Showing posts with label Mental illness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mental illness. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 April 2017

Read Jeremy Corbyn's speech on education policy


On the same day that Theresa May did a catastrophically inept interview on the Andrew Marr show (evading questions, robotic repetition of her ridiculous "strong and stable" mantra, refusing to admit that nurses relying on food banks to survive is wrong, trying to whitewash the ongoing Tory electoral fraud investigations ...) Jeremy Corbyn received a standing ovation from hundreds of head teachers for his speech about Labour's education policy.

The mainstream press will give Corbyn's speech minimal publicity, and hardly any of the scant coverage that does appear will frame the speech in terms of the rousing ovation that it received.

That's why I'm providing a transcript of the speech so you can judge it for yourself.

------------------------------------------------------


[Introductions] ...


It is a great honour to address you, leaders of one of the most important professions in our society, those who look after the education, the wellbeing, and the future of our children.

That is why Labour is making our children’s education one of the cornerstones of our General Election campaign.

The choice in this election could not be clearer – and it’s not the re-run of the EU referendum that the Prime Minister wants it to be.

Britain needs a government for the many not the few – one that’s ready to invest in our economy and public services. But the Conservatives have demonstrated that cannot be them, preferring to give the richest and largest corporations tax hand-outs worth tens of billions.

The NHS and social care have been pushed into a state of emergency. Housebuilding has fallen to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s. Schools across the country face real terms cuts in funding per pupil, and class sizes are rising – while those young people who want to go to university face huge debts.

There is no greater responsibility than ensuring our children get the education that they deserve. I know this, you know this, parents up and down this country know this. But it is clear that this Conservative Government has its focus elsewhere.

The NAHT has correctly pointed out that this election is make or break time for our children’s education system.

As all of you will know, the National Audit Office confirms that schools are facing a cut of three billion pounds in real terms by 2020, the first real terms cut in education budgets in a generation.

This is an absolutely staggering figure and shows the need for a complete change of direction in how the government of this country treats our schools.

And we have to ask ourselves: is this how we want to treat the education system of our children? Is this how Britain’s children deserve to be treated?

Do our children deserve to be held back by a chronic shortage of teachers?

Do our children deserve to crammed into schools like sardines?

Do our children deserve to be taught by teachers whose morale is at an all-time low?

Not by any fault of the teachers, they are the people who also bear the burden of government cuts, but the fault of governments who fail to recognise the importance of investing in the lives of children, and those who teach and support them, up and down this country.

That is why we must value teachers, because if we don’t we lose them. And you know better than anyone there is a recruitment crisis and that crisis will be made even worse if we don’t secure the rights of EU nationals.

Last year 5,000 teachers from EU countries qualified to teach here and there are thousands more working to teach our children. So that’s why, as Keir Starmer set out this week, a Labour government will guarantee the rights of EU nationals living here.

And if we lose teachers, we lose subjects, we narrow the horizons of young people. So that’s why I passionately believe in an Arts Pupil Premium so that every primary school child will benefit from a £160 million cash boost to help pupils learn to play instruments, learn drama and dance and have “regular access” to theatres, galleries or museums in their local areas.

And yet, while all this is happening, while funding to our children’s education is cut, multinational corporations have received multi-billion pound tax giveaways

How can it be right that money is being siphoned straight out of our children’s schools and directly into the pockets of the super-rich?

We have to be clear, once and for all, that enough is enough.

Throughout this General Election campaign, we will be making absolutely clear our commitment to build a country for the many, and not just the few.

A vital part of that will be creating an education system that provides for every child regardless of their background, or their parents’ income.

Labour will introduce a National Education Service, ensuring excellent learning opportunities for all from early years to adult education.

What we need now – and what you as teaching professionals need now – are concrete answers and concrete solutions to the problems that our education system is facing.

That is why Labour has set out a plan to help give every young person the best start in life possible, by introducing universal free school meals for pupils at primary schools. It’s a policy that is fully costed, and will be paid for by introducing VAT on private school fees.

There are clear educational benefits to providing universal free school meals. It boosts the attainment and level of education of our children. We know that these early formative years are the most important in a child’s education and we have a duty to provide for our children the best we possibly can throughout that period.

It’s a policy that demonstrates how a Labour government would care for the many, and not just the few.

We will ensure that every single child receives a healthy and nutritious meal which will not only boost children’s productivity in the classroom but also helps to ensure their personal wellbeing, no matter what their background.

Children eating together is a great start in life.

So not only will the policy help children throughout their time in education, it will also help teachers who will see the benefits of improved concentration and improved attainment in the classroom.

And it will help parents who will not only save money but will have the peace of mind in knowing that their child is getting a healthy school meal during the day

Investing in the health of our nation’s children, is investing in our nation’s future.

If we are to truly place value on our children’s education, we must also place value on the teachers, head teachers and other school staff who deliver that education.

We must put an end to the continual attacks on the teaching profession, end the downward pressure on pay and conditions, the constant undermining of morale and the erosion of standards that means we have more unqualified teachers than ever in our classrooms.

That’s why, as part of the comprehensive programme Labour has set out today to strengthen rights at work and end the race to the bottom in the jobs market, we have confirmed a Labour government will lift the cap on public sector pay.

It cannot be right that those who provide our vital public services have their pay squeezed year after year. Britain’s public service employees deserve a pay rise.

And we must give the teaching profession the recognition it deserves, not only in terms of pay, but also in terms of status in our society.

We need to listen to you, the teaching professionals, on how you believe schools can be improved and respect the huge wealth of talent and knowledge that lies in the teaching profession as a whole.

I have always believed that the people who know how to a job best are those who do it day in day out. We must start listening to parents, teachers and head teachers: you are the people who know how schools should be run and you are the people who best understand the needs of our children.

That is why Labour has taken our lead from the NAHT – and from the other teachers’ unions – when we set out in no uncertain terms our opposition to the expansion of grammar schools in this country.

Not only does the mass introduction of segregation in our education system not help the overwhelming majority of this country’s children, it also returns us to what are frankly Victorian notions of education based on a narrow curriculum.

The task is clear: we must build an education system that suits the needs of our children and the opportunities they will have in the jobs market of tomorrow.

And if we are to build an economy worthy of the 21st century, we need a schools system that looks forwards, and not backwards to the failed models of the past.

We must recognise that every single child in this country has talents and every single child deserves the chance to flourish and thrive to their maximum potential in whichever field suits them best.

But our children’s schools do not exist in a vacuum. I am always in awe of the local head teachers I work with. Like thousands of children, I have learned so much from them.

And what I admire most is their commitment – not just to managing their schools and to educating our children – but the multi-faceted demands of the children in their community: their housing issues, immigration problems, their mental health. You are the heart of your communities.

You are part of a wider care system and you need the other parts of that system to work effectively alongside you, youth services, the NHS and social care.

Support for schools by these services is essential to promote pupil wellbeing. The duty to directly address pupils’ mental health needs ultimately rests with the social and care services.

No school should be asked to fund health and social care services from the school budget. That is why Labour has pledged to address the chronic underfunding for social care and the NHS.

As you all know schools are most effective as places of learning when they work together with high quality social care and health services to meet the needs of all students but especially those who are most vulnerable.

One in ten children and young people in this country suffer from a mental health condition and 75 percent of adult mental health problems are found to begin before the age of 18.

We must prioritise the mental wellbeing of our children. This is the least they deserve.

It is vital that we enable early intervention and provide support when problems first emerge but to do this we must build an education system that integrates social and health care.

Improving the way our society deals with mental health is a particular concern of mine because I am passionate to see opportunities for all.

That’s why I have been so impressed by the work so many of you do for children with special needs and how good special needs co-ordinators can liberate children from what has sometimes been a lifetime of exclusion.

That focus on the individual child is what drives our determination to reduce class sizes. We know that half a million children have been landed in super-size classes of 31 pupils or more.

This government is failing on education on its own terms. The Prime Minister herself has said that super-sized classes are proof of a school system in crisis. So then why is it allowed to continue?

Why are our children’s schools, not getting the funding that they deserve? This is a choice. And it is the wrong choice. The cut to schools funding is also a breach of their manifesto the Conservatives’ pledge to protect schools funding.

Labour will ensure schools have the resources they need.

I’m afraid I can’t give you a sneak preview of the full Labour manifesto today but be assured if it’s a choice between a tax giveaway to the largest corporations paying the lowest rates of tax in the developed world or funding for our schools. Labour will make very different choices from the Conservatives.

We have already started to set some of that out not just our free schools meals policy.

And our commitment to reintroduce the Educational Maintenance Allowance for college students from lower incomes.

We are also committed to restoring maintenance grants for university students so that no one is held back from realising their ambitions and so that every schoolchild knows that the options of further and higher Education are available to them.

We must not be ashamed to value education, for education’s own sake.

Schools should exist to get the very best from our children, to give them the best start in life, to enable them to succeed in whichever walk of life they chose.

Whereas Theresa May’s government has repeatedly cut resources and staffing we will invest in our children’s futures because they deserve nothing less.

The excuses from the government come thick and fast. They’ve blamed teachers for not working hard enough, they’ve diverted funds to their vanity projects. £138.5 million wasted on schools that have closed, partially closed or never opened in the first place.

We will not bring back a system that blamed children and parents for not passing the eleven plus and getting into a grammar school.

They blame everybody else, to divert attention from their own damaging failures. They need head teachers to tell them, own up, take responsibility and say sorry.

Labour will give schools the funding that our children deserve, the funding that teachers and headteachers deserve and the investment that our country and our economy deserves.

This election can be the chance for a fresh start, with a Labour government that will invest to create shared prosperity, protect our public services and build a fairer Britain.

A Labour government will work with you, we will give schools the funding the need and we will ensure you and your staff get the respect and resources you need.

We have a duty to our children and we will meet it.

Thank you.

[Standing ovation]



------------------------------------------------------

Remember that the Tories are planning to slash £billions from the education budget. Find out how much your local schools are going to lose here.

Also remember that it's not just our schools that are facing severe funding cuts at the hands of Theresa May's government either. The NHS is in chaos and the Tories are still cutting away at it and deliberately provoking an unprecedented recruitment crisis. People are dying in house fires because of the ongoing Tory cuts to the fire service, and disabled people are suffering appalling deprivations because of Tory cuts to the disability welfare budget.


 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

Thursday, 20 April 2017

The systematic Tory abuse of disabled people


Don't pretend you don't know. You'd have to have been living in a lead box for the last seven years to not know about at least a few of the disgusting ways in which the Tories have been systematically abusing disabled people.

Here is a far from exhaustive list of examples of the systematic abuse of disabled people that has been going on since 2010.

  • Appeals against botched WCA rulings have been costing £50 million a year. This cost is paid for by the taxpayer, not the profiteering corporations that made the botched assessments in the first place.
  • A United Nations investigation into the treatment of disabled people in the UK found that the UK government was committing "grave and systematic violations" of disabled people's rights.
  • The Tory party claimed to be scrapping the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and replacing it with Personal Independence Payments (PIP) in order to make sure the money went to the right people, but in April 2017 they slashed PIP payments by 33% using the perverse excuse that this would incentivise them to find work (despite there being no evidence whatever to back up this claim).
As I said at the beginning, this is a far from exhaustive list of examples of the systematic Tory abuse of disabled people.

Are you honestly going to endorse this?

If you vote Tory on June 8th, you'll be endorsing the continuation of this disgusting Tory agenda of abusing and impoverishing disabled people.

If you know anyone who has a disability and you actively endorse the continuation of this systematic abuse of disabled people, you know perfectly well what kind of person that makes you.

If you have a rudimentary level of basic human foresight, you must understand that one day it might be you, or a member of your family, or a cherished friend who develops a disability or seriously debilitating illness. Which means that by endorsing the continuation of this systematic Tory abuse of disabled people, you're stupidly inviting it on yourself and the people close to you.

Please share

Please share this article as widely as you can to help people understand how appallingly the Tories have been treating disabled people. It's especially important to share it with people who don't have social media or even Internet access. Show them on your phone, or even print it off and hand them a physical copy.



 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

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Theresa May's crocodile tears


In her inaugural speech Theresa May shed brazen crocodile tears over the plight of the poor, the working class, ethnic minorities and those with mental health problems.
She complained about the fact that poor people die on average 9 years before the well off referring to it as a "burning injustice".

If Theresa May really cared about the well being of the poor, why on earth did she continue to support George Osborne's ruinous ideological austerity agenda after it became clear that it had led to the longest sustained real terms wage declines in history for ordinary workers and exponential growth in food bank dependency due to his wage repression policies and brutal social security cuts while the tiny super-rich minority literally doubled their wealth as a result of his tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich.

It's bad enough voting in favour of economic policies that resulted in an unprecidented upwards redistribution of wealth, but to then shed crocodile tears over the "burning injustice" of poor people having worse life chances than rich people really does take the piss.

May then complained that "if you’re a white working class boy you're less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university" but within weeks of being anointed as Prime Minister Theresa May set about scrapping the maintenance grants that help students from low-income families go to university.

Scrapping financial support for poor students is bad enough in its own right, but doing so within weeks of actually pretending to give a damn about the university prospects of working class kids is an extraordinary display of hypocrisy.

May also complained that "if you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately", but what she didn't mention is that since the Tories introduced £9,000 per year tuition fees the percentage of state educated kids going into higher education has slumped from 71% to 62%.

To vote in favour of introducing the highest fees for public universities anywhere in the world in order to price kids from poor and ordinary backgrounds out of higher education is bad enough, but to then shed crocodile tears over the fact state educated kids are less likely to get top jobs is disgustingly hypocritical.

May then complained about the inequalities between women and men, completely regardless of the fact that the austerity measures she repeatedly voted in favour of for the last six years disproportionately affected women.

Next she complained that people with mental health problems struggle to get the treatment they need without any reference to the fact that the NHS cuts and botched top-down reorganisation that she voted for have resulted in a huge crisis in mental health care and the closure of NHS mental health facilities all over the country.

Then she finished off complaining that young people are finding it harder than ever to afford their own homes without any reference to George Osborne's crackpot house price inflation schemes, his refusal to reform the financial sector to prevent them just re-inflating another dangerously unsustainable house price bubble or the utterly woeful house building figures over the preceding six years of Tory rule.

It is astonishing that since being anointed as unelected Prime Minister Theresa May has become the most popular politician in Britain. It's incredible that people were not sickened by the absolute hypocrisy of her crying crocodile tears over social injustice when the central ideology of the party she represents is conservation of the interests of the wealthy minority at the expense of the rest of society has contributed so much to these social injustices she pretended to give a damn about.

It's a sad indictment of the state of British political awareness that such a brazenly hypocritical woman could be lauded as the most popular politician in Britain, but I guess that's just a reflection of the superficial style-over-substance words-over-actions modern world, where politicians are more likely to be judged on the tailoring of their outfit or on the manner in which they eat a bacon sandwich than on their policies or their integrity.


 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

Sunday, 29 March 2015

How the press have turned the actions of a mass murderer into a fearmongering campaign against depression



On the 24th of March 2015 the German co-pilot Andreas Lubitz caused the destruction of the 4U9525 Germanwings flight from Barcelona to Dusseldorf resulting in the deaths of everyone on board (himself, 144 passengers and 5 other crew) making it one of the most deadly murder-suicides in history.

At first the cause of the crash was a mystery but 
it soon became clear that Lubitz had deliberately locked the pilot out of the cabin, used the cabin door override to prevent the captain from using his passcode to open the door from the outside, initiated the descent sequence that resulted in the crash and remained alive (and calmly breathing) until the moment of impact.

A few days later it was revealed that Lubitz's flight training had been interrupted for several months due to mental health issues. It's not entirely clear what these issues were, but several German sources cited depression as being the cause of the interruption. These revelations provoked lurid headlines across the British press. The front page of the right-wing Daily Mail screeched "Why on earth was he allowed to fly" and the pro-Labour tabloid The Daily Mirror also boldly linked the actions of the killer with his depression on their front page. The tabloid press weren't the only ones either, the Times and the Telegraph both also ran the killer was depressive theme on their front pages too.

The Daily Mail wasn't the only paper to write
hyperbolic headlines about depression, the Daily Mirror
got in on the act too.
The mental health charity Mind quickly stepped in to complain about the way that such lurid headlines add to the stigma associated with common mental health problems like depression and several bloggers and columnists have spoken up to draw attention to the fact that they have suffered depression and the idea of committing a mass murder-suicide has never crossed their minds.

The fact is that there are millions of people out there who have suffered depression. Amongst them are countless people with high responsibility jobs. Pilots, train drivers, bus drivers, fuel tanker drivers, nuclear power plant workers, air traffic controllers, engineers, operators of dangerous machinery, firemen, policemen, military personnel and health professionals. 
If the lurid Daily Mail headlines about the fact that Andreas Lubitz had depression are enough to make you think these people should all be stripped of their jobs because they represent a danger to the public, then I'd suggest that your mental problems (paranoia, delusional thinking, a bizarre lack of perspective, lack of empathy) are far more serious than those of most of the people you want to have fired from their jobs.

I am one of the tens of millions of people with a history of suffering severe depression. In fact depression is the reason that this is the first article I've posted on my blog in over a month. I'm currently struggling with personal circumstances that are beyond my control, leaving me with no choice but to figure out which of the highly unfavourable options in front of me is the least bad. As a consequence of facing such an appalling decision I've slipped into a prolonged depression.

Even though I get an immense amount of satisfaction from writing articles, designing infographics and debating politics with people, the idea of doing any of that stuff when I'm in the pit of depression, struggling with issues that are beyond my control, is frankly ludicrous. The only thing that has snapped me out of this depression for a while is the way that the UK press have resorted to demonising depression, as if people like me are all potential mass murderers to be frightened of.

How the press have turned the actions of a psychopath into

Simply having suffered depression isn't enough to turn a person into a mass murderer. In order to commit an act of mass murder the individual needs to be suffering much more serious issues than depression, because being depressed doesn't necessarily mean that the individual suddenly loses their ability to feel basic human empathy for others. In fact I'd argue that many people who have suffered from severe depression are actually inclined to be very empathetic indeed, since familiarity with their own suffering gives them great scope for understanding the suffering of others.

Adreas Lubitz may well have suffered from depression, but the premeditated decision to murder 144 passengers and 5 work colleagues, for whatever reason, are clearly the actions of a psychopath without the capacity to feel basic human empathy. If Lubitz had had any capacity for empathy whatever, he would have considered the enormous wave of suffering such an action would unleash on the families and friends of his 149 victims and realised that such a vast tsunami of grief would massively outweigh his own depressive issues. Such a realisation would have driven him to either quietly commit suicide on his own, or to actually accept the medical help he had been offered and rejected. Only a psychopath would be able to consider going ahead with a plan that involved murdering so many other people and causing such a huge amount of human suffering as a consequence. 

Andreas Lubitz's ex-girlfriend claimed that he killed all of those people in order to "make people remember him". Without a suicide note it's impossible to know for sure that this was his intention, but if it was, then this suggests that he wasn't actually that severely depressed at all. People with severe depression tend to try and reduce their suffering through medication, withdrawal, distraction, therapy, alcohol, drug use, or even suicide. They're usually far to busy with their (often highly ineffective) coping mechanisms to spend their time fantasising about how they might make themselves infamous and calmly planning acts of mass murder.

The efforts by the UK press to draw a causal relationship between Andreas Lubitz's depressive tendencies and his premeditated decision to murder 149 other people is grotesquely irresponsible, and such ignorant fearmongering about depression only make it more likely that many other people with depression will try to hide their suffering out of fear that people will demonise them as potential killers or hound them out of their jobs.

As a sufferer of depression with a reasonably large public profile I feel compelled to stand up on behalf of millions of others and say that it doesn't matter how severe our depression gets, we won't be murdering anyone, ever - because we're not psychopaths.


 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 
         
       
How I overcame social anxiety to become a successful political writer
                             
We need to talk about cyber-bullying
                        
Recommended reading - heterodox economics
           
What is ... a Credit Default Swap?
                     
What is ... fiscal multiplication?
                                                
What is ... wage repression?
                          
The terrifying scale of political illiteracy in the UK
                
The myth of right-wing patriotism
                      

Friday, 24 January 2014

Why the Liberal Democrats are just as compassionless as the Tories when it comes to welfare



The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg inspired me to write this article by informing listeners to his talk radio show that "we want a welfare system which is compassionate".

Now pretty much everyone knows that Nick Clegg is such a turncoat that his name has become synonymous with self-serving political dishonesty, however I believe it is still a useful exercise to look at some of the welfare policies that Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrat sidekicks have helped the Tories to bring about and judge how "compassionate" they have been.

Iain Duncan Smith
[Main article]

The first thing to note is that anyone with the slightest real interest in building a "compassionate" welfare system would have done everything in their power to keep the moral and intellectual pygmy that is Iain Duncan Smith as far away from the welfare system as possible. Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats not only refused to veto the appointment of Iain Duncan Smith as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, they have used their parliamentary votes to ram through all compassionless (and in many cases hopelessly botched) - policies. Even worse than that, they even voted to save him from the consequences of his own blundering incompetence, when anyone in their right mind would demanded his immediate resignation.

The Atos administered WCA regime
[Main article]


If you are even remotely familiar with the Atos WCA regime, you will know how compassionless it it. Not only are there countless first hand testimonies as to how cruel and inaccurate it is, the government's own statistics admit that thousands of people a year have died within weeks of undergoing the Atos administered assessment regime, and the Courts have twice declared that it discriminates against those with mental health conditions.

Despite the court ruling that the Atos administered WCA regime is discriminatory, Iain Duncan Smith has refused to halt the process, a decision that elicited not a squeak of protest from Nick Clegg nor the rest of the Liberal Democrat leadership.

Aside from the fact that the Atos administered WCA regime discriminates against the mentally ill, another enormous problem is the incompetent way in which the process is administered. Nearly 40% of people who appeal against the decision to strip them of benefits win their cases and have their benefits reinstated*. There are so many appeals against dodgy Atos decisions that it costs the taxpayer (not Atos) £50 million a year to deal with them all.

One would have thought that the company responsible for costing the taxpayer £50 million a year in appeals against their dodgy decisions would hang their heads in shame, but on the contrary, the boss of Atos earns a salary of £40,000 a week, and despite this appalling legacy of failure causing untold misery to tens of thousands of families (and costing the UK taxpayer tens of millions of pounds) he was rewarded with a £1,000,000 bonus in 2012.

Have the Liberal Democrats taken any noteworthy action to stop this appalling and discriminatory abuse of disabled people, whilst the people responsible for administering it lord it around on seven figure salaries? Of course they haven't.

The Benefits "Up-Rating" Bill

[Main article]

Despite its absurdly Orwellian title (an honest title would have been the Benefits Down-Rating Bill), Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats used their parliamentary votes to push through this appalling piece of legislation, which was designed to impose below inflation rises (real terms cuts) on the incomes of the unemployed and low paid workers alike.

The Tory narrative to justify this economic attack on the poorest people in society was the utterly misleading "why should your unemployed neighbour get more than you?" argument, which is misleading on countless grounds. I'll briefly outline three.

1. The Tories are responsible for the longest sustained campaign of wage repression on record, so saying that they are going to cut benefits even more harshly than wages is like saying "We've been kicking you in the groin for three years straight, so in order to make you feel better, we're going to wear steel toe capped boots as we kick your neighbour in the groin from now on".

2. The unemployed neighbour wasn't "getting more" anyway, since an inflation matching 2.5% addition to £71 per week in Jobseekers' Allowance is actually significantly less than a 1.5% increase on the average salary of £500 per week.

3. The vast majority of people to be affected by the Benefits Up-Raring Bill are actually the working poor, not the unemployed. This is because the bill didn't just cut unemployment benefits, it cut all kinds of in-work benefits too (Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit, Income Support, Maternity Pay, Paternity Pay, Statutory Sickness Pay ...). The fact that the "up-rating" bill actually reduces the incomes of far more working families than it does unemployed people illustrates the utter dishonesty and maliciousness of the people that devised the "why should your unemployed neighbour get more than you?" narrative.
None of these objections bothered the Liberal Democrats, who used their parliamentary votes to get the "up-rating" bill through parliament.

An interesting contrast can be made with the way the Liberal Democrats constantly bang on about how they raised the income tax threshold (the one allegad success that they so desperately cling onto). What they never say is that they voted through Tory measures like the Benefits Up-Rating Bill which are designed to snatch back any gains the working poor may have made through the raising of the income tax threshold. The Lib-Dems won't shut up about how they gave the working poor a few extra quid, but they remain absolutely silent on the fact that they have used their parliamentary votes to help the Tories snatch it all back again, meaning the only real beneficiaries from the raised income tax threshold are the already wealthy.
 

Bedroom Tax
[Main article]


One of the most convincing examples of the Liberal Democrat commitment to harsh and compassionless welfare reforms is the "Bedroom Tax", which was voted into existence with Lib-Dem parliamentary votes and defended in Parliament by the Liberal Democrat MP Steve Webb.

The "Bedroom Tax" is an abomination which disproportionately penalises disabled people (around two thirds of all families affected by "Bedroom Tax" have disabled members).

"Bedroom Tax" is a cruel and arbitrary regime which attempts to drive people out of their homes - even though there are nowhere near enough smaller properties to rehouse all of these displaced people.

Perhaps it might be possible to consider it fair for extra charges to be levied upon on a person (or small family) that refuses to move out of a large social housing property after the council have said they need it to house a large family, despite having been offered a smaller property in return. However slamming all "under-occupiers" with arbitrary charges when there are absolutely no smaller properties available for them to move into is as compassionless as it is unfair and economically illiterate.

This lack of available smaller properties exposes "Bedroom Tax" for what it is: Yet another attempt by the Tory party to impose austerity on the poor (whilst simultaneously giving vast tax cuts to the rich).

Not only is the "Bedroom Tax" an abomination, it was also introduced in such a cack-handed manner that it turns out that some 40,000 people who have been forced to pay it aren't actually liable and should surely be entitled to reimbursement.

The Liberal Democrats didn't just use their parliamentary votes to pass this abomination into law, one of their own MPs (Steve Webb) was part of the team that devised and defended the scheme.


Retroactive "Workfare" legislation

[Main article


Another blatant demonstration of the Liberal Democrat commitment to support the compassionless Tory attacks on the welfare system was their decision to vote in favour of Iain Duncan Smith's absurd retroactive lawmaking exercise called the Jobseekers' (Back to Work) Bill, but which should more accurately have been called Iain Duncan Smith's "I'm Above the Law" Bill.

This ludicrous bill came about as the result of a court judgement that Iain Duncan Smith's mandatory unpaid "Workfare" schemes were unlawful. The judgement was made on the grounds that Iain Duncan Smith had drawn up a bunch of unintelligible rules and that he hadn't even bothered to subject them to parliamentary scrutiny before enacting them.

Thousands of people were stripped of their benefits for failing to comply with Iain Duncan Smith's unintelligible "workfare" rules, then once the court ruled that these schemes were unlawful, it seemed that the victims of these unintelligible and unlawful rules would be entitled to an estimated £130 million in compensation for the unlawful treatment they had suffered.

Iain Duncan Smith's response to this was to draw up a ludicrous piece of retroactive legislation designed to retroactively change the "Workfare" rules so that they would have been intelligible and approved by parliament had they been written that way at the time all those people were sanctioned. The Liberal Democrats happily voted in favour of this, giving their seal of approval to a truly outrageous bastardisation of the parliamentary process in order to help Iain Duncan Smith keep the £130 million he had unlawfully stolen from some of the most vulnerable people in society, and save himself from the sacking he so richly deserved.

 
Benefits sanctions
[Main article]


One of the most merciless welfare reforms since the Liberal Democrats trashed their own political reputation by helping the Tories sneak back into power is the massive increase in the use of benefits sanctions, which leave people absolutely destitute, reliant upon food banks, or even worse, homeless.


In the last two and a half years, the number of unemployed people sanctioned has averaged 64,307 a month, compared with 27,108 a month between 2000 and 2010, a 137% increase. Several DWP whistleblowers have stated that this massive increase in sanctions is a direct result of sanctions league tables and intense pressure from DWP management to increase the number of weekly sanctions.

 
After repeatedly lying that there were no such things as sanctions league tables, Coalition ministers were caught out when the sanctions league tables were leaked to the public. As we have come to expect, the mainstream corporate press and the Parliamentary Standards Authority both allowed the government ministers that had repeatedly lied about the non-existence of sanctions league tables to get away with their lies without the slightest sanction.

Aside from the lies, there are many truly disturbing things about the massive increase in benefits sanctions, here I will briefly outline three of the worst things.

1. Thousands of people have been sanctioned for absolutely ludicrous reasons. Here are a few examples:
  • 60 year old army veteran sanctioned for selling poppies for a few hours a day in the weeks before Remembrance Day, despite applying for dozens of jobs too. [source]
  • Sanctioned for attending a job interview instead of signing on at the Jobcentre (despite contacting the Jobcentre beforehand to reschedule the signing on appointment). [source]
  • Sanctioned after being given a training appointment which clashed with the fortnightly signing on appointment. [source]
  • Sanctioned for having a heart attack during an Employment and Support Allowance interview. [source]
  • Sanctioned for a month for being five minutes late for an appointment. [source]
2. Sanctions are inherently discriminatory. When Jobcentre staff have sanctions quotas to fill (which is impossible to deny given the proven existence of sanctions league tables) it is much easier for them to trick mentally ill people into losing their sanctions than it is to try and catch out the tiny minority of hard-core benefits scroungers that probably know the rules even better than the Jobcentre staff do themselves. This isn't just idle speculation, the culture of tricking "easy targets" into losing their benefits has been exposed by whistleblowers.

3. Sanctions are used to force people into giving up their labour rights. Sanctions are the means by which Iain Duncan Smith compels people to give up their labour rights and work for free on his mandatory unpaid "workfare" schemes. These schemes are not just bad for the people who are forced onto them under threat of absolute destitution, they are bad for the rest of us too. It doesn't take an economics genius to realise that flooding a market (the labour market) with free commodities (an army of tens of thousands of rightless and unpaid "workfare" labourers) will have the effect of pushing down the value of the commodity in question (the value of our labour - the wages of the rest of us). Another appalling aspect to Workfare is the unfair market advantage handed to unethical businesses that take advantage of this supply of free rightless labour over those that eschew forced labour. Yet another negative consequence is the fact that many of the recipients of Iain Duncan Smith's supply of free labour are tax-dodgers and in many cases not even British companies, meaning the profits from the reductions in their wage bill are siphoned off abroad.
Nick Clegg's commitment to compassion within the welfare system doesn't seem to extend to preventing their Tory coalition colleagues from imposing sanctions league tables (and lying about it), more than doubling the number of people forced into destitution for "crimes" such as being 9 minutes late for a Jobcentre appointment because their preceding job interview overran, nor protecting the unemployed from being forced onto unlawful, economically illiterate Soviet style compulsory labour schemes.

Conclusion

Nick Clegg's guff about wanting a "compassionate" welfare system is totally undermined by the the track record of the government that he is part of. Many of the harshest policies like "Bedroom Tax" and the cuts to in-work benefits for the working poor were only made possible by Liberal Democrat MPs votes in parliament. Even when some of Iain Duncan Smith's worst welfare policies have been condemned as unlawful and discriminatory by the courts, the Liberal Democrats have backed him to the hilt.

It is absolutely clear that the Liberal Democrat leadership value a few years of six figure salaries and their access to ministerial cars far more highly than they value the idea of protecting the most vulnerable from Tory malice, let alone building a "compassionate" welfare system.

The electoral price the Liberal Democrats are going to pay for this collusion with the Tories will be a high one, however it is impossible to feel an iota of sympathy for them that they are going to bear the bulk of the electoral whiplash rather than the Tory party that actually devised most of these schemes.


Yes Tories like Iain Duncan Smith, David Anthony Freud and Mark Hoban have been the worst offenders, but by now we have come to expect nothing more than incompetence and malice from the Tory party. Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have had every chance to restrain Iain Duncan Smith, or even force his removal from the position of responsibility that he is so hopelessly unfit to hold, yet they've done worse than nothing, they've backed him to the hilt and voted in favour of every single compassionless (and hopelessly botched) piece of legislation he's put before parliament.

By letting a callous and intellectually stunted monster like Iain Duncan Smith run amok, they've destroyed their credentials as a "liberal" party and lost the right to expect anyone at all to take them seriously when they speak of wanting a "compassionate" welfare system. Liberal Democrats are due their imminent resounding electoral defeat, and I doubt many people will be convinced by their pathetic "It wasn't us sir - it was the big boys in blue ties" appeals for compassion before we cast our votes in the 2015 General Election.




 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 
         
Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
              

What is ... Wage Repression?
    
Workfare, neoclassical economics and tabloid mindsets
        
                     
The "Making Work Pay" fallacy
        
Problem Solving - with Iain Duncan Smith
         
What is ... a justification narrative?
     
The economic case against tax-dodging
                                          
Who is to blame for the economic crisis