It’s not BIG, and it probably isn’t clever . . . ?

If I have understood this right, the BIG idea from this Conservative-lead Coalition government, is The BIG SOCIETY.

Initially, I thought it was just another attack upon obesity, but – apparently – it is not, it is really about taking government out of certain spheres and replacing it with volunteers. Almost by accident, I think, it also allows them to save lots of money that would otherwise be frittered away on Libraries, Play Groups, Arts events and Youth Clubs. This is, of course, good news, as it means that central government will reduce the deficit – you know, that one that is nothing to do with the banks (“time to stop the blame game, etc., and to concentrate on that bonus!” ).

I am a tad confused though.

This is, surely, the political party of TINA (There Is No Alternative) – of “U turn if you want too, The Lady is NOT for turning” – of the Great She-Elephant, who said, “There is no such thing as Society” . . . but her successor is saying, not only is there one, but it is BIG too ?

Anyway, as you all know, I’m incredibly old and remember things. I remember the 1970’s, when a Trade Union General Secretary (Clive Jenkins) and his union’s Head of Research (Barrie Sherman – think he went on to be a Labour MP?) produced a few books about the onset of new technology and the leisure implications.

Apparently, we were all going to be freed from the drudgery and the need to work till we dropped, and would have more time to pursue enlightenment and be a more caring bunch. No more lonely pensioners; no more isolated disabled; the new technological revolution would mean the growth industries would be the caring ones. It was even prophesised that we’d retire at 50 (HA!) and would have to learn how to enjoy our increased leisure time.

Boy, did that not happen!!

We are now looking to work until we are 70, not 50; and the average working week is going up, not down. New technology has become our taskmaster, not our liberator. OK, it allows me to do this too, so it isn’t all bad (unless you are reading it, of course !).

One thing that “put a spanner in the works” of the great age of leisure is the simple fact that leisure needs money. You can have oodles of time (ask any poor soul on the dole) but without some disposable cash – with a few exceptions (!!) – you can’t enjoy yourself. There is only so much day time TV you can watch (and that requires electricity, a licence and the occasional repair); only so many rigorous walks, etc.

Sadly, those who did benefit from the technological advances, held on to the benefits. The vast bulk of those who lost manufacturing jobs as a result, simply became unemployed, or shunted off to certain benefits (see previous rants!). That “enforced leisure” held no enthral for them

So where am I going with this?

Well, the BIG SOCIETY talks about volunteerism taking over libraries or community halls, about paid professionals being replaced by unpaid philanthropic citizens. BUT – Where do they get the time from to do all this? Who are the people who have the ability to do these tasks with this mythical spare time?  Perhaps the unemployed or the disabled will have to “volunteer” to “earn their benefits” in future?

“Call me Dave” may mean well (OK, I’m being sarcastic) but is the 4th (or 5th, not checked – OK?) richest nation really thinking of returning to Victorian morals?

John Major tried “Back to basics ” as a Social model, until certain members of his party were discovered to have much looser morals than he anticipated (mind, even he was supposed to be “dallying” with Mrs. Currie!). Where is Cameron coming from on this?

For what it is worth – probably very little, before someone posts that comment – I think this is classic right-wing ideology. Remove the state from everything possible and allow the very rich (the very VERY rich, because only they ever benefit) to spend only what they want on what they choose to spend it on. The rest of us? Well, we are components, a resource, a commodity; something to be used and exploited, and not their concern really. Is this the 21st or the 18th century? I BEGIN TO WONDER . .

Thanks for listening, and be grateful, as ever, that you can 🙂 PK

The blame game . . .

They say confession is good for the soul. That admitting your responsibility frees the inner guilt and allows you to move on; but what if you are not guilty but still get the blame?

History is littered with examples; The Birmingham Six, The Guildford Four, all manner of people locked up for things they didn’t do but who were punished for it just the same. Sometimes the error is admitted, and the sentence squashed, but how do you undo the years of imprisonment, the beatings in prison and the price paid by family and loved ones outside? No money can compensate for that, surely?

Whole people’s are sometimes used as scapegoats; jews in pre-war Germany (and in case we get too sanctimonious in Britain, at various times through British history too!); nowadays, it appears to be the entire Muslim faith that are considered terrorists in the making. Ignorance rules, and a Sikh gets beaten up for being a Muslim because some dick-head doesn’t know the difference.

What, though, if you are being punished for something; that everyone accepts is not your fault, but still you get punished. No one disputes that you are innocent; they even know who is guilty, but they are not only allowed to escape any punishment, they are positively rewarded instead! Outrageous, you say.

No. Let me explain.

The UK, like much of Western capitalism (US, bigger European nations – the usual suspects) is in a financial mess caused by speculative gambles and excessive greed by a few, and I mean a few – very few! As a consequence, a new government has decided that the only recourse is to cut back on everything – only it isn’t “everything” – is it. Salaries and bonuses for a few are still the same, even better for some. Instead, this government decides that the sick, the disabled, etc., will have to do with less help.

For my sins, which are undoubtedly many, I work in Local Government. I have worked in frontline support for some of the most deprived and vulnerable for something like 20 years, 12 of these with a Council in Wales. I used to manage a Welfare Rights Team, but the ruling party of this Council decided to shut it down. Then I was put in charge of a scheme to assist discharged offenders on release find accommodation; the thinking being that this could reduce re-offending. Now this is being closed down too.

Across dozens of Local Authorities, front line staff – in Adult and Children’s Services, in day care for the elderly, in support for vulnerable individuals – are being made redundant, being “actively encouraged” to volunteer for severance, or to retire early. The last two almost sound attractive, until you realise that the amounts most will get will barely last a year – and remember, most benefits are means-tested after 6 months – and then what?

In Manchester and in Birmingham; in Rhondda Cynon Taff and Neath Port Talbot; in the South East and the North West; across the UK , people who bear absolutely no responsibility for the mess that successive governments have created (I hold no brief for ANY Political party) are now being made to pay the price. They are being punished for something everybody knows they didn’t do.

Worse, the vulnerable people many of them supported, are being deprived of this service; so they are being punished as well.

We always seem to find resources for weapons or for wars; how about a “war” on inequality? or “weapons” against the causes of disability. These are otherwise called “investments in the quality of life” and they should be financed by fair taxation and proper enforcement of tax liability. Instead, I read that this government plans to make it even easier for big businesses (usually Banks!) to avoid their responsibility. Is this fair? Did you vote for this? I know I didn’t.

As ever, thanks for listening and be grateful that you can. 🙂 PK

Not so much a rant, more an observation . . .

As a child of the 1950’s, who was born on the outskirts of Bristol, my horizons were contained by the neighbourhood I lived in. I was born “at home” – not for any trendy reason – but because my father went to get the Mid-Wife on his bike (we didn’t own a car – no one in our street did) and I decided not to wait!

I was delivered by the next-door-neighbour, who became my Godmother, a wonderful and sadly missed woman called Dorothy Nolan (Aunty Doll). I was (and still am!) the youngest child and only son, so had my own bedroom, if you can call a “box” with a single bed and small wardrobe – and nothing else in it – a bedroom.

We, like nearly every other family in my street, didn’t have a TV then. We had an enormous valve operated radio, which took about 20 minutes to warm up, and that was the family focus at meal times. Especially Sunday’s – Sunday lunch with “The Navy Lark”, “The Clitheroe Kid” or “The Al Read Show”; Sunday tea (either cheese on toast or mashed sardines on toast) with “Sing something simple” with the Cliff Adams or the Mike Sammes Singers (God, it was awful!). No TV – No computers – No DVDs or CDs – No PS3 or Wii or whatever.

I firmly believe, that because our outlook was restricted, we were the better for it. No fridge either, so food was always fresh and locally sourced (quite a bit from our large back garden). I am aware that some will swiftly remind me that this ensured that women generally (and my mother specifically) were tied to domesticity. I can’t argue with that, she was; but we all (my siblings, my father, even me) did our share of jobs as well, though – of course – as was the case in those days, the “lions share” fell upon my mother. She was home all day, my father was out, mostly looking for work. He left the Army and struggled, until the 1960’s to find something permanent.

Memory is an unreliable thing, that too I am conscious of, but I sincerely do not recall being “bored”. We played football, cricket, whatever the season dictated, in the street and surrounding area all day. As I said, there were no cars to cause any problems with that. Everyone DID look out for one and other – comics and books were circulated amongst the kids in the street; if you got a new football for Christmas, you were suddenly everyone’s “bestest friend ever “!

A woman up the top end of the street even hand rolled cigarettes and sold them individually! I can sense some readers clouding over with anti-nostalgia sickness from the “we were poor but we were happy” line!! OK, I didn’t contract rickets or polio, so perhaps I have a lot to be grateful for!

Why am I saying all this? – because I feel that one cause of so much depression, illness and anxiety in the world today is the constant drip-feed of aspirational programmes on TV; about the better house, the designer garden, the second home abroad or the exciting holiday that many cannot afford and most will never enjoy. If you are stuck at home nowadays, you metaphorically have your nose rubbed in your failure to achieve the dream life. The only relief from these shows, are the imbecilic “you are all benefit scroungers” mockumentaries; they – of course – REALLY cheer you up . . . .

PaulK 🙂

Disability – this time it is personal . . . .

This one could be a long rant, but please stay with it because it is, I believe, important. Never, in my memory (which stretches almost back to the Atlee government that started much of what is now under attack) has “Welfare” been so vulnerable.

Those who have braved this blog before will remember that I am “disabled” – I am severely hearing impaired, effectively deaf – albeit I can still hear sounds and use guess-work and a hearing aid in my one ear with a fraction of its original capacity to muddle along. I am, however, extremely fortunate in that I am employed, full-time, in a reasonably well paid job. I am not dependent upon the state for my ability to survive. Actually, judging by the amount of taxation – I think it might even be the other way around.

I want to say two things this time: how my disability has hidden effects upon my life; and how the word “disability” is bandied around by politicians – across the political spectrum – who simply do not know what they are talking about. Simplistic generalisations are used, as if every disabled person fits a “norm“. That’s like saying all MP’s are dishonest, because a few have been caught fiddling expenses.

First up, me: as I have said, I am severely hearing impaired. This has obvious effect, in that I hear little and what I do hear is often distorted or muffled, so I have to either ask for repetition (not always easy in busy shops or bars) or “guess” and hope I don’t misinterpret (it can be embarrassing!). I have, on occasion, said “Yes” – or smiled – thinking one thing was said, when they asked something very different. Fortunately, I am large enough to get away with it most times, others may not be as fortunate.

There is though another “consequence” of my condition. One that close family and friends have started to observe. I am becoming isolated; I am becoming “anti-social“. I don’t mean in the context that I charge around drunk being abusive – I mean that I don’t socialise anymore. I opt out; I make excuses; I stay home. Worst of all – I tell lies. Not huge , damaging ones – little white ones instead. I make up another life, to excuse my non-participation in work or other social events. In short, I am becoming a semi-recluse.

Very few pubs or restaurants nowadays don’t have background music. This makes my limited ability to comprehend even less effective. Many pubs now have large screen TV’s blaring out either sports or music videos. I know when I’m beat, so I have given up. Even close friends start to look frustrated when asked to repeat something for a third or fourth time. I can’t even lip read (limited as my ability is) because many pubs also dim lights now as well! It is almost as if they are saying “No Deaf wanted“!!

At least at home I can control the environment. I can use my assorted gadgetry to understand TV programmes, I can call up subtitles on DVDs, I can converse in a room that is well-lit and free of other noise; but that is not the same as a night out, is it.

I wonder how many other disabled people have similar problems? How do visually impaired cope with poor lighting and with the plethora of street furniture? How do mobility impaired cope with steps, or with “fashionable paving” which is cobbled or such?

This brings me to my second point. The generalisation of the term “disability“. Legislation is passed as if all disability has similar impediments, identical problems or same solutions. What is “disability” ? Apart from my own insight from a selective personal experience, I have also worked as a Welfare Rights Worker for something like 20+ years. It isn’t a simple diagnosis.

There are the obvious disabilities, such as sight impairment and wheelchair users, but they have differing needs too. Some visually impaired were born with their disability, others had traumatic loss – each will have differing needs. Some have no sight, some have limited vision; some have blind spots, some have just the ability to define light from dark. Some will be confident, some will be terrified. It isn’t a simple case of s/he has (a) so can do (b) . . .

Then there are those with learning disabilities – again, to a degree, visible. Downs syndrome is a classic case, but not all people with this condition have an identical set of needs. We are all different; unsurprisingly, so are they!

Then there are the invisible disabilities. In my many years of supporting and representing people with various difficulties, nothing  struck me more than those poor souls struck with Crohn’s Disease or Ulcerated Colitis. In short, they are often housebound out of fear of an explosive problem “down below“. I can recall a man – a former Master Butcher in a high street chain – who simply reduced to tears when describing the embarrassment of incontinence caused by his condition. The Benefits Agency (as it was then) argued that incontinence pants solved the problem, but would you be happy walking around in a “nappy” full of . . . well, you don’t need me to be that graphic. What does he do about the looks of horror from the smell? Who hasn’t sat on a bus and joked about a baby needing changing? Imagine if there was no baby, but a 50-year-old adult instead?

There a multitude of differing disabilities; and an equal number of abilities to cope. I haven’t even touched on the disability with perhaps the biggest stigma of all; mental health. There are many insightful blogs out there with greater knowledge than I have, I urge you to seek them out and read them. I have been fortunate to have many wonderful clients, some who I am proud now to call friends, who have mental health problems.

I represented one particularly lovely lady FOUR times, over a period of about 5 years, at Social Security Appeal Tribunals – twice for DLA, twice for Incapacity Benefit. We won all four, and overturned decisions to stop benefit, but at a price of stress, sleepless nights and – in some cases – self harm by the claimant. Always the combined evidence of Consultant psychiatrists, of GP’s, of Social Workers and of family and friends, who have known the individual for years, was rejected in favour of the ATOS (or whichever profiteer had the contract) diagnosis, based on a 20 minute interview. Sorry, the only word I can think of is “Outrageous“.

The current thinking is that most people are better off in work. As someone who has “worked” continuously since 1969, there are mornings when I wonder – but, if I am honest, I accept that “paid work” does give a focus, a dignity and – most importantly – a degree of additional financial support. Contrary to the mythology, few on benefits are well off.

However, where is the employer who will tolerate the BiPolar Affected person who is full of energy and ideas one week, then incapable of getting out of bed the next? Most disabilities place some restrictions upon the sufferer. It is a competitive employment market – we have the Equality Act (incorporating much of the DDA) – but we still have prejudice too.

I believe I am fair and impartial in political terms. I think NONE of the parties have a clue; or maybe they do but simply don’t care? As I said in an earlier blog, by scapegoating the tiny minority who may defraud the system you often have a deterrent effect upon many who are both eligible and in desperate need. No one wants to be labelled a “benefit scrounger“, though some TV producers would be lost for programme ideas if they didn’t exist. Fear of being thought as a cheat is now costing some people their lives.

This is an important issue. Please support those campaigning for social justice for those least able to cope in these times. A mark of a truly Big Society is one with the heart to protect the weakest.

Thank you, as ever, for listening 🙂

PaulK

Economics – the dismal science!

I left school aged 15 (you could in those days!), and I went to a Secondary Modern school (or factory-fodder preparer!). OK, I’ve done a few things since, but I’ve never thought of myself intellectually high-flying, so forgive my ignorance.

Let’s see if I’ve got this right:

• the banks and the financial institutions – mostly American and Western European ones – made huge, speculative gambles and got it woefully wrong; so much so that governments had to bail them out or else the whole system would have collapsed;
• this “banking” seems (to me) to have been mostly based upon “guesswork”, “speculation”, will-of-the-wisp types of deals, with very little substance, and no tangible assets (in that nothing was physically made, like – say – manufacturing or something like that). What my Grandfather would have called “Spivs”, chancers and the like;
• The money used by Western governments, as is ever the case, mostly comes from the majority of taxpayers – the “PAYE” classes, who don’t have the opportunity to avoid or be creative with their financial affairs. The same silly buggers who don’t get paid eight figured “bonuses” . . .
• Anyway, we bailed them out, so that western capitalism wouldn’t collapse. One or two senior Banking Executives lost their jobs (though, no doubt, kept their pensions, their Porsches and their penthouses), but mostly it was a bit of “musical chairs” and – in a short time – they said, “It is time to stop the blame culture, blah blah blah . . .”

We had a change of Government, and I remind readers (least I hope it is in the plural !) that I belong to no political party, and out went the fellow who bailed out the banks (you remember him, face like a smacked arse) and in came a coalition of people so rich that they probably own banks.

They said that the deficit was so terrible (even though I have seen figures and arguments from other eminent economists who say that in much of Post-War British history, it has been significantly higher!) that everything has to be cut, reduced, restrained, etc., and that “we are all in this together” – share the pain – cut your clothe . . . .   you know, throwaway clichés and soundbites.

However, like the cartoon below, the Equality of Sacrifice is a deceptive thing:

[Yes, I know it says “Vote Labour” – they produced it, but the message is quite clear – and I’m not saying Vote anyone nowadays.]

Anyway, back to my rant; if “we” are all in this together, why is my pay not increasing for the second year running? Why is my tax bill increasing (VAT by 2.5%)? Why is inflation increasing by something like 3.7% or more? and petrol, and gas/ electricity, and . .  well, you know this too, BUT bankers, the people who caused this situation, are awarding themselves BILLIONS in bonuses again?

Why is this coalition government hurting THE most vulnerable in society? The disabled, the mentally ill, the very young and the very old? Why are they making our future, the university students, pay more for their education? and why are they dismantling the NHS and the education system? Why are they not building houses for the homeless, or improving schools for our children?

Some smart Alec is going to tell me that the country doesn’t have the money . . . but our 84% in RBS must be worth a few bob now, if the bankers can all award themselves whacking great bonuses? and we own other substantial shares too.

This is the 3rd or 4th richest nation on the planet. We seem able to find billions for wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Serbia/Bosnia before that; and if the Americans pick a fight with North Korea or Iran, I bet we find the money for that too.

I know it sounds “simplistic”, but – hell – maybe the answer is simple!! Has anyone ever thought that? 🙂

We are all in this together – really?

I think it is the gross inequality which really annoys me most.

The country is in a mess, though I am not entirely sure if things are really as bad as a semi-hysterical media would have us believe. The cynic in me thinks that this, the 3rd or 4th – or even (shock, horror) the 5th – richest nation on the planet is possibly not on its’ collective “uppers” yet. We will find the money if an American President tells us to support his invasion of Iran, of that I am sure.

The “mess” – unless I have missed something – is a direct (note: DIRECT) consequence of the, apparently essential, bailing out of the Banks and the Financial Institutions. They speculated; they did dodgy deals; they invented new games of chance and they – excuse the bad language – buggered it up. They did it spectacularly too. BILLIONS, not millions.

Now, the same “mob” are telling Political Select Committees barely months later that the time for blame and remorse is over. We should be allowed to repeat our ways of business as if nothing has happened, and we should be able to reward ourselves with these obscene (yes: OBSCENE) amounts of perks. Sorry, I beg to disagree.

The current Conservative led/ Liberal Democrat coalition government espouses the slogan, “We are all in this together” – but that’s simply not true. How is the disabled benefit recipient, who is now terrified of the loss of their already meagre income, in the same situation as the City finance manager eagerly awaiting his or her £100k perk?

I have read some heart-rendering blogs in recent days; none better than the excellent and always articulate @BendyGirl, whose blog “Benefit Scrounging Scum” is now required reading. The internet is alive with others too, but the simple truth is that this country has fallen into a trough of despair and the bankers will get away with it again.

Mr. Cameron, you are – effectively – the chief shareholder representative for something like 84% of RBS shares; the nation-state holds other substantial shares in major banks too. It has also acted as guarantor for many more, which allowed them to take risks otherwise deemed too risky. You shouldn’t be asking these people to reconsider; you should be DEMANDING they do.

Grow a pair David, not for Gods’ sake but for OUR sake.

Welfare Cheats . . part two.

In my earlier “rant”, I attempted to put my perspective – as a previous practitioner – on the recent history of welfare benefit changes, and the misconceptions that are associated with the process. I also alluded to overly simplistic concepts of “disability”.

First, let me ask “What is a Benefit, or Welfare, Cheat?” – the simple answer, I suppose, is someone who claims money from the system that they are not entitled to receive. Is it ever as simple as that? – answer; “Yes”. In an extremely small number of cases (when compared to the total amount paid) some criminals (for this is what they are) make knowingly, fraudulent claims – sometimes using false names, false addresses, stolen NINo’s, and invented ailments and/or illnesses – sometimes in their own name but with dishonest intent.

Allow me to be very clear about these people. It is wrong; it is a criminal act; it should be punished. This is not a blog about punishment and the Justice system, so that is where I will leave it.

However, the terminology is loosely used to cover much more than those specific instances. It is sprayed around, with the precision of an agricultural muck spreader, by ill-informed, opportunistic people – usually politicians, and across the partisan divide – to justify the latest “cure-all” for what is suggested as a system out of control. I take issue with much of that.

I am constantly being told that this country – the UK – is the fourth or fifth richest in the world. Surely a measure of a nations’ success is how it treats and supports its own population? Unfortunately, many politicians seem to think that the term “population” means those who actively participate in elections and therefore have a vote I am interested in securing. Many of the poorest, the physically or mentally ill and/or disabled do not vote; they do not feel involved. Result: they are ignored.

I make no claim to be an economist. One of the few things I remember from my Economics Teacher was him saying that, “If you laid all the worlds economists end to end they probably would fail to reach a conclusion” – in short, it is a lot of guess-work and not a precise science. Bit like Politics then. . .  However, I am informed that the current deficit was largely brought about by urgent bail outs of the Financial Institutions, who had speculated and failed. Again, in short, “we” are paying the man who popped into the bookies, backed the wrong horse, lost the rent money and then claimed it was due to forces beyond his control.

As I advised in a previous rant; I was, for a number of years, a Welfare Rights specialist – in Local Government, in the “not-for-profit sector” and with charitable bodies. I openly admit that the system was imperfect, was complicated and suffered from a small degree of abuse. I also assert that ANY system will always be subject to abuse. Crime doesn’t go away just because Parliament legislates against it – even parliament itself has seen “criminals” within their own ranks abuse their own systems of benefits . . .

I had the good fortune to represent and assist a substantial number of decent, law-abiding, but also seriously ill, disabled and vulnerable people in my 20+ years in that field. I have no doubts, whatsoever, that I probably also represented a tiny number of cheats too – never knowingly, but it is a statistical inevitability. How, in all fairness, can I – or anyone else – guarantee that the degree of pain or discomfort suffered is less than claimed? Assessing a benefit claim is, to a degree, an imprecise science – a bit like politics and economics.

Theoretically, the receipt of any money not declared whilst in receipt of a means-tested benefit is a form of fraud. Yes, there are certain disregards, there was therapeutic earnings allowances, etc., etc. (I want to minimise the technical stuff, because that is part of the problem of the debate) but, in essence, if you did something that incurred a reward or received cash, you are supposed to declare it.  Allow me to tell you a story of a former client, now deceased sadly, so I feel no breach of his confidentiality – but he will remain nameless:

This individual lived in the Glamorgan Valleys. He had worked in the South Wales Mines for a few years prior to the mass closures, never in any skillful capacity, usually in Labouring jobs. By his own admission he was a “bit of a lump”, good at manual effort but none to bright.

His family background was not exceptional, but poverty had featured continuously – he was the eldest of seven, and his biological father had died from a respiratory illness when he was a teenager. His mother had remarried, and the step-father saw him especially, as the eldest and as a large individual, as a threat to the new relationship, so he was kicked out of the family home at age 16.

He was no great shakes at school, so the local pit seemed an obvious place. Whilst he had a job, he was OK. He didn’t do anything earth-shattering, but he paid his taxes and lived an uneventful life. Work, a dingy bed sit and the Miners welfare club, with the occasional trip down the valley for the football.

With unemployment, which effected ‘000’s granted, came the sad slide into boredom, petty crime and eventually prosecution and conviction. He didn’t go to prison, even his “criminality” was unimpressive. he was on probation and that is where I first met him.

My initial assessment was of a person of immense sadness. Few friends, fewer “skills”; no family life (he saw little of his mother and siblings) and minimal prospects. In co-operation with the local Dept. of Employment (pre-JobCentre+ days!) we got him on numerous courses, but whilst he attended religiously and conscientiously, we all knew he was not a prime candidate for meaningful employment. At that time, there were graduates unemployed, let alone someone who struggled to read and write and with a criminal record now too.

His sole income was Unemployment Benefit, which was then – and is now in its latest guise – supposed to cover fuel and utility bills, household domestic costs, travel and transport, food, leisure, etc. He also received (or his landlord did) Housing benefit, so he did not have to find the rent for his one room dwelling with shared bathroom. His kitchen was a primer stove; he had no fridge.

His one treat in the week was a trip to the “chippy” on a Friday evening. Amazingly, he was befriended by an Asian family who ran it, and – as they were small in frame and he was very large – he used to willingly volunteer to shift large sacks of potatoes for them when delivered to the shop. Over months, this developed into odd jobs (in truth, largely invented by the family to help him) and eventually, he started peeling spuds occasionally – maybe once or twice a week for an hour or so.

His “reward” for his efforts – usually a very large fish supper, and a couple of quid for a pint. As I said, I personally think this was more an act of kindness by the family than an exploitation of an unemployed person. This went on for a couple of years, until – sadly – the father of the Asian family died from natural causes, and the business ceased.

My “client” never failed to make himself available for work. He attended any and every course suggested, but he was never even offered an interview, let alone a job, until he too – sadly – died at an alarmingly early age in his early 40’s, from a sudden illness.

In the strictest sense of the words “benefit cheat”, he was one. He never declared this small additional income – sometimes £5- a week, at a time when Unemployment Benefit would have been  @ £40. It was as  much a social benefit as a financial one, but – yes – he was a Benefit Cheat.

Think of him and then think of the Murdoch’s, and the Ashcroft’s, and the plethora of big business who avoid their tax liability and ask yourself which is worse. I know who I think is.

I’ll rant some more soon, and thank you to those few encouraging comments. Appreciated. 🙂

New Year; old memories.

Having contracted flu on 24th December, and therefore being forced to celebrate the season by feeling sorry for myself, I spent some time remembering happier times. Previous readers of this “blog” (and I know that is about three people!) will know that after a viral infection some three years ago, I am now virtually deaf. I wear a hearing aid (when forced to, as I don’t like it) in my right ear, and – with patience and a great deal of concentration – I can make out enough of a conversation to be able to respond. Iget it wrong at times, but – thankfully – not to any great embarrassment so far. I have absolutely no hearing in my left ear. Mine is a “mono” world!

I grew up in the ’60’s and ’70’s (ok, subjective statement – I got older!) and lived in North London then. It was a  great time to be a teenager/ young adult (I was born in 1954). The music scene was simply amazing, and my friends and I were out at live gigs at least three or four nights a week. It seemed every pub had a room with a live band on, and admission charges were – even by the relative standards of the day – cheap. I was in my element. I absolutely lived for the music. I was blessed too, with an open mind and a wide taste in genre. If it was good music, I’d listen to it.

I can recall seeeing bills as diverse as “Little” Stevie Wonder (as he was called then!), The Four Tops, the Temptations and Gino Washington one night; Tony “TS” McPhee and The Groundhogs and Stray another night; and The Beach Boys a third. You’d need a second mortgage for that sort of quality nowadays.

In my “prime”, I was fortunate enough to see some incredible acts: Joan Baez (possibly the purest singing voice ever?); Ten Years After, Jethro Tull, Iron Butterfly, Yes, Vinegar Joe, John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers, Cream, Mountain, Led Zeppelin, Captain Beefheart & his Magic Band, Thin Lizzy, Rory Gallagher/Taste, Hawkwind . . .  jeez, i could go on (and frequently did!) for hours. I attended two days of rain and mud in 1972 in a field in Lincoln and still have the mud-spattered programme – it was Roxy Music’s first major gig, I believe.

Even when I moved from London, I still managed regular concerts – Beefheart again at Colston Hall (“Mr Zoot Horn Rollo, play that LONG note slow . . .); Miles Davis at St Davids Hall; Muddy Waters at the Victoria Apollo; Ry Cooder at Hammersmith Odeon and at NEC Birmingham; and John Martyn (sadly missed now) at so many places – I think he was the one I saw most, possibly 10 or 11 times? Everytime different, everytime brilliant.

I saw a few lemons along the way. I wish I could forget Grand Funk Railroad at Royal Albert Hall and the 25 minute TEDIOUS drum solo!; but I also saw some landmarks – The Who opening the Rainbow Theatre; Pink Floyd – at RAH for “saucerful of secrets”, – at the Rainbow for “Dark side of the moon”, and at the Crystal Palace bowl. I saw Peter Green, recently split from Fleetwood Mac, play a beautiful solo set before his illness took him away from us for so long. He was – amazingly – playing live in a converted garage behind The Salisbury pub in High Barnet! I saw Steppenwolf at the Edmonton Sundown, who were responsible for the iconic track of my youth, “Born to be wild”. I said I could go on . . .

I also, naturally, accumulated an impressive collection of vinyl, then cassettes, then cds. The “master plan” was when I retired, I would spend my dotage annoying the kids with a constant barrage of progressive rock and blues music. It gathers dust now, as I haven’t the heart to dispose of it.

When I wasn’t at live gigs, I was glued to the radio. TV was not a factor in my life then. Listening to John Peel was an essential requirement, and I rarely missed his shows. If I did watch TV, it was “The Old Grey Whistle Test” with Whispering Bob, or “Rock goes to college”. I recorded so many of those on cassettes from a portable Sony B&W set! They all gather dust too :’-(

Life is never as we envisage it, and it only takes a small thing (in my case, a tiny virus) to completely transform your plans.

OK; memory lane exorcised. I’ll return to the long-overdue “Welfare part 2” eventually. thank you for the encouraging remarks.

x

Nothing to rant about in two months?

No, just busy!!

. . . but watch this space soon 🙂

Welfare Cheats – heard it all before – part 1!

I wonder why I get out of bed some Sundays. . . . . . .

Keen to maintain my grip on the world of current affairs, I stagger downstairs and switch on BBC1 at 9am for that doyen of anti-bloggers, Andrew Marr (Andy – I don’t live with me mum, I rarely drink and I haven’t had “spots” in 40 years).

His “guests” today include the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, and the Shadow Chancellor,  who made such a huge impression on me that I’ve forgotten his name already! Used to be a Postman, was in successive Labour Cabinets – you know who I mean! Hasn’t got a black & white cat . . .

Anyway, one of the “initiatives” that BOTH major parties (I say both intentionally – I don’t consider the Lib. Dem’s a separate independent Political party anymore – more an annex to the Tories; maybe a conservatory?) are touting, as a cure to all ills, is that perennial “blame those claiming benefits”. Always an easy target, and frequently popular with the mass media.

Apparently, a billion can be saved if they “clamp down” on those claiming who shouldn’t be; out comes all the usual clichés – living on benefits mustn’t be a lifestyle, work must always be more profitable than staying at home, the taxpayer must be protected, blah blah blah.

Now before I let rip, please allow me to give you some background:

Those of you poor souls who have read earlier rants will now know that I am deaf. However, I am in full-time employment – earning a reasonable salary and paying my FULL share of taxes. Like most on PAYE, I don’t have a lot of control over that! Regardless of that, I believe we all have to share the burden – albeit I question the wisdom sometimes of using my hard-earned money on illegal wars, etc. – but that is a different argument for another time. I am happy to contribute towards the state coffers.

In the last 20 years, I have primarily worked in the field of Welfare Rights. I have been employed at Citizens Advice Bureau’s; at UK Advice (formerly FIAC) outlets; in the “not for profit sector” and – for the last 10 years – in Local Government.

I have worked with the elderly, with the severely disabled – both physically and mentally, with offenders (including Schedule 1 sex offenders, violent and prolific offenders), with the sensory impaired and the mobility restricted; with the deserving poor and – in some people’s estimate – the less deserving poor.

I am arrogant enough then, to believe that my opinion is based on some experience and – therefore – has some worth. I am also NOT a member of any Political Party, and have not been for over ten years.

In twenty years of advocating for those reliant upon state-assistance, I have “endured” both Thatcher’s & Major’s Tories, and Blair & Brown’s New Labour. There is, despite their alleged ideological differences, a certain nasty consistency to the message, and it is now being repeated by the ConDem coalition government and not being challenged by the official opposition.

In twenty years, I have seen successive governments change the name of support for those with limited, or no, ability to work. We’ve had Sickness Benefit, Invalidity and Incapacity benefits, now we have Employment Support Allowance. Each time, the message is that the changes are designed to support those who can’t, and to weed out those who can work.

Rarely are claimants perceived as “individuals”, with differing problems, instead, they are referred to as one homogeneous mass, most – somehow – and to differing degrees, on the fiddle.

In truth, all credible statisticians will tell any and EVERY system will always – no matter how good you make it – have a small number of fraudsters, it is the way of the world. This number, however, is a very small minority – 2 > 3%, never above 5% – err, that means 95% aren’t!

I have seen the unemployed actively encouraged to declare themselves as unfit for work by Benefits Agency staff under pressure to reduce the number of Unemployed for Political masters. In my time in the S. Wales valleys (the Rhondda, Cynon, Merthyr and Rhymni) it was common to for the DSS (as it was then) to “persuade” unemployed Miners that they were clearly unfit to work.

Few people who worked in the coal mines have no medical legacy of the experience, and we had 200,000 unemployed Miners after the mid-80’s (never mind the numbers from the ancillary industries and from Steel, manufacturing, etc.).

Some of you may recall that, at that time, the DSS used to give examples of jobs that the unemployed may want to consider as alternatives. How we chuckled, with a 50-year-old Miner being told he could work as a Cinema usherettes, or as a process worker in hi-tec industries.

First; few cinemas had usherettes anymore, and who wants a hairy-arsed miner coughing up coal dust buggering up your enjoyment of the film; and how many Miners, with hands like a bunch of bananas, can hold a soldering iron and do the fidley work on circuit boards? They were more at home with a pick axe or a shovel.

Regardless, for political expediency at the time, they were directed towards claiming a benefit that reduced the embarrassing unemployment figures at the time. A Minister could then stand up in Parliament and say s/he had reduced unemployment, whilst leaving out the method!

Years later, suddenly the amount of expenditure on  is a concern, and the same people who have been pushed towards these benefits are now branded as cheats. Many, by now, have developed depression from enforced idleness, or have respiratory problems from chain-smoking, or other health concerns from a poor diet due to low levels of income.

Now Politicians say they should look for work. They are not “Sick” but capable of doing some work. . . .  but they don’t say “what” or “where it is”?

This only refers to a relatively small group of claimants, but a group that is often overlooked in the debate. They are equally entitled to consideration.

Next time, I will attempt to focus on perceptions of disability. Not everyone copes, or is capable of managing, the same disability.

Being incapable of work does not mean you are necessarily disabled, and vice versa.

I am disabled – but I am NOT incapable of work.

Everyone is an individual with different needs and abilities to cope.

I wish Politicians would stop thinking that every blind person has the same needs, or that every deaf person is the same, etc.

Paul 🙂