Showing posts with label Mark Hoban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Hoban. Show all posts

Monday, 13 January 2014

Driven to suicide by the Tories deadly "bedroom Tax" blundering



In many ways this is the most difficult article I've attempted to write on the Another Angry Voice blog. The subject is so ghastly that I have little inclination to dwell upon it, but it stands as such a damning indictment of government policy towards the most vulnerable in society that it must be addressed.

I am talking of course about the case of Grandmother and Myasthenia Gravis sufferer Stephanie Bottrill, who was driven by the stress of "Bedroom Tax" to commit suicide by stepping in front of a lorry on the M6 at 6:15 am one morning in May 2013. She left a note to her family saying "Don’t blame yourself for me ending my life. The only people to blame are the Government".

It's hard to pick fault with her assertion, especially given the revelation in January 2014 that the "Bedroom Tax" legislation was so clumsily drafted and administered that she wasn't even liable to pay it, yet the money was taken from her anyway, leaving her in desperate poverty and suffering terrible stress.
The people in similar situations who have survived their "Bedroom Tax" impoverishment without having killed themselves under the stress of it should surely be entitled to compensation. But judging by goings on last year, this isn't entirely certain. In March 2013 the Labour leadership were fully complicit in allowing Iain Duncan Smith to rush through an absurd piece of retroactive legislation, which had the duel purpose of keeping the £130 million he stole from the unemployed via his unlawful benefits sanctions regime and sticking two fingers up at the courts that had declared his botched Workfare legislation unlawful.*

Who is to say that Labour won't once again let Iain Duncan Smith retroactively rewrite his botched legislation, this time in order to keep his unlawfully collected "Bedroom Tax" fines?

The "Bedroom Tax" is an abominable piece of legislation. It is so atrocious that it is literally impossible to succinctly explain everything that is wrong with it in one article** but for the sake of the argument I'll cover a few established issues.

"Bedroom Tax" discriminates against disabled people. Some two thirds of families hit by bedroom tax have at least one severely disabled member.

There are simply not enough smaller houses available. One study found that smaller accommodation was not available for 96% of people affected by "Bedroom Tax". Even if they want to move out of their larger homes to somewhere smaller, there are just nowhere near enough available properties for them ever to dream of finding their way to the top of the local council priority list.  

The oft repeated Tory narrative that the "Bedroom Tax" will "save" £480 million is a clear indicator that their stated objective of moving people out of larger properties is utterly misleading. The more people the Tories manage to shift out of their homes, the lower the rates of "Bedroom Tax" they could collect. This means that if the policy successfully drives people out of their homes, the projected savings figure is a fantasy, but if the projected savings figure is real, then extracting wealth from the poor is obviously the real objective, not chasing them out of their homes.
One of the perverse side effects of "Bedroom Tax" is that it chases people out of social housing altogether, but because rents in the private sector are much higher, the taxpayer ends up paying out more Housing Benefit rent subsidies than they did before! The people that are driven out of their social housing end up losing their security of tenure and their adequate housing standards, yet the taxpayer ends up paying more for it. From an economic perspective this is an atrocious outcome because the extra money that the state is shelling out isn't going to anything useful at all (such as infrastructure investment, education other services and the like) it feeds into the inflation of another property price bubble, and allows unproductive members of the rentier class to live a life of idleness, collecting the government subsidised rents on their speculative buy-to-let property investments.

"Bedroom Tax" drives people to seek smaller accommodation in the virtually unregulated free for all of the private rental market, they lose their security of tenure and their adequate housing standards, yet the state pays more in housing benefit rent subsidies for the smaller property than it did paying the social housing rate on the larger property. Therefore, the more successful the policy, the more it costs the taxpayer!
Returning to the tragic case of Stephanie Bottrill: Anyone with a modicum of belief in social justice should feel that extracting £80 a month from this woman's pitiful subsistence income was an absolute obscenity in light of the fact that just a few weeks prior to her suicide RBS - which is 82% owned by the taxpayer -  handed out £607 million in bankers' bonuses despite losing another £5.2 billion over the course of 2012-13. Not only did the Tories lavish taxpayers' cash on RBS bankers in the form of bonuses, they also cut the top rate of income tax the month before Stephanie Bottrill's death, meaning tens of thousands a month in income boosts for RBS bankers, many of whom were the architects of the economic crisis that the Tories have shamelessly used to justify the numerous diabolical austerity measures they have imposed upon "the lower orders".

I don't use the term "the lower orders" flippantly when I describe the Tory attitude towards the poor and ordinary. That this is their true attitude is evidenced by the Workfare policy that the Labour party hierarchy allowed Iain Duncan Smith to salvage with his "I'm above the law" retroactive legislation. A policy which allows the state to herd people like cattle to work for free in highly profitable corporations under threat of absolute impoverishment.

That's right: The Tories hold you in such contempt that if you lose your job for whatever reason, the Tories can strip you of your legally established employment rights and force you to work for no wage, in economically illiterate schemes designed to allow their corporate mates to profit by treating your labour as a free commodity.***

The DWP policy of subjecting the disabled to the Atos administered WCA regime provides another grotesque illustration of the Tory mentality towards "the lower orders". There have now been two court declarations that this WCA regime discriminates against those with mental health conditions, yet Iain Duncan Smith has simply carried on regardless with his policy of making the mentally ill undergo discriminatory assessment regimes.**** Iain Duncan Smith and the DWP are willingly continuing their campaign of terror and discrimination against the disabled because in their view, the victims of their regime are simply unimportant.

The Stephanie Bottrill case provides another searing illustration of the Tory us-and-them antipathy toward "the lower orders". I'm sure many of us can recall the well worn Tory narrative against the proposed Mansion Tax. Oh how they waxed on about the poor hypothetical mansion dwelling old lady, and how this cruel tax would force her out of her home. Yet this exact scenario has been played out tens of thousands of times over in the lives of real people, under this "Bedroom Tax" scheme devised by the very same Tories.

They clearly care much more deeply about the wealthy mansion dwelling old dear (even though she is hypothetical), than they do about the very real victims of their own "Bedroom Tax" regime. The Tories clearly have far more empathy for the hypothetical rich, than they do for the living and breathing poor and ordinary.

That "Bedroom Tax" is a poorly devised and maliciously motivated scheme developed by a government with a shocking antipathy towards "the lower orders", but it is worse even than that. Just like everything else in Iain Duncan Smith's chaotically administered DWP, the implementation was beyond incompetent. Not only was it belligerently imposed against widespread public and professional opposition, it was imposed on tens of thousands of people that should have been made exempt from paying it under the very rules the the Tories had just devised and passed into law. Stephanie Bottrill was one of the people that should have been exempt and now she is dead.

She was killed by a combination of Tory antipathy towards "the lower orders" and Iain Duncan Smith's exceptionally incompetent mismanagement of the DWP. Not only was "Bedroom Tax" bad policy, it was incompetently delivered.

I don't know enough about the life of Stephanie Bottrill to cast any significant judgement upon her as a person, but I feel confident in saying that she is clearly a martyr to Tory belligerence. Not only have the Tory party allowed a man that has been promoted way beyond his abilities to continue making one catastrophic blunder after another, they have continued to obligingly vote reams of his botched legislation through parliament without even bothering to read it, think about its implications or check that it is being applied in even a remotely competent manner.

In conclusion I would like to express my condolences to the friends and family of Stephanie Bottrill. To have lost a family member as a consequence of malicious government policy must have been hellish. To discover later that the "Bedroom Tax" fines that drove her to suicide weren't even applicable in her case must be even worse. I would also like to spare a thought for the poor HGV driver that Stephanie Bottrill stepped out in front of. This person will probably suffer the trauma of that event for the rest of their life, a trauma that would never have happened were the Tories not such a malicious bunch. Neither would it have happened were they a serious political party that would never dream of letting a callous and incompetent intellectual pygmy like Iain Duncan Smith anywhere near a position of power and responsibility.


 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.

* Although this sounds preposterously far-fetched, it is absolutely true. Here's the article I wrote at the time - which includes a list of the few honourable Labour MPs that defied the party leadership demands that they collude with Iain Duncan Smith by abstaining on all of the votes as it was rushed through parliament in a single day.
**although I have tried to outline some of its innumerable flaws. In four separate articles have still only scratched the surface of what an atrocious piece of legislation it is. Here are my four previous articles on the subject:
*** The Tory cabinet minister Mark Hoban has explicitly stated his belief that the state has a "right" to extract and distribute the labour of the citizen under threat of absolute destitution (here's my analysis of those comments). To put a libertarian hat on for a moment, I don't believe the state should have the right to coerce the individual to surrender their labour rights under threat of poverty, starvation and/or homelessness.

**** Here's my article exploring many of the implications of Iain Duncan Smith's discriminatory regime against the mentally ill.

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Counting the corpses

Last week someone began demanding that I provide evidence to back an assertion I had made in an article I wrote last year about Tory Work and Pensions minister Iain Duncan Smith's callous contempt for the dead victims of his welfare reform policies.

In the article I made the claim that "thousands of people have died after having been found fit for work" after enduring the stressful WCA regime administered by the French outsourcing company Atos. Now, I'm not complaining about the fact that I've been asked to substantiate my claim, far from it. If I make an assertion without providing a link to supporting evidence, I should be able to back it up with some kind of evidence or analysis, which is what I intend to do here.

It is undeniable that people have died after having been found "fit-for-work" by Atos. One of the examples Iain Duncan Smith reacted so angrily and disrespectfully towards was the case of Brian McArdle, the 57 year old (suffering paralysis, blind in one eye and unable to speak) who died one day after being declared fit for work by Atos. There are many other documented cases of people dying after being declared fit by Atos too, you only need to read the Hansard transcript from the January 2013 Parliamentary debate on the Atos WCA for many more harrowing cases.

The main problem with justifying the claim that thousands of people are dying after being declared "fit-for-work" by Atos is that the government don't bother to collect the statistics for those people stripped of their disability benefits to have subsequently died. Here's what they say about it:
"Data on the number of ESA claimants that have died following a fit for work decision is not available, as the Department does not hold information on a death if the personhas already left benefit."
Incapacity Benefits: Deaths of Recipients, DWP Report July 2012
The fact that the government openly admit that they can't even be bothered to count the victims of their own policies is absolutely shocking stuff. Not only is it shocking that they don't bother to collect the data, but it is also worthwhile noting that this refusal to collect and publish this data makes the job of opposing the hopelessly flawed WCA regime significantly more difficult. It doesn't however make it impossible as I intend to demonstrate.

The same DWP document does include the number of people that died after being told that they must prepare to return to the workplace (put in the "Work Related Activity Group"). This figure stands at 1,300 for the 11 month period January 2011 to November 2011. From this we can extrapolate a reasonable estimate for the number of people to have died after being told that they are fit enough to prepare to return to the workplace. If we increase the figure by one 11th to extend it to cover a full year, we get 1,418 and extend it again by 15% to reflect the fact that the number of WCA assessments undertaken in 2012 has been significantly higher than those conducted in 2011, we get an estimated figure of 1,630 people to have died in 2012 within six weeks of having been told that they must start preparing to go back to work.

This estimate of 1,630 deaths within six weeks amongst the 20%-30% of people that are told to prepare to return to work is a shocking figure, however the main problem is that similar statistics simply are not recorded for the 50%+ that are declared "fit-for-work" and thrown off their disability benefits entirely. That these statistics are not collected is callous and revolting, yet it is still possible to generate reasonable extrapolations to show that significant numbers of people declared "fit-for-work" are dying within weeks too.

The most important area to consider is the truly appalling failure rate of the Atos WCA regime. 30%-40% of people that appeal their Atos assessment win their case, and with adequate legal representation this figure rises to 70%-80%. It is safe to assume that with adequate legal representation, many more people would have their "fit-for-work" assessments overturned. However, I'll take Tory welfare minister Mark Hoban's own dubious and extremely conservative estimate that "just"15% of Atos decisions are completely wrong. For the last period for which data is available (April 2011-March 2012 - a PDF entitled "Statistical Release January 2013" can be found here) 203,700 people were found "fit-for-work". Using Mark Hoban's extremely conservative 15% inaccuracy rate, that gives us an estimated figure of 30,555 people incorrectly declared "fit-for-work". We know from the previously mentioned DWP impact assessment that the death rate within six weeks of assessment for people on ESA was 10,600 people, around 1% of the caseload. This gives us an estimated figure of 305 people that would have died within six weeks of being incorrectly declared "fit-for-work", even using Mark Hoban's deliberately underestimated figures for inaccuracy within the Atos WCA regime.

If we realise that the appeals success rate doubles when appellants have adequate legal representation, instead of attempting to manage their own appeals, it becomes clear that many people that are actually unfit for work are having their appeals turned down because they are unfamiliar with the legal process and simply don't know how to demonstrate adequate evidence to the court. If we add the estimated 1,630 people to have died within six weeks of being told to prepare for a return to work in 2012 to the estimated 305-610 people to have died within six weeks of being told that they are "fit-for-work" and stripped of their disability benefits in 2012, we have an estimated figure of some 1,945-2,240 people dying in such appalling circumstances in the previous year. To this can be added a number of people that may have died due to stress related conditions (heart attacks, strokes, suicides) due to the enormous stress of the WCA regime and having their benefits revoked and a further 2,000+ people that died before their Atos decision was even completed.

I accept that these figures are rough estimates based on extrapolated data conducted by someone that has a reasonable understanding of (but not formal training in) the use of statistics, which is far from ideal. However, this is the best I can offer due to the government's refusal to collect the data on the number of people to have died after having been declared "fit-for-work". If the government bothered to "count the corpses", then bloggers like me wouldn't be left conducting our own statistical analysis and extrapoloations  from what data has found it's way into the public domain.

The appalling Atos failure rate

As a side note, it is worth considering exactly how bad a failure rate of at least 15% actually is. Imagine you're running a parts manufacturing business (lets say brake components for HGVs) and less than 85% of the items you produce end up being functional. Imagine that you don't bother to quality control these brake components and sent them off to your customer to fit onto their wagons. How long do you think your customer would put up with their corporate reputation being irreparably tarnished as their new wagons suffer a 15% brake failure rate resulting in tens of millions of pounds worth of damages claims and the tragic deaths of numerous civilians and wagon drivers? How long do you think that they would retain your company as a supplier? Do you think they would be likely to offer you a range of lucrative new supply contracts after such a demonstration of negligence?

Well, this analogy isn't far-fetched stuff. The £50 million+ cost of all these WCA appeals is being borne entirely by the taxpayer. The courts are being packed with WCA appeal cases and the Citizens Advice Bureau have complained that they are being flooded with cases, which means that the courts and the CAB are unable to deal with all kinds of other important legal issues; a Parliamentary Select Committee has slammed the DWP for drawing up such a one-sided contract with Atos and failing to trigger virtually any of the penalty clauses that were actually written into the contract; and worst of all, Atos have even been handed more lucrative contracts by the DWP, despite their appalling legacy of failure!

Conclusion

It shouldn't be the job of bloggers like me to collate data on how many people are dying and make reasonable extrapolations from known statistics, it should be the job of the government to collect and publish the data properly.

That they chose not to collect this data is a clear demonstration of the callous disregard for the consequences of their own policies. That they don't even bother to "count the corpses" looks is a demonstration of their contempt for the value of ordinary people's lives.If the 1,300 odd people in January - November 2011 that died within weeks of having their benefits cut and being told to prepare to go back to work, the dozens and dozens of documented cases other cases of people dying after being told that they are "fit" for an immediate return to work and my  extrapolations (from the fact that at least 15% of Atos decisions are wrong), that many more people must be dying isn't enough to make you very angry indeed, then the fact that the government doesn't even bother to collect the data on how many people are actually dying really should be.


What you can do

If you feel strongly that the government should be collecting data on the many hundreds of people a year that are dying within six weeks of being thrown off disability benefits, then there are a couple of things you can do.
  • Write a letter to your local MP requesting that they raise the issue in parliament, or at the very least contact the responsible government ministers (Iain Duncan Smith, Mark Hoban, Anthony David Freud and Esther McVey) to raise your concerns. 
Tips on writing to your local MP.
  • You can find their email address easily by using the search function here.
  • If you include your name and address, your local MP has a statutory obligation to reply to your communication. If they do not, you can report them to the Parliamentary Standards Authority.
  • Please remember to be polite, if you resort to abuse you will do nothing but harden their stance against the argument you are trying to make.
  • Try to be concise and explain what you would like them to do in very simple and unambiguous terms.
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    

Iain Duncan Smith's callous contempt for the dead
              
The Atos "disability denial factory" 
                
   A letter to fans of Workfare
              
The Workfare ship is sinking
                 
The Jobseekers (Back to Work schemes) Bill
            
 Retroactive legislation is fascist legislation

Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
              
Legal Aid cuts: A Tory commodification of justice
              
The Tory contempt for working people
                    
Iain Duncan Smith's lame Workfare propaganda
                    

Saturday, 30 March 2013

The March 2013 youth & long term unemployment statistics

The monthly unemployment figures for March were snuck out on the same day as George Osborne's headline grabbing 2013 budget. Whilst millions of people ended up talking about the 1p a pint reduction in beer duty, virtually nobody discussed the ongoing long-term and youth unemployment catastrophes.

The figures revealed a 53,000 rise in the number of 18-24 year olds out of work over the previous three month period, bringing the total to 800,000. To put this into perspective, there has been a near doubling of youth unemployment since before the global financial sector meltdown (from 457,000 in the March 2006 Labour Market Statistics).

The situation with long-term unemployment is even worse. The total for people out of work and claiming benefits for longer than 12 months has risen from 329,000 in 2006 (before the financial sector meltdown) to 887,000. A 170% rise. Those out of work and claiming benefits longer than two years has risen even more dramatically from 163,000 to 451,000 (+177%).

The story is even worse when it comes to long-term youth unemployment. On the 12 month+ measure, youth unemployment has risen 267% since 2006 and on the 24 month+ measure it has risen from 35,000 to 107,000.

These long-term and youth unemployment statistics are all the more shocking because of two important factors:

Firstly: The tens of thousands of benefits claimants being herded onto Iain Duncan Smiths unlawful Labour party approved workfare schemes are not included in the official ONS unemployment figures, meaning that for each three month period the number of people receiving unemployment benefits and out of paid work is something like 70,000 - 100,000 higher than the official figures imply. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it has been admitted several times in official ministerial replies and parliamentary debates.

Secondly: It is absolutely clear from whistleblower testimonies from several Jobcentre workers over the last two years (1, 2, 3) that Jobcentre staff are being assessed on what proportion of people they are stripping of their unemployment benefits. The existence of sanctions league tables and official targets for stripping people of their benefits is undeniable (even though Tory ministers like Iain Duncan Smith and Mark Hoban continue their absurd evidence denying, counter-factual denials). New evidence has also come to light that Jobcentre managers are being threatened with disciplinary measures if their staff don't strip enough people of their benefits, and that they in turn, are threatening their own staff with disciplinary measures for not meeting the targets specified by DWP management. The reason that this is important is obvious, if each Jobcentre is being pressurised into sending 5% of claimants for sanctions each month, this is going to have a huge cumulative effect on the overall unemployment numbers over the course of a year. By incentivising Jobcentre staff into tricking the most vulnerable people into losing their benefits. It's much easier to trick someone vulnerable (heavily dyslexic, autistic spectrum, very low IQ, suffering extreme depression or stress, recovering from stroke or brain injury) into committing a Jobseeker's Agreement violation than it is to catch out a "dedicated dole scrounger" or trick them into committing a sanctionable infringement. Another factor to consider is that even small violations resulting in a 4 or 6 week sanction can have a major effect on the long-term unemployment stats, since the claimant may not bother to sign on for the sanction period (for which they receive no benefits anyway), but return to initiate a new claim when the sanction period is over, therefore removing themselves from the long-term unemployment calculations.

Government gaming of the unemployment stats has been going on for decades, but the sheer scale of the measures being utilised in order to create the fiction that unemployment isn't a problem is worse now than it's ever been. I mean, introducing retroactive laws to deny recompense to those that have been unlawfully coerced into doing mandatory unpaid labour at major profit making (often foreign owned) corporations is bad enough, but maintaining the fiction that these people are not even unemployed is even worse. Even if they are doing unpaid labour, they are still actually receiving unemployment benefits!

The alarming rise in long-term and youth unemployment has had catastrophic real life consequences for millions of people. Unimaginable numbers of real people, though no fault of their own, have found themselves living on meagre subsistence benefits and castigated by their government, the baying right-wing press and their fellow countrymen as "scroungers", "skivers" and "parasites".

Yes there is a small minority of truly dedicated dole scroungers, but every time you fixate on them in a discussion, you're fighting the propaganda war of the Tory party for them. Large increases in unemployment and long-term unemployment are obviously not the consequence of hundreds of thousands of people suddenly, simultaneously deciding to have "an easy life" on benefits, it is a consequence of macroeconomic issues (financial crises, credit crunches, barmy ideological austerity experiments, influxes of cheap foreign labour, influxes of cheap foreign imports... ). Anyone pointing at their anecdotal lazy neighbour as an explanation for the unemployment crisis is a fool who has absolutely no grasp of the bigger picture. Due to severe cognitive limitation, confirmation bias or deliberate ignorance, they chose to blame the unemployed for their own situation, rather than blaming the self-serving politicians who have en masse abnegated their responsibility to make sure the social destruction of mass unemployment is avoided, in order to serve instead the interests of bankers, corporations, property speculators, super-rich party donors and the like in the hope of future kickbacks.

Perhaps it is simply more comfortable to for these users of "scrounger narratives" to allow themselves to believe that they are important hard-working people being exploited by "opportunistic dossers", than to accept the reality; that in the view of "the Establishment" (bankers, politicians, the rentier class, corporate fatcats, quangocrats, thinktankers ...), that they themselves are utterly insignificant chattel to be ruthlessly exploited. It is easier for them to think of themselves as brave lions suffering ticks, than as just one of a gigantic herd of docile cows being milked for all they're worth by a profit driven farmer.

Possibly the worst thing of all about the unemployment situation is the ridiculous stance of the Neo-Labour party. Instead of repeatedly hammering the Tory party (on long-term unemployment, youth unemployment, the catastrophic and eyewateringly expensive failure of their Work Programme, the unlawfulness of their mandatory labour regulations, the fact that Jobcentre staff are being actively incentivised into bullying vulnerable people off benefits), they actually colluded with them to pass a bunch of retroactive legislation through parliament at lightning speed to cover up Iain Duncan Smith's blundering incompetence. The fact that the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland now stand to the left of the Neo-Labour party on unemployment and social justice should be enough to disbar them from ever even pretending to represent the interests of left-wing people until those responsible (Ed Miliband, Liam Byrne and Stephen Twigg) are removed from the party leadership. Labour should be nailing severaly limited, brazenly malicious, blunderingly incompetent and extremely unpopular figures like Iain Duncan Smith to the wall, not colluding with him to retroactively bury his latest hundred million pound mistake.

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.




Saturday, 23 March 2013

Sanctions league tables and retroactive laws

Just days after helping the Tory led government rush through a bunch of retrospective rule changes aimed at undermining the rule of law, denying reimbursement to thousands of people unlawfully stripped of their benefits and saving Iain Duncan Smith's political career, the Labour party decided to go on the offensive and criticise the Coalition government over leaked DWP documents referring to league tables for the number of claimants sanctioned (having their benefits withheld). Tory ministers such as Mark Hoban and Iain Duncan Smith have repeatedly made statements to parliament and to the public that there are no league tables.

Here's a link to the leaked letter.

The most damning parts refer directly to the existence of league tables for sanctions, and demonstrate that these targets are imposed by senior DWP managers:
"As you can see Walthamstow are 95th in the league table out of only 109 ... Our district manager is not pleased … because senior managers are under pressure to improve our office output and move up the league he has to apply some pressure downwards." She continues: "Guys, we really need to up the game here. The 5% target is one thing – the fact that we are seeing over 300 people a week and only submitting six of them for possible doubts is simply not quite credible."
There are five utterly damning elements to the letter.
  • Despite being repeatedly denied by Tory ministers, sanctions league tables clearly exist.
  • Despite being repeatedly denied by DWP officials, sanctions targets tables clearly exist.
  • Very senior DWP staff are aware of these league tables and targets.
  • Very senior DWP staff have been pushing the targets.
  • Ordinary staff and management have been threatened with disciplinary action (PIP) for not sanctioning enough unemployed people.
Just two days before the leaked document came to light the employment minister Mark Hoban claimed in parliament that there were no league tables, here's what he said:
"There are no league tables in place. We do not set targets for sanctions. I have made that point in previous discussions."
This statement leaves us with only two options:
Either Hoban is aware of the league tables and targets and has repeatedly lied to Parliament and the public alike.
Or
Mark Hoban is so lazy and incompetent that he doesn't have the faintest idea what senior managers within his own department are up to.
That Mark Hoban and Iain Duncan Smith are incompetent liars is absolutely clear from the workfare debacle. Here's a breakdown of some of the lies and distortions Iain Duncan Smith used in a BBC interview the weekend after his workfare schemes were declared unlawful by the Court of Appeals.

What is less clear is why, at the behest of the shadow DWP minister Liam Byrne, the Labour Leader Ed Miliband desperately tried to force his MPs into supporting the Tory retrospective lawmaking exercise two days before these damning documents came to light. Why on earth did Miliband allow Iain Duncan Smith and Mark Hoban to rush their absurd retroactive laws through parliament as "emergency legislation" and why on earth did he try to force Labour MPs to abstain from the vote in order to allow this rotten bill to pass virtually unchallenged.

Their justification narrtive is that this bill would have passed anyway, and by abstaining they got some "important concessions" is absolute nonsense of the highest order. Had Ed said no to rushing the bill through a virtually empty chamber in just one day as "emergency legislation", the debate would have gone on for weeks, allowing Labour to repeatedly slam Iain Duncan Smith for his brazen incompetence and clearly set out their own alternatives. OK the government would have probably managed to get the legislation through in the end (with the help of the spineless Lib-Dems), but they would have had to take an enormous bruising to do it.

Instead of giving the popular campaign against retroactive laws time to pick up some real momentum (like the grassroots campaign against the backdoor privatisation of the NHS), Labour simply allowed the Tories to rush through their retroactive laws.

Labour had Iain Duncan Smith pinned against the ropes, battered, bloodied and bruised, fighting for his political career, (largely due to his own blundering incompetence) yet for some reason they decided to leave him be and set about punching themselves repeatedly in the face instead.

The only Labour MPs that come out of this with any credit at all are the 40 or so that defied the Labour whip and voted against this rotten legislation, especially John McDonnell who led the opposition to the bill and Ian Mears who resigned from his Labour shadow cabinet position to vote against the Tory led government. You can see the names of the 36 Labour rebels and the 16 other MPs (SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP, Green party & Alliance party) that voted against the third and final reading this revolting exercise retroactive lawmaking here.

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.



Sunday, 10 March 2013

The warped Tory definition of rights

So the Tory Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that she would like to revoke your human rights by scrapping the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights.

The justification narrative for this Tory attack on the human rights of all British people (freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, liberty, the right to a fair trial, freedom from retrospective punishment, the right to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom from discrimination) has already been defined.

We must now expect a barrage of justifications for abandoning human rights, citing a few individual cases like the Islamic extremist Abu Qatada. Here's an article in the Telegraph priming the reactionary right-wing brigade with their argument against Human rights.

The ECHR came into effect in 1953, in the middle of Winston Churchill's second stint as PM. It's a sad indictment of the state of politics in this country when people (including the Tory Home Secretary and Justice Minister) start squealing for 60 year old statutes (that were signed up to by perhaps the most generally lauded Tory PM of all time) to be torn up because of the activities of a loathsome shitbag like Qatada.

It is absolutely clear that this will be their narrative strategy. Their plan is to undermine human rights through association with Islamic extremism, however it is clear that if the words and activities of a tiny minority of Islamic extremists used to destroy our human rights, the extremists have already won. In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

As is almost always the case in modern politics the real reason for the policy is not the stated reason for the policy. A closer look at a few Tory policies may help to explain the true reasoning behind their decision to attack our human rights.
  • Retrospective laws: Once again the DWP are at the heart of this conflict with European Human Rights. They're planning to bring in retrospective legislation to avoid compensating all of the people that have been sanctioned for failing to comply with the DWP's unlawful mandatory labour schemes. This is quite obviously illegal under Article 7 of the ECHR which protects us from the imposition of retrospective laws.
  • Internet snooping: Another area in which Tory party policy may conflict with the ECHR is Theresa May's Internet Snooper's charter, which would allow the government (and countless agencies working on their behalf) to access your emails and to trawl through your internet history. This kind of Stasi like spying on the general public would be much easier to implement if the Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to privacy) could simply be abolished.

One of the most shocking things about this outright contempt for your human rights, is that members of this government clearly believe in their own right to dictate.

Contrast Theresa May's opposition to human rights, with this statement from Tory Employment Minister Mark Hoban:

"The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help them get into work"
It is absolutely clear from Hoban's statement that he sees governance in terms of ministerial rights to dictate. In his view, the ministerial right to dictate clearly supersedes the labour rights of the ordinary person (the right to earn the minimum wage, the right to quit if you are being bullied or exploited, the right to paid holidays and paid sick leave...). Now Theresa May is openly fantasising about revoking your human rights (your right to assembly, your right to free expression, your right to a fair trial, your right to life).

It is quite clear from this, that the Tory definition of a "right" is actually something that belongs to the government, not to members of the public. It is the classic Tory principle, "the right to rule".

Let me finish by asking two simple questions.


What kind of government clearly believes in their own rights, but battles to revoke the rights of the public?
The view that governmental rights supersede the rights of the public is a totalitarian stance closely associated with fascism.
If it has a history of fascism, it sounds like fascism and it behaves like fascism, what is it?
The UK Conservative Party


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.



Friday, 15 February 2013

Mark Hoban's totalitarian tendencies

As anyone that is familiar with my work will know, I'm not the kind of writer that chucks around accusations of fascism lightly. Having said that, I'm beginning to have serious concerns about the totalitarian tendencies of the Tory MP Mark Hoban, who is the current Minister of State for Employment in the Coalition government.

In January 2013 I became aware of the fact that Mark Hoban (or one of his lackeys) was routinely censoring his Facebook page to remove any signs of criticism. It didn't matter how politely written the message, if it criticised or questioned Hoban or Tory policy in any way it would be routinely deleted. I pointed out this censorship strategy to the followers of the Another Angry Voice Facebook page, who then gleefully "Facebombed" Hoban's page with polite criticism and questions about his attitude towards censorship. Other Facebook groups such as the excellent Atos Miracles directed their followers in a similar manner. After several days of mass censorship, Hoban took the step of deleting his Facebook page entirely to silence the debate once and for all (if only Hoban could be deleted from the Houses of Parliament as easily as he was from Facebook!).

I don't see the removal of Mark's Facebook page as any kind of victory, the intention wasn't to chase him off social media, he has as much right to be there as anyone. The idea was to test his censorship policy by posting polite questions and criticism. The fact that he mass deleted all of those comments then deleted his page rather than respond to people's legitimate and (in the main part) politely worded concerns is a sad indictment of his attitude: If you can't win the debate, then simply delete it; censor it out of existence.

Just a couple of weeks later Hoban was thrust into the spotlight when one of the Tory flagship unemployment policies (forcing the unemployed to work for no pay, often for months at a stretch for profit making corporations) was declared unlawful by the Court of Appeals. In response to this, Hoban came out with one of the most absurd political statements I've ever seen. Here's what he said:
"The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help them get into work"

Lets just gloss over the fact that Hoban is trying to paint a catastrophic defeat of Tory Workfare (Corporate Welfare Scrounging) schemes at the Court of Appeals as some kind of victory and his absurd misuse of the word "help" to describe the process of stripping people of their labour rights and deliberately undermining the statutory minimum wage, to move straight on to his fascistic use of the concept of "rights".

Hoban's statement clearly demonstrates that he believes that it is his right, as a member of the government, to force people to work for no wages on his Corporate Welfare Scrounging schemes (in breach of their right to earn the statutory minimum wage for their labour). This is a clear cut demonstration that he believes that any rights that the public have are secondary to his rights as a government minister; that ministerial rights supersede human rights. Essentially he is expressing the fascist sentiment that:
The public has a duty to serve the government, not that the government has a duty to serve the public
Lets also consider the nature of the schemes he spends so much of his time defending; Workfare, the Work Programme, the Atos WCA disability regime. They all have one thing in common, which is that they are government policies enforced by private sector companies. The use of outsourcing companies such as A4e (that made 100% of their 2011 turnover of £180 million from lucrative government contracts) to administer the functions of the state is a classic example of corporatisation. The parallels with fascist Italy are easy to draw. The Fascist leader Benito Mussolini was an adherent of the corporatist ideology and is often quoted as having said "fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power".

There is another parallel with Fascist Italy: In the mid 1920s Mussolini dismantled virtually all constitutional and conventional restraints on his power. The February 2013 Workfare Court of Appeals ruling found that the Tories had "exceeded their powers because any such mandatory work schemes must first be "authorised by Parliament". The schemes Hoban spends his time defending are quite clearly unlawful for this reason, but instead of giving up on them, Hoban and the Tories have stated their intention to simply redraw the rules and bypass the judgement. Like Mussolini, the Tories running the DWP have absolutely no intention of allowing themselves to be restrained by the rule of law.

As I said in the introduction, I refuse to bandy the word fascist around as an insult. Using it as a "bad word" to hurl at someone with whom we disagree is firstly a pitiful debating technique, but also a huge insult to all those that suffered and died as a consequence of 20th Century fascism. However, in this case I don't believe I'm doing that, I'm presenting Hoban's words and actions as evidence that if he isn't consciously a fascist sympathiser, he is at least displaying an awful lot of fascistic tendencies.

Just to recap:
  • Hoban clearly has contempt for the concept of open debate, demonstrating a totalitarian attitude towards dissent on his Facebook page. Instead of engaging in debate and political discourse, he simply censored out of existence all signs of criticism (never a good strategy on social media) until the page became untenable. Then he deleted it completely to silence public debate over government policy
  • Hoban effort to paint the catastrophic Court of Appeals defeat as a victory and a vindication of unlawful Tory policies demonstrates that he is not averse to using the black art of propaganda
  • Hoban statement on government rights displays the fascistic sentiment that government right to dictate supersedes public rights such as the right to earn the statutory minimum wage in return for labour.
  • Hoban's work at the DWP involves implementing and defending the corporatisation of the state.
  • Hoban's statements that the government will simply redraw the rules to allow these unlawful schemes to continue is a clear demonstration of his determination to dismantle or bypass all restraints on his power.

Given all of this one is left wondering what the much admired opponent of fascism and Tory Prime Minister Winston Churchill would make of Mark Hoban and the current state of the Tory party. Not only that the Tory party would welcome such an individual, but that they would actually make him a government minister. I believe Churchill would have been appalled. Churchill was famously sharp-witted and eloquent, and just about the nicest thing I've heard anyone say of Hoban's performance after the Court of Appeals ruling was "you know when you have a friend who knows fuck all apart from what hes been told? Hoban was just like that".

In the mid 1930s Churchill was actually an outspoken figure within the Tory party as an overt critic of fascism. At the time huge numbers of Tory MPs and Lords were joining revolting Fascist organisations like the Anglo-German Link (which fostered links between the Tories and the Nazi government in Germany) and the vile anti-semitic Right Club (dedicated to ridding the Tory party of Jewish influence). Churchill was a marginalised and outspoken figure in the Tory party because of his calls for re-armament and an end to appeasement of Nazi Germany. One can be fairly certain that had Hoban been around in the mid-1930 he wouldn't have been standing at Churchill's side as a critic at the margins of a Tory party which had become dangerously fixated on the allure of fascism and anti-semitism.

One would have thought that given the shocking history of fascism within the Tory party, they would be very keen to weed out those that demonstrate anything resembling fascist sentiments, but this has clearly not been the case with Hoban.


Even if Hoban isn't actually an overt fascist sympathiser, he certainly has many of the attributes the are necessary in order for fascism to thrive; a lack of intellect, a totalitarian contempt for debate, an fervent belief in the corporatisation of the state, a tendency to resort to propaganda and an ideological stance that relies on the idea that "the rights of the government supersede the rights of the public".

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.