“Gender and Austerity: The impact of the recession on women”

by

I attended “Gender and Austerity: The impact of the recession on women” mainly because I spotted that Sylvia Walby was speaking. I have read some of her research on domestic violence and have her book “The Future of Feminism”..

Gender and the Crisis – Sylvia Walby

Walby looked at finance in a way of demystifying it. She gave a brief overview of various understandings of finance from Hayek to David Harvey. Walby explained that finance has distinctive dynamics not reducible to the rest of the economy. Money is a site of struggle over resources. She referred to Ingham, Minsky and Keynes. She argued that the left tends to ignore the role of gender in finance. Even David Harvey says little on gender (with the exception of the “disposal worker” even then without any analysis of gender). Walby looked at the poor governance of finance, institutions being male dominated therefore the argument for democractic controls is critical. One example is more women along with trade union representatives on boards. The first wave of the recession (2007- 2008) hit male dominated work such as construction and car manufacturing. While from 2010, with the emergency budget, with the cuts in the public sector women workers were feeling the impact of these attacks. Walby looked at ways the Labour/ConDems dealt with crisis such as bailing out the banks, cutting public expenditure and creating a deliberately gendered austerity. One area of investigated is cuts to charities and voluntary organisations by local authorities.  

The total amount of local authority funding lost to the domestic violence and sexual abuse sector in England recorded by the False Economy data collection project is just under two and a half million pounds (£2,435,061): this represents a 31% funding cut to the sector (from £7,803,307 in 2010/11 to £5,368,247 in 2011/12).

Furthermore

To give an example of what these cuts mean in practice, the report cites data provided by Women’s Aid showing that on a typical day in 2011, 230 women (9%) seeking refuge were turned away due to lack of space. With nowhere else to go, many of those women will be faced with the unenviable choice of returning to their home where their wellbeing or even their life may be in danger, seeking a bed in accident and emergency, or sleeping rough in parks.

Finance, according to Walby, is not just about employment. Everything is interconnected and analysis that includes class must inevitably include gender.

See:

Finance and democracy: A gender lens by Sylvia Walby

Finance versus democracy – In: Work, Employment and Society (Vol. 27, No. 3, 2013.)  Walby – Forthcoming

The Future of Feminism (Walby)

Women’s Pay and Poverty – Jackie Longworth (Fair Play South West)

  • More than 50% of children in poverty live in households with at least one wage earner

Longworth argued that there’s confusion over the definition of the gender pay gap.  Mean = difference between average pay of women and men. Median = difference between the pay of 50% of men compared with 50% of women. Along with confusion of working pattern. Full time women compared with full time men. Part time women compared with part time men. Part time women compared with full time men. All women compared with all men.

Current thinking by government is headlining full time median hourly pay (excluding overtime) is very misleading as few working men are part time (15% in the SW in 2012). Many working women are part time (49% in the SW in 2012).

2012 hourly gender pay gaps, median:

Full time women to full time men – Government’s head line gap (UK) – 9.6%

Gap from Longworth’s analysis of full time ONS data is

11% England

13% SW

All employees (full and part time)

21% England

19% SW

Part time women to full time men

40% England

34% SW

In the SW – 28% of women and 16% of men earn less than the Living Wage per hour (£7.45 per hour outside London)

In the SW – 47% of women and 19% of men earn less than the Living Wage per week

The proportion of women earning less than the living wage per week is higher in the SW than across England (47% cf 42%)

Comparisons 2009 – 2012 – SW

Number of employees

- women up 2% men up 5%

Number of part time employees

- women up 7%

Median hourly pay

- women up 5% men up 2%

- Part time women up 5.6%

Median weekly pay

Women up 2.3% men up 1.9%

Median pay gap (all women all men)

- Hourly, down from 22% to 19%

- Weekly, unchanged at 38%

Slightly more women were earning less than the living wage per week in 2009 (48.5% cf 47%)

Issues which push women into low paid, often low skilled, work (from Fair Play South West)

- Unavailability of conveniently located, conveniently timed, high quality, affordable childcare

- Public transport not tailored to women’s needs

- Uneven geographical availability of well paid jobs

- Unavailability of the options of part time or flexible working

- Undervaluing of work traditionally done by women

- Inadequacy of information, advice and guidance to both girls at school and adult women about career and study options

Conclusions

Paid employment is a not a secure route out of poverty or off benefits

Women’s low weekly earnings are due to both low hourly pay and part time working

Compared with 2009, in 2012 women worked fewer hours per week

Cutting women’s benefits is not going to lift them out of poverty!!!!!

Government policy should be good quality flexible childcare provision, growth of well paid flexible jobs in accessible places for women, raising the minimum wage to at least the living wage and reducing stereotypes in IAG services.

See:

Fair Play SW

Managing to Survive: Gender and Household Strategies in the Recession – Harriet Bradley

This talk was more of a micro look at austerity and gender.

Case studies: 30 families from 3 areas, 10 of each middle, intermediate and working class. One parent in work, child(ren) of school age.

1.08 million women unemployed – 25 year high

12% rise – since 2010

Increase in long-term unemployment, while men’s rate has decreased.

What these case studies highlighted were how austerity is impacting women on a micro level such as, women cushion redundancy. One of the case studies show a middle class couple where the man loses his job and the woman has to take on more work (she’s a translator) to make ends meet.

September 2011 – 2012 public sector jobs down by 324,000

Private sector jobs rose by 823,000

Process continues in employment (Bell and Blanchflower): rise in underemployment, involuntary p/t wk, risky self-employment, zero-hours contracts etc.

Another of the case studies shows one of the woman trying to find work, which are a “bit more, a bit better”. As in a bit more interesting”.. She is offered a job which she took mainly because she needs the money.

Fawcett Society estimated that 74% of Osborne’s savings in welfare and tax changes come from women

Increased poverty for both unemployed and low-paid working families

7 foodbanks in Bristol, 1000 people a month use them; nationally number of users has tripled in past year.

Projected rise in poverty in child poverty of 600,000

Another case study highlighted the importance of benefits. Woman in the study used to have help with mortgage payments because of a disability, and they would pay the interest. She would end up paying the rest. Since the election of the ConDems the help she received has been reduced by half.

“Financially is putting me in a lot of bother”..

The case studies highlighted people living on the edge. One of the women in the studies was told by her doctor she should drink de-caff coffee due to heart problems but she cannot afford it.

“So I come off it cos we can’t afford to do it”…

Also, case studies showing that people are more careful now with their shopping. Along with scrimping and saving…

“In fact, I got a ring that was handed down to me from a grandparent which I really don’t want to get rid of but at the moment I am considering selling it. We do need the money”

Working class people in these case studies showed that the family helps out.

“I am 26 now, I shouldn’t be relying on my parents…they shouldn’t feel like they have to help us because they know we’re struggling”

And in the working class case studies showed children were suffering

“We don’t go on half as many day trips as what we used to. Like before now we’d take them camping for a couple of nights or we would go to Weston for the day, or we’d take them to the zoo, and we just haven’t got the spare money to do that since things have gone up and money’s gone down”…

The impacts of recession:

Accumulated debts and anxiety

  • Greater care in managing budgets: more work for women.
  • Women are “managers and shock absorbers of poverty”
  • Life stripped down to bare minimum
  • Class dimensions very strong

- the rich getting richer

- less affluent m/c struggle but are more slightly cushioned

- w/c have had to cut back completely not cushioned

‘Ordinary Lives’ – H. Bradley, W. Atkinson, A Sales (ESRC funded)

BME Women’s Experience of Unemployment – Florence Nosegbe (The Runnymede Trust)

Percentage of ethnic group in employment

Pakistani/Bangladeshi – Unemployment rates –  men 12.8% women 20.5%

White – Unemployment rates – men 8.3% women 6.8%

There was also a concern that Black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women would be more likely to be made redundant in other sectors, such as the private sector, in comparison with other women due to discrimination in the work place. A number of witnesses highlighted that there are better anti- discrimination and equality policies in the public sector than in the private sector for example. However, it was not assumed that redundancy in the private sector would necessarily be any worse than in previous recession.

Most strikingly, Professor Anthony Heath stated that, despite being difficult to measure, he and Professor Yaojun Li have calculated that 25% of the ethnic minority unemployment rate could be attributable to prejudice and discrimination.21 The sheer volume of other evidence presented to the inquiry highlighting discrimination as a key cause of unemployment for ethnic minority women reinforces this finding.

Example of this:

Research carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2008 which found that if you have an African or Asian sounding surname you need to send approximately twice as many job applications as those with a traditionally British name even to get an interview.

Problems with accessing childcare

The Daycare Trust also highlighted that whilst all three to four year-old children are entitled to a free early education place, only 72% of Pakistani and 64% of Bangladeshi children take up these places compared to 89% of white children.

Finally:

Finally, throughout the inquiry witnesses and those interviewed were adamant in stating that racism still exists in the UK, and evidence and personal testimony collected backs up its existence.

List of recommendations can be found at the start of the report.

Ethnic Minority Female Unemployment – All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community

Pakistani and Bangladeshi women less likely to find jobs on the Work Programme

Gender and Austerity: Can the Equality Act 2010 Help? – Hazel Conley

The emergency budget of 2010 saw 25% cuts to budgets of government departments.

Two year public pay freeze

Changes to public sector pension schemes

Following couple of years have seen attacks on welfare benefits

Attacks on the public sector have shown that women have been disproportionately hit. GMB identified 20 local authorities 100% of the jobs lost since 2010 belonged to women.

Can the Equality Act protect women?

Fawcett Society legally challenged the emergency budget using the gender equality duty. Unfortunately, they failed. Judge who made the decision literally argued that if this challenge was successful it would upset capital, both here and abroad!! ConDems have dismantled many of the legislative protections. The Gender Equality Duty was replaced with section 149 that contains a general duty and requires secondary legislation. ConDems postponed enacting secondary legislation.This means the ConDems have successively weakened the duty.

If the Gender Equality Duty was still in place, it would have been possibly more difficult for 20 local authorities making only women workers carry the job cuts.

“Dismantling this legislation without a plan for replacement measures might be considered itself an act of institutional discrimination”

Economic Crisis, Austerity and Gender Equality – The UK Case – Hazel Conley (pg 14 – 20)

Overall, I found the day fascinating and gaining an insight on the research done by academics. I was speaking to an academic who worked with homelessness charities and much of her research is around homelessness and gender. She told me that the number of women in work but homeless was increasing due to lack of social housing and priced out of private renting. No doubt this will worsen because what all the speakers were agreed upon is that we have seen nothing yet… the worst is yet to come! I found Walby’s talk interesting along with demystifying finance yet there are flaws with purely a social democratic approach. But I agree with her about the lack of gender analysis in the Marxist approach. Yet it is a starting point of a discussion. The attacks we are seeing is ideological, it is about punishing the powerless in this society yet where is the anger. Some of the discussion was about how society has been more individualised as opposed to collective action. Culture of dependency is about blaming the individual for their inadequacies. Thatcherism/Blairism/neo-liberalism has smashed up much of that fighting spirit and we are left with internalising oppression, alienation and isolation. More dispiriting but also highlights a very fractured, weakened and fragmented labour movement that certainly impacts on feminist action.The powerful language of blame is ever-present yet the real culprits get away with it as it’s about distraction and divide and rule. What should we do? How do we organise? There were different approaches and ideas yet the frustration was palpable to do something to show your rage to this brutal and vicious coalition.

See as well:
Iain Duncan Smith’s assertion that 8,000 claimants had changed behaviour due to benefit cap ‘unsupported by official statistics (see the letter on the website)

The High Court is to hear ten claims against the bedroom tax in the social rented sector next week, according to law firm Leigh Day.

Absolute child poverty is to increase by 27.2 per cent by 2020, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies 

Welfare reforms have increased the demands placed on Scottish GPs.

A housing association has sent out eviction letters in response to the introduction of the benefit cap.

Demand for advice support in Scotland has risen by 72 per cent due to welfare reforms, according to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO).

Deregulation Bill –  introduced in the Queen’s Speech, contains provisions that include reducing qualifying period for Right to Buy from five to three years and removing power from employment tribunals to make wider recommendations in successful discrimination cases.

Importance of a safe space for women…

by

I despair sometimes, well actually I despair a lot. It feels like for years now I have been arguing about feminism, automony and patriarchy in the dim and distant past. Back then I had energy and flair now I am just deflated and bored. Bored with having to arguing the same old same old obvious ideas. Obvious to some but not, alas to others. The ignorance and arrogance displayed by the Weekly Worker on feminism is beyond belief, also it’s embarrassing as it lacks analysis and insight. Can the CPGB politically degenerate any further… Same here with this workerist piece from the SP. Workerist, economistic and lumpen…

The statement written by Cath Elliott and Marsha-Jane Thompson on “Our movement must be a safe space for women” has caused much debate and outrage. Some see it as divisive. Why????

Now I signed this because I agree with it. Again, Weekly Worker had something to say about it, which I covered here. No use repeating myself. I was accused by Demarty of “bowdlerising” his arguments, which rather seemed unjustified coz I don’t think he fully understands the meaning of the word… But hey, it’s a big fancy clever word … So full marks to him there. His argument style is not bright, brisk nor buoyant. Alas, poor Demarty, spews forth a farrago of balductum…

I have read and re-read the statement and I can’t understand why people object to it? Am I missing something? Cath has written a very good post on this subject too.

Supporting safe spaces is a no-brainer and I can’t believe I am having to argue with comrades who believe this statement to be divisive. Actually do the objectors believe in the opposite, “unsafe spaces”? Safe spaces aren’t just about physical safety but about psychological safety i.e. not demeaned, not being sneered at, not undermined nor bullied. Is that such a hard concept for them to grasp? It should be a safe place where comrades can challenge each others ideas. It’s also about showing solidarity to women who have experienced violence. Again, what is so difficult for him to comprehend?

The labour movement isn’t a court of law so therefore why is it controversial to “believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women”. Why is it wrong to take that standpoint? What is the alternative? Women should expect to be supported and believed! Setting yourself up as some kind of kangaroo court denies justice.

A bowdlerised version of this article will appear in next month’s Labour Briefing.

Remember the dead… Fight for the living!!

by
Workers' Memorial Day - London 2008

Workers’ Memorial Day – London 2008

I had my work-related accident in the summer of 2001. The room had badly designed and constructed shelves. Shelves holding far too many books, the wood started to buckle and sag. Unfortunately one day, the shelves collapsed. Shelves had been fitted all around the room and when one collapsed, it became like a domino effect the whole lot came down. I had the misfortune to be in the room, the stress and strain of the books and shelves also brought down some of the wall structures. The room was totalled. I fortunately ended up with a damaged shoulder blade and nerve damage in my neck. The chair I had been sitting in pretty much save me from worse (photos showed the chair had been smashed to pieces). Management were very quick in trying to clean up the mess. Union rep intervened got one of the photography technicians (also in the union) to take photos of the scene before the whole lot was cleared up! Ended up in hospital. Pain killers, physiotherapy and swimming helped but even now my shoulder blade aches and stiffens… I still get spasms. If I am stressed or tired I get get pain in my shoulder blade. My shoulder blade is still very weak. I sued the employer, with trade union support and backing, they accepted liability. It took them a year or so to pay up.

…But I was lucky… Lucky to be alive as so many people globally die 

2.2 million people globally die each year of work-related accidents and diseases

20,000 people in UK die as a result of their work (that’s possibly a lot higher!)

In the UK prosecutions of employers found failing at work have dropped by 50% during the last 10 years.

By coincidence …. There has been a 50% drop in the number of safety inspectors in the workplace during the last 10 years…

1.9 million of working-age people in UK live with an injury or illness caused or made worse by the jobs.

From FACK (Families Against Corporate Killers)

International Workers’ Memorial Day is an opportunity for us FACK families to tell the stories of our lives, which changed irrevocably and beyond measure when our loved ones’ lives were cut far too short.

These are loved ones like Cameron Minshull, a 16-year old lad, only a few weeks into his first job, killed in an incident involving an industrial lathe. The HSE Director whose desk this came across has said he thought he was reading a tale from Victorian times.  But this was no tale of a bygone era, it is a modern day horror story.

For his family “it still does not seem real, it’s like a bad dream”.  But this is no work of fiction. Because, once upon a time our loved ones left for work, and for them – and therefore us – there will be no living happily ever after. 

Yet this ConDem government continues to push a narrative through which they attempt to convince the public that health and safety legislation amounts to a burden on business, or is a barrier to our young people gaining work experience. 

The truth of it is that lack of good health and safety often proves an ultimate and deadly barrier to young people gaining work experience, just as it did for 17 year-old Steven Burke who fell 30ft to his death while working at a water treatment plant or 18 year-old Lewis Murphy who died after suffering 60% burns when he was engulfed in a massive fireball at the garage he started working at on leaving school. His mum and dad found out in court that, as their son was being taken to hospital, he had asked the paramedic if he was going to die. That is a real and enduring burden. Those of us whose lives are far emptier for the loss of our parents, children, siblings or partners, we bear the burden. 

With the ConDems attacking health and safety regulations in the workplace as just aint profitable… people are still dying and deregulation will cause more deaths.

 

See you on Sunday 28th April – Bristol Cathedral – from 12:30 – 2:30

Also: Fight Against Blacklisting - Monday 29 April – Tony Benn House, Bristol – 7:30 0nwards

See:

Global events on Workers’ Memorial Day

TUC – Health & Safety – Time for Change

Excellent Hazards magazine

Remember the dead… Fight for the living!

 

The man doth protest too much, methinks….

by

Oh dear….

Poor old Paul Demarty. You gotta sympathise with him, he writes a piss-poor article on feminism and the SWP and he’s shocked by the tsunami of criticism. Poor lamb. Though he provides me with much comedy. Alas, poor Demarty, a fellow of infinite jest. Your flashes of merriment were wont to set Comrade Harpster a roar!

There is nothing in feminism as a core set of ideas that contradicts Marxism. Demarty, in this rather over-the-top shtick claims that the relationship between feminism and Marxism has “tortured the far left” since “at least’ the 1970s. No, comrade, it’s tortured workerists who fail to understand feminism. If you take an essentialist view in your analysis, i.e. radical feminism locates women’s oppression in patriarchy, understanding it as a monolithic entity without seeing the relationship between capitalism & patriarchy. There’s a mirror image between what Demarty is arguing and radical feminism… essentialism. Demarty’s essentialism is workerism. Or to use the phrase Barbara Ehrenreich used back in those “tortured 1970s” … Mechanical Marxism.

And Demarty is shocked I say, shocked due to the comments that ranged from supportive to mildly irked, to downright hostile. 

What does he expect?

Demarty is sloppy in his analysis but also dishonest. He fails to understand the power relationships between men and women in a capitalist patriarchal society, which is also reflected on the Left. People are angry precisely because the SWP dealt with a rape allegation appallingly, it also reflects those power dynamics between men and women, it is about the abuse of power. Something that Demarty is incapable of understanding due to his workerist politics.

Just how pathetic and insulting is this statement:  As for “other violence”, the comrades Grahl ought to try selling theWeekly Worker outside the Marxism festival, especially when things are generally tense, as they will be this July. It increases your chances of intimidation and assault a great deal more effectively than merely having a vagina.

Say what, Demarty? Merely having a vagina…

Demarty sez this about Comrade Whittle (er, that’s me): I believe she is playing dumb, but this paragraph is a little needlessly jargon-heavy, so I will spell it out.

Patronising, much?

Demarty wrote in his previous piece: Rape – and domestic violence – are not conducted, by and large, by people who explicitly hold women in contempt, but are rather symptoms of an underlying social psychopathology, a deformed consciousness that does not manifest itself in a way that it can, as the writers of the statement imagine, be “confronted” or “challenged” in a direct way.

Again, I say…  Huh?  I don’t have a clue regarding this. Not playing dumb just don’t have a scooby-do!

Where’s the empirical and rational basis for this? Psychobabble nonsense mixed with this “deformed consciousness”… Where does this fit in with a rigorous Marxist analysis, which I am sure Demarty is keen to display. And it still stands, he can still be accused of “highfalutin’ verbiage” which once picked away you are left with… empty arguments.

Oh, and “safe space” policies… Does Demarty actually understand what is meant by that because I believe he hasn’t got a … clue. Actually does he believe in the opposite, “unsafe spaces”? Safe spaces aren’t just about physical safety but about psychological safety i.e. not demeaned, not being sneered at, not undermined nor bullied. Is that such a hard concept for him to grasp? It should be a safe place where comrades can challenge each others ideas. It’s also about showing solidarity to women who have experienced violence. Again, what is so difficult for him to comprehend?

A reader’s understanding of feminism: “I have always thought of feminism as simply the belief that the liberation of women from oppression is a priority, that this oppression seeps into all the pores of our society and finds expression in multitudinous ways, and that those at the sharp end of that oppression should play a leading role in combating it.

Demarty’s understanding of the above: There are two problems with this definition. The first is that it is at a very high level of generality, which fails to tell us anything useful about what feminism does. A definition of Christianity might be offered – the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. No more precise formulation would avoid excluding one group or another of Christians. Not all believe Jesus was the son of God. Not all accept the biblical accounts. There are Trinitarians, Unitarians and all the rest.

Again, let me reiterate, say what? Sometimes you do talk about things in a general level, it’s to be as succinct as possible about a complex and dynamic form of ideas. That’s perfectly acceptable. If you didn’t go into more depth that would be a problem but the reader is giving a general indication of what they believe feminism is about. So far so good. Demarty tries to explain the problems with generalising by using Christianity as an example. It doesn’t work….

Insultingly… On the basis of the actual history of feminism as a movement, more fissile than Trotskyism and Maoism put together, this claim is transparently false, but it is still a serious motive force.

Demarty argues again in an essentialist manner. And with essentialism you hit the skids quickly.

Finally (as to be honest…. reading through this article was like wading for treacle…)

So here is the “line in the sand”. It is necessary for Marxists to fight for the class solidarity of women and men, to oppose all oppression of women and all expressions of sexist ideology, be they religious or secular, explicit or implicit. Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty. Feminists, on the other hand, fight for the unity of women as women. The Weekly Worker is unequivocally on the former side of the line. The two positions are not compatible. There are no doubt many self-described ‘Marxist feminists’ who are also on our side of the line. That is all well and good, but in that case their feminism is adding nothing to their Marxism, and they may as well drop it, for clarity’s sake.

Here we go… feminism and Marxism are not compatible! Demarty and Co. have a real fear of feminism, because it’s alternative power structure, an alternative source of organisational strength. Ooh scary. To explain in simple terms to him and the rest of the anti-feminist WW crew about socialist feminism.

A socialist feminist perspective takes the position that the patriarchy is not a separate or superior form of oppression to class oppression. Rather it is a phenomenon that has developed alongside and intertwined with class society and with class oppression. As political activists we are confronted by the question of what are we going to do about the issues that we face? Do we struggle against oppression or do we shrug our shoulders? Is our cause strengthened by challenging oppression or is it better to decide as the reformists are prone to do which things we can be bothered to face. Historical materialism developed as a recognition that the capacity of things to be changed through struggle. It is part and parcel of Marx’s dicta about our role being to change things as opposed to merely understand them. Patriarchy is based on men perceiving a benefit in, for example, having household skivvies around who are also sexually available to them. Many working class men may decide (very often do decide) that this advantage outweighs the conflicting interest they have in fighting for a society of equals. Is it not to be open to women to organise against such matters?

As Heidi Hartmann argued in her essay, “The Unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism”, We must understand the contradictions among social phenomena, the sources of dynamism and the likely directions of changes, learning from our inevitable mistakes and keeping on with the struggle.

The forms of struggle that we take must reflect this dynamic complexity or the organisations that are supposed to combat oppression will end up causing it.

Unfortunately most of Demarty’s article is insulting, patronising and offensive to women. And if he wanted an honest debate around feminism he’s scuppered it with his incoherent and nasty rhetoric (you aint winning any points comrade…). Language that says, “great collective shriek” which is no doubt aimed at those “left feminists and their blind rage”…

Boy, Demarty just can’t handle angry feminists. Men.. they can get angry but not women. Yes, there’s a lot of anger around and it’s very understandable. Yet he finds these debates have distinctive features: repugnant, laughable, paranoid and hypocritical.

Bit like Demarty’s writing style….

Finally… and this is the kicker: Given that this all started with a provocative headline, let me end with another provocation: this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The trolls scream only because they have nothing to say.

And who are the trolls, feminists perchance?! Well, this troll is unimpressed if this is all WW can muster regarding arguments against feminism.

When it comes to his writings he is no wordsmith, no crafting of any cogent arguments and no elegance. If Demarty was a gunslinger he would take aim yet fire from the hip in all directions, missing his targets in this stream of consciousness manner. He’s no sharpshooting gunslinger. When he shoots from the pistol in his left hand his aim is dictated by the recoil from the shot he’s just fired from the pistol in his right hand. In other words, he can’t carry an argument rather he blunders, blathers and babbles.

Weekly Worker… you are going to have to raise your game.

Stop the demonisation…..

by

So it’s more of the reactionary same from the Mail… Around 71% of the readership think that the benefits system helped contribute to the fire at the Philpott house. And now you have the Cameron and Osborne jumping on the right-wing populist bandwagon going on about “lifestyle choices”… And even more laughable is the frothy apoplexy where the Mail accuse the BBC as being left-wing.

Left-wing commentariat hysterically demonised anybody who dared suggest the over-generous welfare system had allowed Philpott to live a vile, base life, while his taxpayer funded existence – the equivalent  of a salary of almost £100,000 – was cynically ignored.

Laugh… I certainly did!

And it’s articles like this that stoke the fire of hate, lumping people together and engaging in divide and rule. People fall for this rubbish. With the constant bile, hatred and demonisation shown towards the unemployed and disabled people it is not surprising that disability hate crime, for example, has been increasing since the attacks on the benefits system. Combined with the fact that the criminal justice system is still failing victims of disability hate crimes.

Disability hate crimes remained significantly under-reported, which led agencies not to treat them as a sufficient priority, said the report today by the police, probation and CPS inspectorates, and when crimes were reported, they were often not identified as disability hate crimes.

I remember during the 90s where there was always some sensationalist story about mental distress where we were all lumped as “mad, bad and dangerous to know”… that fed into public perception about people living in the community labelled with mental distress by being targeted and demonised. One guy I met while working as an advocate explained that he has been constantly harassed by his neighbours because his partner had mental distress. If that wasn’t bad enough, the neighbours would encourage their kids to shout abuse at him. His partner rarely went out, the abuse they received made her even more scared to venture out. Eventually they were rehoused but nothing else was done to highlight this travesty of abuse and bullying. Their lives had been made a misery by ignorant neighbours.

What really worries me is with the constant attacks on the benefits system, demonisation and victimisation will create an even harsher society. The Philpott case feeds into the right-wing narrative of “benefit scroungers living the life of luxury” and “It’s a lifestyle choice”… Anyone who receives benefits for whatever reasons are potential targets for a hyped up salivating media. ConDems and previously New Labour were very successful in demonising the unemployed. As the purpose is divide and rule along with distracting people from the causes of austerity. The fingers are being pointed at the wrong people!!!!!

Let’s focus on the real cheats……

by

Millionaire Iain Duncan Smith thinks he can live on £53…. And a petition, which has been signed by thousands, calling on IDS to do just that… live on £53. Not just for a week but for months and see whether he still claims it was easy to do.

And of course yesterday, an apt day, the attacks on the benefits system started. Yet still the constant screaming headlines about benefits claimants on the scrounge. It’s always about getting tough on ‘em as well, especially with Esther McVey as parliamentary under secretary for Work and Pensions and she’s got a lot to say… about those so-called bogus claimants. While this article is rather coy about stating which official DWP stats.

Only 232,000 – one in eight of those tested so far – have been deemed by doctors to be too unwell to do any sort of work.

Another 837,000 who did take the test were found to be fit to work immediately, and a further 367,300 were judged able to do some level of work.

The figures showed that 878,300 people – around a third of the 2.6million who were claiming incapacity benefit – have chosen to drop their claims rather than face a medical. A Department for Work and Pensions document said 1.44million Incapacity Benefit reassessments have so far been carried out by doctors.

The Fail gets all frothy and apoplectic yet omits from this piece is that the medical assessment is essentially harder, narrowed the definition of “limited capability for work” and if this right-wing rag wants to throw around the word “bogus” they should in relation to the way these assessments are carried out by Atos. And neither the report mentions the successful appeals… funny that! These articles don’t give the full story, they distort the facts, mislead the reader, and are known to tell lies. Also, people may have dropped their claims not due to the fact they are lying about their medical condition but due to feeling victimised and distressed by the whole process. Shouldn’t the Fail be wondering where these people are going once they drop out of the benefits system? Somehow… I doubt it.

The reality of these myths and distortions create demonisation of the unemployed. People are believing this rubbish as seen with the research published by the TUC.  But what is appalling is the number of people who ring up, anonymously, these free benefit “grass up your neighbour you dislike” fraud helpline. Majority (96%) are apparently malicious or timewasting. What does this show? It shows the government is colluding and condoning this behaviour by encouraging people to make false allegations (and they can… anonymously). Not only anti-social but it rots away at the social fabric of society. It causes misery for the person under investigation and further victimisation. The problem is for the Left, is that the “benefit scroungers” narrative has been very successful. Language that stokes the fire of hate… and constant drip-drip of “benefit fraudsters” peddled on a daily basis is seen as true. It’s not challenged, it is accepted.. While Labour sits in silence and on their hands.

While the right-wing uses “benefit fraud” as a distraction, wielding the ideological axe to smash the working class as well as indulging in good old divide and rule… whatever about true fraudsters…

At the end of 2011 Tax Justice Network published a report on tax theft:

The total lost to tax evasion globally as $3.1 trillion. The figure for the UK in the report is £69.9 billion in the UK.

Now that’s something to get really angry about…..