blocked by Google!

It's no wonder at all then, that this corrupt con man has devised a new fraud, designed to con gullible members of the public into believing that the Tories represent the interests of ordinary workers, when the evidence is so absolutely clear that they don't.


Conclusion

This Tory rebranding exercise is a plan built on the assumption that the public are so extraordinarily gullible and ill-informed that they will simply accept this ludicrous new Tory narrative, in the same way that they have lapped up so many other ludicrously counter-factual Tory narratives (the Great Neoliberal Lie, The "Making Work Pay" fallacy, the "We're All in This Together" fallacy, the "your human rights are a burden that need to be scrapped" narrative ...).

The evidence is absolutely clear; the Tories are the anti-worker party, yet they believe that there are enough hopelessly gullible people in the UK that this blatant propaganda effort to rebrand themselves as the opposite of what they are will win them a significant number of votes, otherwise they wouldn't be trying it.

The Tories are once again assuming that the people of Britain are such a feeble-minded bunch that they'll believe any old rubbish they're told, no matter how blatantly counter-factual it is.



 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.
         

More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
                   
 The Tory ideological mission
           
The Great Neoliberal Lie
                  
What is ... Wage Repression?
           

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Problem Solving with Iain Duncan Smith



The Department for Work and Pensions boss Iain Duncan Smith has an incredible knack for getting himself into ridiculous situations. Before he even became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions he had an appalling track record  which included stuffing his CV with baltently false claims, "Betsygate" (paying his wife a taxpayer funded salary to do virtually nothing, according to people from his constituency) and being such a weak leader that he was deposed by the Tory party before he could even lead them into a single General Election.

Ever since his appointment as the top man at the DWP he's given a truly unrivaled display of callousness and incompetence. Quite a feat in a government which includes a myriad of appalling and malicious personalities such as George Osborne, Theresa May, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Eric Pickles, Jeremy Hunt and Grant Shapps Michael Green.
 

In this article I'm going to highlight some of the ridiculous situations Iain Duncan Smith has got himself into in just the last year or so. I'm also going to provide some options to help you consider how you might have dealt with such situations, were you incompetent/cognitively illiterate/hubristic/malicious enough to have got yourself into them in the first place (which I suspect you're wouldn't have been). 

Atos deaths

 
2012: Official DWP research shows that in the space of just 10 months, 10,600 people died within six weeks of enduring an Atos Work Capacity Assessment. This figure didn't even include the potentially thousands of people to have died in the aftermath of being found completely "fit for work" by Atos and stripped of all of their disability benefits entirely (such as Brian McArdle). No data on their fate was collected at all, so it is pretty difficult to estimate how many people have died within weeks of being declared completely "fit for work" by Atos, but I have tried to work roughly how many might have died under these utterly appalling circumstances to add to the 10,600 proven deaths.

Options

A. Launch an urgent inquiry into these deaths. Suspend the WCA assessment regime until the inquiry has been completed. Attempt to establish whether there was any causal link between the Atos administered WCA assessment regime and the high death rate. Broaden the scope of the investigation to include the fates of those declared completely "fit for work" and thrown off benefits too.  
B. Do none of the above, ensure that similar research is not carried out for the following year and stonewall Freedom of Information requests for more recent data on the scale of these WCA deaths.
Unlawful workfare scams 

February 2013: The Court of Appeals declares that your mandatory unpaid labour "Workfare" schemes are unlawful. The consequence of this judgement is that several thousands of people who had had their unemployment benefits unlawfully stolen should be entitled to compensation, amounting to an estimated £130 million in total. Despite a tide of grotesquely inaccurate propaganda from you and your DWP minions to pretend otherwise, the ruling is very clear about the reasons your schemes are unlawful. There are two main reasons:

Firstly, the rules had been written so incompetently that they were unintelligible. It is clearly unfair to expect people to comply with rules that are impossible to understand.

The second factor that made these rules unlawful was that you blatantly exceeded your powers by bypassing parliament and introducing these rules without first subjecting them for parliamentary scrutiny. 

       
Options

A. Accept the judgement of the court. Compensate the victims of your unlawful regulations. Draw up some intelligible rules and present them for parliamentary scrutiny before you even dare try to enact them.  
B. Repeatedly lie about what the court judgement actually said. Bodge together a ridiculous piece of retroactive legislation designed to avoid compensating your victims by retroactively rewriting the rules so that the "workfare" rules would have been intelligible, had they been written that way at the time your victims were sanctioned for non-compliance.

The £53 a week petition

April 2013: In a remarkable display of hubris you (a person who lives rent free in a £multi-million property owned by your family in law) make a public declaration that you could easily live on just £53 a week. It doesn't take long for a petition for you to live up to your boasts by surviving on £53 a week for a year to gather over 400,000 signatures.
  
Options

A. Accept that your empty bragging has been well and truly found out, live on £53 a week for a whole year, and try to salvage some kind of moral dignity from the situation.
B. Hypocritically declare that the petition is a political stunt (unlike your own empty bragging presumably), and refuse to live on £53 for even a single day, let alone a whole year.
The Universal Credit shambles
 
August 2013: A National Audit Office investigation into your flagship welfare reform finds that £millions have been wasted on botched IT projects. The report reveals that the Universal Credit  project is suffering from "over-optimistic time scales", "a lack of openness about progress", "weak management, ineffective control and poor governance". It also describes the DWP as having a "fortress mentality" and a culture of only ever reporting "good news".

In another internal report into Universal Credit which came out a few weeks before, staff working on the scheme described the project as "soul-destroying", "unbelievably frustrating" and "a complete nightmare". Other staff complained of
"a near complete absence of anything that looks like strategic leadership in the programme" and "a divisive culture of secrecy".

Yet another report demonstrates that Universal Credit will create huge disincentives for people to increase the hours they work, meaning that in many cases, people will actually be financially worse off if they move from part-time, to full-time employment. What makes this so much worse is that you have repeatedly claimed that Universal Credit will give people more incentive to work, but the way your flagship scheme has been designed means that it will actually create significant financial disincentives which are even worse than the current system!

 
Options
A. Accept that your flagship scheme is turning into an expensive shambles, apologise for your failure to effectively manage your own project, and resign from your job.
B. Mislead parliament, refuse to accept any responsibility for these spectacular failings. then lay the blame these spectacular Universal Credit failures with the civil servants that work for you (the ones who complained about an abject lack of strategic leadership and a "divisive culture of secrecy").
Lying to parliament and the public

2013: You get caught out telling lie after lie after lie to the public and parliament alike. In one instance you blatantly misuse official statistics in order to create a misleading narrative about how successful your welfare reforms have been, despite the statistics showing nothing of the sort. In another case you lie to parliament about the amount of money wasted on botched IT projects for Universal Credit, telling them that it was £34 million, when the real figure is at least £161 million.
 
Options
A. Apologise for misusing official statistics, and resign from your job for having lied to parliament.
B. Refuse to accept that misusing official statistics is wrong, invent some absurd justification narrative that it is OK to misuse official statistics as long as you claim to personally believe in the false conclusion you've developed. Doggedly hang onto your job in the hope that standards in public life have fallen so low that lying to parliament is an offence that doesn't even elicit punishment these days.
Food bank referrals
 
April 2013: It becomes clear that the welfare cuts you are imposing are driving people into such desperate situations that they become reliant upon food banks. You try to claim that the exponential rise in food poverty has nothing to do with your savage welfare reforms, but one of the biggest food bank chains keeps presenting evidence that significant percentages of people being referred to them by JobcentrePlus are being referred because of welfare changes and delays in welfare payments.
 
 
Options
A. Admit the blindingly obvious (that cutting welfare payments to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society drives many of them into greater poverty), undo some of the welfare reforms with the worst outcomes, and subject all future welfare cuts to evidence based cumulative impact assessment.
B. Identify the JobcentrePlus referral form as the source of the information being used by the food bank to prove that welfare reforms and benefit delays are responsible for a high percentage of referrals, then simply change the referral form so that it no longer includes the reason for referral (make sure this is done before your next raft of savage welfare reforms such as the "uprating" bill and "bedroom tax" are imposed). Continue to spread unsubstantiated assertions that the unprecedented rise in food poverty has absolutely nothing to do with your welfare "reforms".
The discriminatory WCA regime

May 2013: A court judgement finds that the Atos Work Capacity Assessment regime discriminates against people with severe mental health conditions. The case that the WCA regime is discriminatory is a compelling one. It is blatantly unfair to expect many people with severe mental health conditions to have the ability to either collect the required evidence of their condition, or to adequately explain how their condition limits their ability to work, during the Atos administered assessment procedure.

When it comes to mental health issues, there is another consideration too; the social stigma of mental health problems. Given the history of social stigma, institutionalisation and abuse inflicted on sufferers of mental health conditions throughout history, it is hardly difficult to empathise with people that find it an extremely challenging, and even shameful, to openly discuss their mental health problems. To make such difficult admissions of their mental problems (in a hastily conducted interview, with a complete stranger, employed by a profit orientated corporation) under the threat of losing their entitlement to benefits and being forced to look for work that they are incapable of doing, is clearly a form of state administered abuse. 


One of the worst things about the WCA regime when it comes to mental health conditions, is that the tiny minority of "system gamers" milking the benefits system by faking mental illnesses will know precisely the right things to do and say in order to get the desired "unfit for work" outcome, whilst the genuinely mentally ill are much more likely to fail their assessment due to their inability to provide adequate evidence, or their reluctance to even admit the seriousness of their condition (many people with extremely serious mental health conditions steadfastly refuse to even admit it).
 

Options

A. Accept the judgement of the courts and bring a halt to the 11,000 odd discriminatory WCA assessments being conducted every week, at the very least until a new assessment regime that doesn't discriminate against the mentally ill is developed.
B. With breathtaking contempt for the courts openly refuse to accept the court judgement, refuse to halt your discriminatory regime, and launch yet another vexatious appeal against the findings of the court.
How you did

You answered A to all of the questions: 

Well done, you clearly possess moral integrity. You should be proud that in a world where corruption, greed and dishonesty rule supreme, you can still easily identify the decent course of action.

You answered A to most of the questions: 

Your moral integrity isn't perfect, but it is still much higher than the standard amongst the political classes. Perhaps you should consider a career in politics?

You answered B to most of the questions:

Oh dear, you don't seem to have much human decency. I wouldn't want to be a member of your family.

You answered B to all of the questions: 
Only one person is capable of such extraordinary and regular displays of malice, dishonesty and shamelessness. You are Iain Duncan Smith, and nobody likes you.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.









More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
   
"Lord" Freud: Risks, corpses and slums
                
Is the Atos WCA regime psychological torture for disabled people?
               
 The Atos disability denial factory