The working poor

“There are more working families living in poverty in the UK than non-working families for the first time since the birth of the welfare state, according to a new study. A recent report by a development charity attributes the figures to a sustained and “unprecedented” fall in living standards that has hit UK households, in which average incomes have fallen by 8% since a peak in 2008. As a result, around 2 million people have an income that would have been considered below the poverty line in 2008. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) found that according to the current definition, the figure is increasing as 500,000 more working families live below the poverty line than last year. 6.7 million families with adults in employment meet the worrying criteria compared with a combined 6.3 million of retired and unemployed families. There is also a smaller but growing number of people living on incomes below the value of out-of-work benefits in very deep poverty. The JRF said 400,000 families have suffered from a combination of benefit cuts from the bedroom tax, and council tax benefit. Two thirds of these families were already classified as living in poverty. The JRF also found positive changes, including an improvement in the labour market with falling unemployment and underemployment and, improvements in health and education outcomes forecast for the future. There have also been major shifts in which groups are experiencing poverty, with the number of pensioners in poverty at a 30-year low. Julia Unwin, chief executive of the charity, said efforts to reduce poverty must be “strengthen[ed]” and that for the poorest families “improving pay and prospects remain a mirage”. She added:"Recent economic improvements do not outweigh the damage inflicted during the downturn to the incomes of the poorest people across the country. "Our report demonstrates there has been progress in some areas and the tide has turned on employment, but this not been matched by improvements in wages. The largest group in poverty are working age adults without dependent children - 4.7 million people are in this situation, the highest on record. Half of working families in poverty have an adult paid below the living wage. It also found that job insecurity is increasingly common, with one in six members of the workforce claiming Jobseekers' Allowance at some point in the last two years. Median incomes in the UK recorded in the 2011 tax year are now, in real terms, just below what they were in 2001 - £367 a week compared with £368 - the Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion report showed. Plummeting incomes over the last two years has wiped out all the gains of the previous decade, the JRF said. Families living in poverty are defined as those with income below 60% of median income for that year. Peter Kenway, director at NPI and an author of the report, said: "Poorer members of society are under more pressure than at any time since the birth of the welfare state. "The value of the safety net for working age adults is now sinking steadily. The support on offer to people who fall on hard times is increasingly threadbare, with benefit levels on a downward spiral. "A strong safety net to catch those who fall is vital for social mobility - millions are saved by it every year even now - yet no leading politician will defend it."” This all comes in the same week MP’s are due to vote on plans to increase their salaries by 11%. All in this together are we ??? With extracts from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/millions-of-families-living-in-poverty-despite-being-in-employment-says-new-study-8991403.html

This week: take action to stop workfare and sanctions

The Week of Action Against Workfare and Sanctions begins tomorrow (Monday December 2nd) with a noise protest outside the annual welfare-to-work conference. There will be online actions everyday, announced on the Boycott Workfare website (and probably here a bit later). Tomorrow will see online action aimed at the ERSA conference where delegates will be tweeting using the hashtag #ERSA2013 – more details are to come on how to challenge the poverty profiteering conference online. Please help spread the word and share, tweet and blog details of all events both on and offline! Here’s the list of what’s taking place so far via Boycott Workfare: Things are very wrong: each month 70,000 people face hunger and hardship due to benefit stoppages – ‘sanctions’. Millions of hours of work which should be paid are being replaced by workfare. But we’re taking action and having an impact. This week, from 2-8 December, join thousands of others across the UK to push back against sanctions and workfare – with action online and on your high street. Here’s the latest list of actions planned across the UK. Let us know if you’re planning something too and check back here Monday-Friday to take online action every day. Edinburgh: flyering all week and a demo on Saturday 7th Cardiff: Wednesday 4 December at 6:30pm, Marks and Spencer – 72/76 Queen Street, Cardiff London: • Noise Demo at workfare industry conference at the University of London, 12.30pm 2nd Decemeber • Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group demo at Hammersmith Job Centre against the introduction of Universal Credit. Meet 11am on Wednesday 4th December at Hammersmith Job Centre, Glenn House, 22 Glenthorne Road, W6 0PP • M&S picket, Islington – Sunday 8th December 1pm outside Holloway Road M&S • M&S picket, Wood Green – Sunday 8th December 2pm outside Wood Green High Road M&S (Nearest tube: Turnpike Lane) Reading: Saturday 7th 4pm at Reading town centre. Planning meeting for the action on Tuesday at 7pm. Please sign/share/tweet the petition calling for all benefit sanctions to be scrapped without exceptions: http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/benefit-sanctions-must-be-stopped-without-exceptions-in-uk?bucket&time=1385073159

Should workers support state intervention ?

Whenever there is a crisis and a huge number of workers are in danger of loosing their jobs such as with Grangemouth last week the thing that comes from the left is to simply nationalise the company in question but very rarely the question of workers control is raised. Simply shouting "public ownership" is the answer to all our woes is wholely inadequate in my opinion. Much like with the big 6 energy companies who are ripping us all off at present the answer from the left is to "nationalise" them everytime. Yet all this is calling for is state capitalism. But would this be benificial to us in any way ? State capitalism was the way of things after the Second World War with many industries being brought into public ownership like the Coal and water industries for example more followed with a national health care system known today as the NHS of course. But the labour government at the time saw it fit to keep the boss's in charge of these state backed companies which meant they were no more democratic or accountable than before. Ok they had huge government funding but remained with teh same boss's as they did d before. This was not socialism and was rightly called state capitalism . "However, that does not answer the question of what we do in the here and now when faced with demands that the welfare state (for the working class, not corporate welfare) and other reforms be rolled back. This attack has been on going since the 1970s, accelerating since 1980. We should be clear that claims to be minimising the state should be taken with a massive pitch of salt as the likes of Reagan were "elected to office promising to downsize government and to 'get the government off the people's back,' even though what he meant was to deregulate big business, and make them free to exploit the workers to increase profits. The state may be influenced by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of capitalist rule. It may intervene in society as a result of people power and by the necessity to keep the system as a whole going, but it is bureaucratic and influenced by the wealthy and big business. Indeed, the onslaught on the welfare state by both Thatcher and Reagan was conducted under a "democratic" mandate although, in fact, these governments took advantage of the lack of real accountability between elections. They took advantage of an aspect of the state if you substitute government ownership for private ownership, "nothing is changed but the stockholders and the management; beyond that, there is not the least difference in the position of the workers." "Privatisation of public services -- whether it is through the direct sale of utilities or through indirect methods such as PFI and PPP -- involves a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the pockets of private business interests. It negates the concept of there being such a thing as 'public service' and subjects everything to the bottom line of profit. In other words it seeks to maximise the profits of a few at the expense of wages and social obligations. Furthermore, privatisation inevitably leads to an attack on wages and working conditions - conditions which have been fought for through years of trade union agitation are done away with at the scratch of a pen." [Gregor Kerr, "Privatisation: the rip-off of public resources", pp. 14-18, Black and Red Revolution, no. 11, p. 16] is important to point out that the 'nationalise it' or 'take it into public ownership' slogan is far too often spun out by people on the left without their taking into account that there is a massive difference between state control/ownership and workers' control/ownership . . . we all know that even if the revenues . . . were still in state ownership, spending it on housing the homeless or reducing hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of the government. "Put simply, state ownership does not equal workers' ownership . Thus an revolutionary socialist approach to this issue would be to reject both privatisation and nationalisation in favour of socialisation, i.e. placing nationalised firms under workers' self-management. In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, they could be self-managed by their workers in association with municipal co-operatives -- based on one member, one vote -- which would be a much better alternative than privatising what is obviously a natural monopoly (which, as experience shows, simply facilitates the fleecing of the public for massive private profit). Christie and Meltzer state the obvious: "It is true that government takes over the control of certain necessary social functions. It does not follow that only the state could assume such control. The postmen are 'civil servants' only because the State makes them such. The railways were not always run by the state, They belonged to the capitalists [and do once more, at least in the UK], and could as easily have been run by the railway workers. " In the long term, of course, the real solution is to abolish capitalism "and both citizens and communities will have no need of the intervention of the State." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 268] In a free society, social self-defence would not be statist but would be similar in nature to trade unionism, co-operatives and pressure groups -- individuals working together in voluntary associations to ensure a free and just society -- within the context of an egalitarian, decentralised and participatory system which eliminates or reduces the problems in the first place SO in conclusion its all about control and workers control at that . Putting it simply you cannot control waht you dont own. Fighting for democratic workers control from below is the only way forward in my opinion when situations like Grangemouth come up again which no doubt they will do as capitalism fails to develop itself out of a huge rutt. with quotes and extracts from http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionD1#secd15

We don’t just want the crumbs off the table

Is an old phrase that we used to hear a lot? We don’t just want to win the crumbs off the table win small victories only to have them taken off us again and again as we are seeing now. All that we have fought for including the minimal reforms capitalism has been forced to grant the workers is slowly being eroded. But we should not be simply fighting for what we are losing we should be fighting for the whole lot. We don’t just want the crumbs but the whole bakery and the tools to create more to meet people’s needs. Fighting for the best reforms and being the most militant and hard fighting for crumbs is good but for me this does not go far enough. We should not have to accept a constant struggle, a class struggle where we are always going backwards and forwards with the boss's we want to see a world with no boss's, no class's and no state entirely. This is possible, I don’t think it’s inevitable by any means capitalism will not just fall and socialism come to power this is just not how things work. We need to over throw the existing system for good. Fighting for reforms as I say is one thing but ultimately will not meet the needs of all. A system built from below in the shell of the e existing system is a must and something we can start being doing today. There are many who say we can’t build a new society while the old one still exists. Well maybe but we can certainly start to push our values, our principles and our morals challenging sexism, racism and all forms of discrimination today is a must while fighting to remove this rotten capitalist system. I have belief that workers can run society without boss's I firmly believe workers do not need boss's to run society. Even a state will not be needed eventually. A question will still exist up to and after the revolution for the role of the state. A workers state is something many on the left push for but all forms of state are oppressive in my view and a workers state seems like something like changing the boss’s rather than changing society. We don’t want boss's who call themselves socialist as they are still by definition boss's which is not desirable surely. So as a post I did the other week stated only workers can change society not a self appointed elite and a group of unaccountable leaders acting on our behalf. Only workers can change the world and that I am sure they will do one day.

Busting the myths on immigration

With the question of immigration making its way back on to the agenda sadly it’s a good chance for us to rebuff some of these more popular myths and how wrong the right wing media and politicians are. Isabelle Koksal counters the right wing myths with some facts and figures MYTH: The flood of immigrants is unsustainable the movement of migrants is not just one way. As people arrive, others are leaving. This gives us net migration figures which for most years since 1840 have actually been negative. Geographer Danny Dorling notes that before the economic crash, the number of migrants coming to Britain was roughly balanced with the number leaving. In total, ‘there are 10-14 million people who live here that were not born here – and there are 10-14 million people born here who no longer live here’. So not really a flood at all. It is also worth viewing Britain’s migration figures in a global context. This shows that our experience of international migration is not at all remarkable, growing in line with world migration. Migrants make up 9 per cent of the population, which is the average for Europe. Britain has a smaller proportion of migrants and lower rates of net immigration than the US, Canada, Australia and several large European countries. The number of asylum seekers that Britain receives is again average for Europe, ranking 14th out of 27 when looking at asylum seekers per head of population. The UK receives fewer asylum applications than France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Belgium. As of January 2012, the UN estimated that the number of refugees, pending asylum cases and stateless persons made up just 0.33 per cent of the population. In fact, it is the so-called developing world that receives the majority of refugees, with 80 per cent being hosted there. The past decade has seen higher net numbers of migrants. However, rather than being ‘unsustainable’, this migration is actually vital for the functioning of our society. Danny Dorling argues that the real problem is actually too little immigration. With a rising elderly population and decreasing fertility rates, we will depend even more than we already do on immigration to provide tax revenues and services. MYTH: Britain is a soft touch Successive governments have been making the asylum process increasingly tough for asylum seekers despite their duty under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees to provide protection to those fleeing persecution. The system is particularly hostile to women as UK Border Agency officials often lack an understanding of gender-based persecution. A recent report by Oxfam stated that all aspects of the asylum system are flawed and that the entire process should be urgently reviewed. The fast-track system does not give the time needed for asylum seekers to make their case; this and many other issues with the asylum determination process means that often people are wrongly denied asylum. With devastating cuts to legal aid, this situation will only get worse as asylum seekers cannot access the legal advice and support that they need. When an asylum seeker reaches the UK they are photographed and have their fingerprints taken, they are security checked and issued with an ID card. They are then required to report at regular intervals to immigration reporting centers. They are issued with a letter that informs them that they can be detained at any point during the asylum process. EU citizens have free movement across Europe under European law – although home secretary Theresa May has been drawing up plans to curb intra-EU migration. But the rules governing the entry of non-EU immigrants are incredibly stringent, with a points-based system that requires people to show documents such as their bank statements and exam results. It is during detention where, far from being a ‘soft touch’, the reality for immigrants and asylum seekers is often a hard fist. Medical Justice has documented hundreds of cases of abuse of detainees at the hands of security guards during detention and deportation. Each year, 1,000 children are detained with their parents. MYTH: They come here for our generous welfare system Research commissioned by the Home Office concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers had detailed knowledge about the UK benefits system. When someone is fleeing from persecution, they often do not know where their end destination will be; some may choose the UK because they have friends and family here. Asylum seekers anyway do not have access to the mainstream benefit system. Rather, they have a parallel system of welfare support that provides them with £36.62 a week, 52 per cent of Jobseeker’s Allowance. Surviving on £5.23 a day puts asylum seekers well below the UK poverty line. Those who are refused asylum but are too scared to return home find themselves destitute as they cannot access any benefits. Oxfam estimates that there are hundreds of thousands of destitute asylum seekers in the UK. Asylum seekers do not have access to social or council housing. They are allocated housing on a ‘no choice’ basis in ‘hard to let’ properties. This housing is often of very poor quality. This is likely to get even worse with the privatisation of asylum housing through G4S, Serco and Reliance – all of whom have poor records in managing detention centres and transport and escort services. Indeed, there are already concerns that G4S will repeat its Olympics shambles in asylum seeker housing, leading top officials in the Home Office to monitor the situation closely. Migrants most often come here to work and they do just that. Many have high skill levels but often find themselves in jobs that do not utilise these skills and are poorly paid. National insurance data shows that foreign nationals are less than half as likely to claim unemployment benefits as UK citizens. Access to benefits for migrants is complex, and as with access to welfare for asylum seekers has become increasingly limited since the mid-1990s. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission dispels the myth that immigrants jump the social housing waiting list. This found that 60 per cent were privately renting, 18 per cent were owner occupiers, and only 11 per cent were allocated social housing. The research found no evidence of abuse neither of the system nor of ‘queue jumping’. MYTH: They take our jobs Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, despite often being highly skilled and keen to use these skills. Once their claim has been decided they may work if they have been given refugee status. However, they face many barriers to entering employment. The government has cut the Refugee Integration and Employment Service, which provided them with support in finding a job. Refugees may also struggle to work in their chosen profession as their qualifications may not be transferable or they may face discrimination by employers. Migrants generally travel to where there are jobs available, often filling vacancies where there are skill shortages. The UK Border Agency’s points-based system for non-EU immigrants means that they are only permitted to take jobs where there are recognised skill shortages and if they can prove before entering that they have the relevant qualifications. Numerous statistical studies have shown that there is no link between EU immigration and unemployment levels. MYTH: They are draining public services it is our duty, not a drain, to protect asylum seekers. As discussed above, the welfare provision that we do provide is woefully inadequate. A number of other European countries provide more generous support than the UK. The minimal provision the state provides for asylum seekers and refugees is now being decimated by government cuts with devastating consequences. There have been massive cuts to support services for asylum seekers and refugees and cuts to the Home Office housing budget for asylum seekers. The cuts to legal aid will affect asylum seekers’ ability to access justice in a system already stacked against them. Asylum seekers and refugees are being used as an easy target by the government. The Home Office has acknowledged this itself, stating: ‘Because the UKBA is not facing uniform cuts, some areas – including asylum – will be required to bear a greater proportion of the cuts.’ Besides, far from ‘draining’ public services, migrants (including refugees) actually contribute significantly to their funding through their tax and national insurance contributions. They make a net contribution to the UK economy of £3 billion. Because they are often young, healthy, and skilled, their use of public services is actually very limited. Migrants also help deliver many of our public services, working in the National Health Service, education and social care. It is a fact that the NHS could not function without migrant workers. The myth of immigrants’ dependence has obscured the reality of our own dependence on them.

Is there really genuine support for the Tories welfare plans?

We hear in the news that there is mass support for the changes or as it should be being reported cuts to welfare and benefits by the Tories but is this really the case? Controlling the media and the news so what people see and red is a very powerful tool but I am not convince the support for these changes is really there. Much like with the issue over immigration I do think we have to admit there are some genuine concerns about people who do play the system and as socialist we must start from where people are. We must take on the Tories and even labours arguments that our welfare state is bloated as it is not at all its not too expensive. It certainly needs changes i.e. making wages liveable and a living wage capping rents and building new affordable social housing would bring down the housing benifitbill but for now it is something we should look to defend. As I tried to answer in a blogpost a few weeks back we must look to answer workers fears on benefits as with immigration looking to counter the Tories propaganda with our own of clear hard hitting facts. We are in danger of the debate being lost with the right in the ascendancy claiming big examples of people on benefits living a life of riley the reality is simply very different. With 9 out of 10 people on housing benefit in work these could hardly be called scroungers they are simply receiving the money to help pay ridiculously expensive rents in this country. Besides much of what is given on housing benefits goes straight into the pockets of greedy landlords in the private sector. Red Pepper has done some great research and tried to smash many of the benefit myths being put about to distort the issues. Welfare reform is almost inevitably contentious. Answering the question of who should receive how much financial support relies on often competing conceptions of fairness, with rival views about who needs, and who deserves, our help, not to mention the most just and efficient way of providing it. These issues are worth debating – but the current debate is being conducted on shoddy terms. Myths and stereotypes abound. These serve not only to unfairly stigmatise claimants, but to obscure the questions we might want to answer about how best the state can provide support to people who need it. Myth: There is a major problem of ‘families where generations have never worked’ Reality: The academics Paul Gregg and Lindsay MacMillan looked at the Labour Force Survey, the large-scale survey of households from which we get most of our statistics about who’s in work. In households with two or more generations of working age, there were only 0.3 per cent where neither generation had ever worked. In a third of these, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year. When they looked at longer-term data, they found that only 1 per cent of sons in the families they tracked had never worked by the time they were 29. What’s more, while sons whose fathers had experienced unemployment were more likely to be unemployed, this only applied where there were few jobs in the local labour market. So ‘inter-generational worklessness’ is much more likely to be explained by a lack of jobs than a lack of a ‘work ethic’. Myth: Most benefits spending goes to unemployed people of working age Reality: The largest element of social security expenditure (42 per cent) goes to pensioners. Housing benefit accounts for 20 per cent per cent (and about one fifth of these claimants are in work); 15 per cent goes on children, through child benefit and child tax credit; 8 per cent on disability living allowance, which helps disabled people (both in and out of work) with extra costs; 4 per cent on employment and support allowance to those who cannot work due to sickness or disability; 4 per cent on income support, mainly for single parents, carers and some disabled people; 3 per cent on jobseeker’s allowance; and 2 per cent on carer’s allowance and maternity pay, leaving 3 per cent on other benefits. Myth: Benefit fraud is high and increasing Reality: The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. The claim that benefit fraud is increasing is similarly false. Because there have been changes in how fraud has been calculated over time, we have to look at combined fraud and ‘customer error’ for JSA and income support. This declined from 9.4 per cent to 4.8 per cent of spending from 1997/98 to 2004/05, and has since stayed roughly flat. Myth: Couples on benefits are better off if they split up Reality: This one has recently been comprehensively disproved by research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who concluded: ‘The simplest question that can be asked in testing the couple penalty is: does the benefits system provide a different proportion of a family’s daily living needs if they live together and if they live apart? The clear answer from the calculations in this paper is no. The benefits system provides very similar living standards to families living together and apart.’ Research in 2009 for the Department for Work and Pensions looked at whether different benefit systems had any impact on people’s decisions about whether to stay together or not. They concluded that ‘on balance, the reviewed literature shows that there is no consistent and robust evidence to support claims that the welfare system has a significant impact upon family structure’. Myth: The welfare bill has ballooned out of control Reality: The government has repeatedly claimed that welfare expenditure grew unsustainably under Labour. In fact, total expenditure on welfare was 11.6 per cent of GDP in 1996/97; under Labour it averaged 10.7 per cent up to the crash. Afterwards benefits for children and working age adults rose from an average 4.9 per cent of GDP up to 2007/08 to 6 per cent. This is what you would expect during a recession. Myth: Most benefit claims are long term Reality: The government persistently frames benefit claimants as ‘languishing in dependency’. So how much of the benefit caseload is long-term? It depends whether you count people at a single point in time or look at people moving on and off benefits over a period. The numbers paint a completely different picture. For example, in 2008, some 75 per cent of incapacity benefit claimants had been receiving the benefit for more than five years, and only 13 per cent for less than one year. But over the period 2003–8, only 37 per cent were long-term while 38 per cent were on benefit for less than a year. So if you count claimants at just one point in time, as government tends to do, you will overestimate how much of the caseload is long-term – and underestimate how many people move on and off benefits over time. Myth: Social security benefits are too generous Reality: Out of work benefit levels fall well below income standards based on detailed research into what ordinary people think should go into a minimum household budget. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that while pensioners do in fact receive 100 per cent of what people think they need, a single adult of working age receives 40 per cent of the weekly minimum income standard and a couple with two children receives 62 per cent of the weekly minimum. Myth: Most people who claim disability benefits could be working Reality: There are two main kinds of disability benefits: disability living allowance (to cover the extra costs of disability) and employment and support allowance (income replacement for those not in employment). The most basic misunderstanding is that the latter is only for people who are ‘completely incapable of work’. The welfare reformer Sidney Webb commented in 1914 – in the midst of one of many previous panics about ‘true disability’ – that the only people who could do no work at all were ‘literally unconscious or asleep’. The question is whether suitable jobs exist, and whether these people would be able to get them. Once we understand this, three problems face us. First, just because we’re living longer doesn’t mean we’re in better health; improved medical care means that many people born with impairments or suffering traumatic injuries are able to live longer. Second, jobs are in some ways worse than in the early 1990s: people have to work harder and have less control over their job, which makes it more difficult for people with health problems to stay in work. And while we now have anti-discrimination legislation, this only forces employers to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments; the evidence not only suggests these are often limited, but that employers are less willing to employ disabled people as a result. Finally, many of the people claiming incapacity benefits are people with low employability in areas of few jobs. These are the very employers that are less likely to make adjustments. Some people end up in a situation where they are not fit enough to do the jobs they can get, but can’t get the jobs they can do. Completely incapable of work? Not necessarily. Penalised for their disability by a labour market that has no place for them? Definitely.

Black April

So we enter April with a bang or a thud for many people living in Britain many new laws and benefit changes come in today and for many this will signal a continuation of harsh austerity policies from the con-dem government. These new policies coming into force from today onwards include cuts to housing benefit for some social housing tenants with a spare room and changes to council tax. The biggest shake-up of the welfare system for decades will also see low income households in many parts of England begin paying council tax for the first time. From today, 660,000 social housing tenants deemed to have a spare room will begin to lose an average of £14 a week in housing benefit. What is happening when? • 1 April: Spare room subsidy removed for working-age social housing tenants • 1 April: Council tax benefit changed to council tax support and run locally • 8 April: Working-age benefits and tax credits uprated by 1% - a below-inflation cap • 8 April: Disability living allowance replaced by personal independence payment • 15 April: Introduction of cap on total amount of benefit for working-age people • 29 April: Universal credit rolled out in test areas It has been estimated that two million low income households will pay more, as a result of changes to council tax benefit. The benefit is being replaced by council tax support and responsibility for it is being moved from central government to councils, but with 10% less funding. Also from this month, most working age benefits will increase by just one per cent - less than the likely rise in the cost of living. And later this month, an overall limit of £500 a week on claims is beginning in four London boroughs, and will come into force across England, Scotland and Wales over the coming months. But government plans to test a new universal credit - which combines several benefits into one payment - have been delayed. Three out of four pilot areas in the north west of England will not now start using the system until July. Even the pro big business BBC has voiced concerns at how quickly these cuts are being made they say quite clearly these policies will define this government too right they will. They will go down as the government who looked to savage ordinary peoples living standards. All of these policies and cuts must be fought in the most militant, determined and firm way in whatever way we can. There are so many reasons now for the TUC to get up off its knees and name a day for a 24 hour general strike it is overwhelming now the attacks on the poor. Its time we all stood up and made a stand.

The day of regressive budgets hitting ordinary people hard

So today it was budget day in the UK and over in Ireland. News and comments are still filtering through and I haven’t read them all in full and will probably depress myself if I did so but what is clear is that these budgets are austerity budgets designed to further the pain on ordinary people the working and middle class’s All this is to pay for a crisis not of our making, this is as I’ve stated many many times now is a crisis of capitalism and no wonder George Osborne has missed his deficit targets as he is increasing the deficit rather than looking to cut it. What he is cutting though is the fabric of our society, all we’ve ever fought for our welfare state, our NHS you name it it is all up for grabs under this government. Below is how the BBC saw the main points from the budget. As we can see there are increases in areas but this will be offset by bigger cuts elsewhere such as local government, NHS, welfare and major benefits. All the measures like housing fall way short of what we need and the idea of teachers pay linked to performance is a joke. FUEL The 3p-a-litre increase in fuel duty, planned for next January, is cancelled ECONOMIC GROWTH Predicted to be -0.1% in 2012, down from 0.8% predicted in the Budget Forecasts for next few years are: 1.2% in 2013, 2% in 2014, 2.3% 2015, 2.7% in 2016 and 2.8% in 2017 BENEFITS AND PENSIONS Most working-age benefits to rise by 1% for each of next three years From 2014-15 lifetime pension relief allowance to fall from £1.5m to £1.25m - annual allowance cut from £50,000 to £40,000 Basic state pension to rise by 2.5% next year to £110.15 a week Child benefit to rise by 1% for two years from April 2014 Local housing allowance rates to rise in line with existing policy next April but increases in the following two years capped at 1% Changes to welfare to save £3.7bn by 2015/16 TAXES AND ALLOWANCES Basic income tax threshold to be raised by £235 more than previously announced next year, to £9,440 Threshold for 40% rate of income tax to rise by 1% in 2014 and 2015, from £41,450 to £41,865 and then £42,285 Main rate of corporation tax to be cut by extra 1% to 21% from April 2014 Temporary doubling of small business rate relief scheme to be extended by further year to April 2014 Inheritance tax threshold to be increased by 1% next year Bank levy rate to be increased to 0.130% next year. £5bn over six years expected from treaty with Switzerland to deal with undisclosed bank accounts HM Revenue and Customs budget will not be cut ISA contribution limit to be raised to £11,520 from next April Prosecutions for tax evasions up 80% - with anti-abuse rule to come in next year No new tax on property value No net rise in taxes in Autumn Statement GOVERNMENT BORROWING Point at which debt predicted to begin falling delayed by a year to 2016/17 Deficit forecast to fall this year, as is cash borrowing Deficit to fall from 7.9% to 6.9% of GDP this year, and to continue falling to 1.6% by 2017/18 Borrowing forecast to fall from £108bn this year to £31bn in 2017/18 £33bn saving to be made on interest debt payment predicted two years ago Deficit fallen by a quarter in last two years Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock Asset Management brought on to balance sheet, adding £70bn to national debt GOVERNMENT SPENDING Period of austerity to be extended by another year to 2017/18 Departments to reduce spending by 1% next year and 2% year after Local government budgets to be cut by 2% in 2014 Government spending as share of GDP predicted to fall from 48% in 2009/10 to 39.5% in 2017/18 Spending review to take place in first half of next year JOBS AND TRAINING Unemployment expected to peak at 8.3%, lower than the previous prediction of 8.7% Employment set to rise in each year of the parliament Since general election, 1.2 million jobs created in the private sector TRANSPORT Extra £1bn to roads, including upgrading A1, A30, and M25 £1bn loan to extend London's Northern Line to Battersea EDUCATION AND FAMILIES £1bn to improve good schools and build 100 new free schools and academies £270m for further education colleges Teachers' pay to be linked to performance INFRASTRUCTURE Ultra-fast broadband expansion in 12 cities: Brighton and Hove, Cambridge, Coventry, Derby, Oxford, Portsmouth, Salford, York, Newport, Aberdeen, Perth and Derry-Londonderry £600m for scientific research Annual infrastructure investment now £33bn £1bn extra capital for Business Bank Gas Strategy to include consultation on incentives for shale gas HOUSING Funding to assist building of up to 120,000 homes OVERSEAS AID Promise to spend 0.7% on development to be honoured next year, but not exceeded

Who are the real scroungers in society ?

As many of you who know me will know i am registered as blind and have been since 2004. I lost my sight due to a rare genetic disease which attacked the cells at the back of my eyes connected my eyes to my brain the optic nerve in otherwords.
This has left me using a white cane and finding jobs and opportunities hard to come by despite my determination to try and live my life as normally as i possibly can still.
I do claim for Disability Living allowance and feel no shame in doing so. I cannot drive and i cant reach places by walking all the time so a taxi or two or to pay a bus fare is needed. I have never played the system as some of the capitalist media like to put it so kindly.
I do work part time at present mostly down to the fact there is little work around at the moment where i am at and a part time position i feel is better than sitting at home doing nothing. I feel proud that i can contribute in my own little way. Its not much i know i'm basically costing up parts for electrical control panels and quoting for prices. This gives me experience in the work place and a sense of belonging too.

But i do get benifits a working tax credit to top up what i dont earn as my wages are so low and a disability living allowance to aid with me living independently as best i can. Life is tough at times i have no bones about that and dont cheat the system but benifits are there to help people live not to fund a lifestyle which is where the government and the labour party have disabled people all wrong.

Benifit fraud although a tiny 1% of claiments are frauding the system is clearly a serious thing people shouldnt be cheating the system of course but we can all understand why people may be forced into such measures by this system we live under. The increasing desperation of people in todays society may be forced into such hard choices.

But we are always being told by every newspaper and every polititian these days be them tory labour or lib dem that benifit cheaters are more of a problem than anything we have ever faced.

In cash terms, it amounts to around £1bn. Yeah, I know. A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Even so, it is little more than small change in comparison with the £850bn spent on the bank bailout. That comparison is one that everybody on the left should commit to memory ahead of the debates with the right that inevitably lie ahead.

HAVING MUGGED the public with £83 billion of cuts in public spending (to plug the budget deficit caused by bailing out the failed banking system), millionaire chancellor George Osborne has, hypocritically, rounded on alleged benefit fraudsters, accusing them of 'mugging taxpayers'.

While identifying an estimated £1.5 billion in benefit and tax credit fraud, Osborne failed to mention any measures the government will implement to resolve the estimated £16 billion in means-tested benefits and tax credits that currently goes unclaimed every year.

According to Citizens Advice: "Up to three million households are missing out on an average £13 a week in council tax benefit, while as many as 1.7 million pensioners are missing out on an average of £31 a week in pension credit."

Applying for means-tested benefit is complicated and many are discouraged from claiming.

While speaking out against benefit fraud, Osborne is also silent over the estimated £120 billion that is lost to government income through tax avoidance, evasion or uncollected taxes. Collecting this enormous sum has been made more difficult by the government sacking 25,000 tax workers and closing 200 tax offices. Osborne may also be reticent to pursue these billions as several high profile Tory backers are 'non-dom' tax dodgers.

Prime minister David Cameron recently announced that Experian - a profit-making company - will get a 'bounty' for each person that it identifies as defrauding on benefit payments. Such a system is open to abuse as Experian has a financial incentive to throw accusations at people.




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



I am a socialist for the reasons i have previously stated i care about others and want us all to be equal. I dont want the world i just want to live comfortably and not ahve to worry about money and i wish for the same for everybody else too. I joined the socialist party last year for this very reason. Finding like minded people who share my outlook on life and the world is a place i want to be involved in.

I think its always important to present the facts as they are and link them to a personal situation it helps you get your point across better i always find and asking people to look up from their copies of the sun and the mail and open their eyes to the real injustices in the world and to find taht people who have benifits oftn often do not wish to be on them and feel stigmatised for it. But it is something they need to help them live. If there were enough well paid jobs to go around for all we wouldnt have this problem. For those who cant work there should be sufficient things in place for them to be still able to contribute to society in some way or fashion.

This is my idea of a socialist society of the future where society is based on the needs of the many not the profits of a few, what is your future world going to look like ?

Cuts hit the disabled hard

I thought i'd share a excellent article in our paper - the socialist this week where i feature towards the end.

Disabled people and family carers are now experiencing an unprecedented attack. Cuts made and planned by the Tory/Liberal coalition will hit the public and community services they use and the benefits they rely on.
All but the most severely disabled will be expected to look or prepare for work, and face the loss of benefits if they refuse even a few hours of employment. As these articles show, the cuts will have a devastating impact unless a mass campaign is built to stop them.
Benefits slashed
A recent Care and Support Alliance survey of 1,000 disabled people and family carers, found that 22% have support needs but are not receiving services; 54% said changes to services had a negative impact on their health; 52% said their independence had been negatively affected; and 43% were less able to afford essentials such as food or heating. This was before the latest round of cuts.

In the name of a 'deficit' caused by the greed of the bankers and their profit-driven system, £81 billion in public spending cuts are planned to be carried out over the next four years.

The 28% cut in government funding to local authorities has already led to £1 billion cuts in social care spending this year and the tightening of eligibility criteria. This is at a time when there is a growing population of older disabled people.

£18 billion cuts in welfare spending will also lead to significant changes in benefits. Of the 70,000 who lost all benefits in October 2010, 20,000 were disabled people.

For example, a new Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will replace the mobility and care components of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from 2013. This is a move to reduce entitlement by at least 20%. Automatic entitlements will end, and the successful use of aids, such as a wheelchair, could lead to the loss of benefits.

PIPs will require incapacity benefit claimants to be reviewed. They will face the possibility of sanctions for making mistakes when claiming. Already 20,000 disabled people lose their benefits every month.

Increasing rents for some social housing to 80% of market rates, and cutting the amount given in housing benefit will have an impact on thousands of disabled people, placing many vulnerable people at risk of homelessness. Also, the National Housing Federation has warned that over 400,000 including vulnerable people, such as pensioners and victims of domestic violence, are at risk of losing essential housing support funded by the Supporting People programme.

The misnamed Welfare Reform Bill being rushed through Parliament is the vehicle for most of these cuts. It will also introduce, from October 2013, a Universal Credit that will eventually replace tax credits, housing benefit, social fund loans, income support and income based Employment Support and Jobseeker's Allowances.


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

United action can stop cuts
A disabled Unison member

Disabled people protest against cuts, photo S Civi (Click to enlarge)
Given the scale of these cuts, the initial response of disabled people's organisations has been mixed. Following the autumn spending review, Inclusion London published a briefing that condemned outright the Tory/Liberal cuts. Both they and the Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People have since produced a detailed analysis of what the cuts will mean for disabled people and family carers in their areas.

But the United Kingdom Disabled People's Council (UKDPC) post-spending review statement said it had discussions with the Tory minister for disabled people, Maria Miller, and stressed the need for full impact assessments that would 'identify the effect the cuts will have' on disabled people.

The winter 2010-11 edition of UKDPC's Activate newsletter contained no outline or analysis of the cuts, but did announce the setting up of a Disability Rights Watch UK to gather evidence "to show the UK government where they need to improve the law, policies and practices to ensure that disabled people can enjoy their full human rights".

Gathering personal stories of how the cuts and discrimination are impacting on people can have an effect in countering government propaganda if they are widely circulated. But reasoning with a coalition that sees its historical legacy as completing the dismantling of the welfare state, started by Margaret Thatcher, is like trying to scratch a diamond.

There has also been a failure to publicly condemn the planned closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) that will put many of its 21,000 users at risk of having to choose between living independently with the most basic of support or being forced into residential care.

The government's announcement in December that the ILF is 'financially unsustainable' was supported by the Fund's trustees, and made only after consulting with 'disability organisations' that still have to be named.

In response to the ILF planned closure and the broader cuts, the National Centre for Independent Living has reiterated its long-term demand for a 'right to independent living'. But granting this right, without the billions in resources needed to achieve it, would ring hollow.

In fact, the current statutory duty on local authorities to assess and provide social services, contained in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, is under threat. This is a primary target of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles' war on local authority legal duties in preparation for the mass privatisation or closure of services.

The decision by the UKDPC and the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) in January to organise 'The Hardest Hit' (THH) march, rally and lobby of Parliament on Wednesday 11 May reflects the groundswell of anger and alarm building among disabled people and family carers since the autumn spending review.

However, it must be used as a starting point to build a national campaign against the cuts. Disabled people's and carers' organisations and the disability charities involved in the DBC employ several thousand workers and have tens of thousands of members across the country.

Mobilised into a national campaign with active groups in every town and city, it could quickly give disabled people, family carers and not-for-profit sector workers, many of whom are facing redundancies and wage cuts, the confidence to fight back together and build a mass movement that would find an echo among millions.

On their own disabled people and carers' organisations cannot beat this government. Although it is possible that partial retreats such as the decision to continue to give mobility benefits to those in residential care could be achieved.

It is vital that links are developed with the public sector trade unions and the developing anti-cuts movement. Disabled people and family carers must play a role in them and support the call for a one-day public sector strike, as the next step in the campaign following the 26 March trade union demo.

Together we can defeat this government, reverse the cuts made so far, and demand decent benefits, pensions, jobs, homes and services for all.

We call for:
No cuts in benefits, jobs and public services
Oppose the Welfare Reform Bill
Decent benefits, education, training or work for all, without compulsion
No privatisation of services. Take back in-house all privatised services
Sack Atos Origin and scrap the Work Capability Assessment
A living wage and provision of respite for all family carers
Provide free health and social care services to all who need them
Stop using children and family members as a substitute for professional services
A national campaign to save the Independent Living Fund
Massive investment in social housing, services and infrastructure to create jobs and meet need
For a 24-hour public sector general strike as the next step in the campaign to defeat all the cuts
For a socialist society that puts the needs of the millions before the profits of the millionaires

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

Little help for carers
Pamela Smith
"Families are crumbling across the country as carers cannot cope". Bristol mum Riven Vincent posted this online in January. David Cameron had visited her before the 2010 general election and pledged that, if elected, he'd protect disabled children.

Yet across the country, centres for disabled people and their carers are closing. The services and charities that form the scaffolding for the shaky edifice of Cameron's Big Society have had funds cut. Key welfare benefits are being axed and it's harder than ever for carers to get respite.

Hypocritically the Tories praise carers but expect families to bear the brunt of the cuts. They preach good traditional values but it is costs, not values that matter to them.

Thousands of children care for relatives to the detriment of their own welfare. Women in particular are often thrust into caring roles in the home - and into poverty.

Cameron famously knows what it's like to have a disabled child and the tragedy of losing a child is immeasurable. But millionaire Cameron and his rich wife had all kinds of resources at their disposal.

The millionaires, sitting in Cabinet or inhabiting the boardrooms of big companies, probably never empty bedpans for their parents, go without holidays or, like Riven, care 24/7 for tube-fed, doubly-incontinent children without their nannies, drivers, cleaners, gardeners and personal assistants.

Most carers have to leap hurdles before they get any help, waiting months for an answer to requests and when help comes it's often too little too late. Dave and Sam didn't crack under the pressure whereas Riven did. After six hard years and being told not to expect more than six hours weekly respite, she sadly asked for her child to be taken into care.

An extra £800 million has been allocated to respite care over the next four years, but it's not ring-fenced. Local councils can decide how to spend it and they are making cuts. Under Labour only 23% of the £400 million given for respite care in 2008 actually went into carers' breaks.

We deserve better
Caring involves financial, physical and psychological costs to the carer. It's a cheap option for the Con-Dem government.

But we and the people we love and care for deserve better: professional, dedicated support; training; weekly respite and proper holidays; a decent living income.

But let's face it - many of us wouldn't be doing it at all if there was a good, free and well-funded care system worthy of the name.

My mum told me: "Wheel me to the local DWP office or the NHS. Tell them you're on strike. Imagine if all the carers did that"!

She's right: we deserve a break. But expect nothing from the Con-Dems, although the last lot were no better. Somehow we'll have to fight for it!


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

Profiteer vultures circle over services
Jackie Russell
Since 2008 Labour and Con-Dem governments have paid around £100 million a year to Atos Healthcare, a division of Atos Origin, to assess new sickness and disability related benefit claimants for the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). By using the unfair Work Capability Assessment (WCA), many were found 'fit to work'.

From April 2011 the WCA will be used by the Tory/Liberal government to assess one and a half million current disabled and ill Incapacity Benefit claimants. Of these, only about a quarter of a million will be transferred on to ESA.

Even then, many receiving ESA will only be able to claim it for a year. Those transferred to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) will receive £26 a week less, causing further and unnecessary hardship.

Some disabled people, particularly people with learning difficulties or mental health problems or cognitive impairments such as dyslexia, will be at risk of sanctions.

Since the introduction of the WCA, there has been a massive rise in appeals at the tribunal service. At least 40% of those appealing have been found 'not fit to work.' This process is a waste of taxpayers' money that is better used to create jobs, as well as hugely stressful.

Incredibly, many reports have stated that claimants, diagnosed with cancer, have been declared as fit to work; many blind and deaf people will also no longer automatically receive sickness benefit and are unlikely to qualify for extra help in finding work.

While most disabled people want to work, the government has also failed to appreciate that there are few supported jobs available to them and has not fully recognised the barriers that they experience in obtaining jobs - the institutional discrimination and prejudicial attitudes.

Atos Origin's renewed contract will involve them reassessing all existing Disability Living Allowance claimants to check if they are eligible for the new Personal Independent Payment.

This transition aims to save the government a further £1 billion plus that will result in many disabled people being found no longer eligible or placed on a lower rate than before.

Along with the privatisation of the welfare state, it seems that we are reverting to what working class and poor disabled people had to go through in the 19th century, where they had to provide for themselves and in times of crisis, were forced to go cap in hand to workhouses and philanthropists.

Most of the capitalist newspapers are aiding the government's ability to divide and rule by blaming the vulnerable in society, for example, scapegoating disabled people as 'scroungers', "greedy skivers" and "benefit cheats" for claiming benefits.

For the last six decades, the country has been governed by all three political parties and disabled people are no further forward in securing their right to live as equal citizens. They are still being denied welfare services. This indicates the need for society to become a socialist one, that puts people first, not profit.


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

The way I see things
Mark Wright
For me, someone who is registered blind, the cuts are a very real and worrying thing. Like many other blind and visually impaired people, I rely on Disability Living Allowance (DLA), not totally, but to top up the income we often can't receive.

Due to finding work difficult to come by I have only been able to get a part-time job. Many may ask why do I require DLA if I can work. That is missing the point.

Contrary to what Iain Duncan Smith, minister for work and pensions, has to say, the DLA is a non work-based benefit that has two components.

Access to work
The first is the mobility part which is used to help disabled people get about and remain as independent as they can be, given their disability.

The other part is the care component which goes towards helping you pay the costs of living. If you require a carer it would go towards that.

Also, as someone who is registered blind, I have had mixed experiences with the 'access to work' scheme set up by the previous Labour government.

Despite its slowness and inefficiency it is still a very good service which helps many disabled people into work. My workplace was adapted for me to carry out tasks like any other employee.

None of the cost of this is funded by the employer, be they in the non-governmental public or private sector.

Cuts affect productivity
Instead a government grant can cover things like taxi transport to and from work if a bus service is not available or equipment like screen readers for use with computers, which I take full advantage of.

Cuts in these areas will not only affect me but will affect my productivity. I really think the government should be looking to encourage disabled people into work rather than making them feel like criminals for needing support and assistance to be on a level playing field with the rest of society.


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

The Hardest Hit march & rally
Wednesday 11 May, 11.30am
by Horseguards Avenue,
Victoria Embankment, London

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

Are we really all in this together ?

As George Osbournes now famous line we are all in this together gets heard almost on a daily basis now in my tweets on twitter and various social media outlets i just think we should not let the public at large forget that this is a complete lie.

We are not all in this together at all. The poor are disproportionatly paying more for the bankers mistakes and the huge debt we have run up. It is not fair to say we are all in this together when a certain section of society is clearly being forced not becuase they want to to pay for this mess. After it was our money that was used to bail these retchid banks out in the first place we continue to hear of the poor being asked to take pay cuts, redundancies, VAT hikes, benifits being taken away and merged.
I just still think that line will be one of the lines in history that will show the tories up to have been out of touch during a time of hardship throughout the western world.
If we area ll in this together why are the bankers and the rich not paying more tax's to help the less well off avoid the brunt of these cuts. So for example if big business's like Vodafone who still owe our country 6 billin pounds of tax would just be foreced to pay up the 6 billion taken out of the welfare state earlier this year would never have had to happen.

But are we all in this mess together ? no we dam well are not. Untill this class war is ended and the attack on the less well off is heard to the mainstream media and everyone gets to hear of the real ideaological reasons behind these cuts the arguement about cuts will not ahve been won. We must fight and campaign to keep the welfare state one of the greatest things about this country in its present state.

If the NHS is taken on to privatise it or cut it back majorly then the student protests seen over the last few weeks in london will be sure to be repeated.

I fear we are in for a rough couple of years now under this tory lead coalition so lets buckle up and be ready to fightback when they say cutback.