KUWG on Twitter

Showing posts with label green party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green party. Show all posts

Monday, 23 October 2017

Tues 24 Oct 2017 KUWG Public Meeting against local jobcentre closures

Agenda for KUWG Public Meeting Against Jobcentre Closures,
Tuesday 24/10/17 6.30pm-8.30pm Kingsgate  Community Centre, 107 Kingsgate Road, NW6 2JH

6:15pm: Room set up and grabbing a seat!
6:30pm-to-8:15pm: Meeting
8:15pm-8:30pm: Room clearance
Chairperson: A KUWG member who uses Neasden Jobcentre

Speakers

  • Giselle as KUWG and Chair of Unite Community Brent, with the aid of a big map, highlighting how people especially with walking problems will be seriously affected, and thus more easily sanctioned
  • John Kilvington from Somali Cultural Centre, on the absurd cases he has had and how it obviously will make people with language and cultural issues prone to misunderstand and get sanctioned. 
  • Winvisible [Women with Visible and Invisible Disabitlities] to confirm our experiences and offer their campaigning skills.
  • Pete Firmin as Chair of Brent Trades Council will speak about how workers could be affected, and mention how other closures of public buildings impact the community.
  • Tulip Siddiq MP has sent message of support. 
  • MP Dawn Butler has been asked to come or send message of support. 
  • Siân Berry Green Party Member of the London Assembly has sent her apologies. 
  • Brent Green Party member Peter Murry will speak from a Green Party Trade Union Group perspective
  • Green Party Member Alan Wheatley has sent KWUG placards as room decorations, while he cannot attend in person
  • Councillor Shama Tatler (Brent Council) who wrote to DWP about proposed closures has been requested to attend.
  • PCS [jobcentre workers union] speakers invited, but no response.
PS: WinVisible add:

Tues 24 Oct - WinVisible speaking at KUWG meeting vs Jobcentre closures

Tues 24 October 2017, 6.30-8.30pm

Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group (KUWG) have invited us to speak at their:
 
Public meeting on the proposed Jobcentre closures of Kilburn & Neasden JCPs
the impact on claimants and what we can do

at Big Hall, KINGSGATE COMMUNITY CENTRE,
107 KINGSGATE ROAD, NW6 2JH
(wheelchair accessible)
Speakers include: Giselle Winston (“Benefit Tales” blogger, KUWG member); John Kilvington, welfare rights worker at Camden Somali Cultural Centre.
We’ll be speaking about how the closures will affect people, and what we’ve been doing, including pressing the exemptions from ESA/PIP exams, and about the latest benefit concessions won by public pressure.
(See our blog for self-help info, search “exemption”.) 
In March, we attended the PCS (DWP staff union) meeting in Parliament against Jobcentre closures.
Come along if you can!

Tuesday 24 October update: Cllr Sham Tatler writes:

Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately I cannot attend due to a prior engagement.

I too share your concerns over the closures and the impact they will have on vulnerable residents, particularly as they are in areas in most need.

I had written to the previous minister, and am currently engaging with the DWP over the closures. I have asked to see their equality impact assessment as I am not certain they have taken into account the difficulties our residents will face. I have told them, that we do not understand the rationale for the decisions and am seeking assurances on making sure our residents are protected and not under-served.

I will be continuing to raise the issue and happy to engage with you.

Kind regards


Cllr Shama Tatler
Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills
Labour Councillor fo Fryent Ward
London Borough of Brent

Sunday, 16 April 2017

The colonisation of 'lifestyle choices' in the name of 'welfare reform'

All too frequently in matters of 'welfare reform' that are really about the privatisation of the welfare state, we hear that poor people are poor because they/we have made 'poor lifestyle choices'.(1) The reality is more that the 'key decision makers' are completely ignorant at best, calous liars with their own agendas -- leading to huge lobbyist salaries for likeminded global corporations -- at worst.

An example of this is given in the false promises of Disability Minister Penny Mordaunt in persuading fellow-Conservative MPs to back new legislation that cuts to Jobseekers Allowance levels the amount of money people in the [sickness and disability benefit] Employment & Support Allowance Work-Related Activity Group have to live on each week.(2) These are people who are so disadvantaged by sickness or disability that they require more financial support to compensate for reduced chances of getting waged employment, while those advocating this cut in benefit level claim that the real problem is this group's lack of 'incentive' to do paid work.

As Disability News Service reports:(3)
... Penny Mordaunt had ... promised fellow MPs on the work and pensions select committee in November (pictured) that she was working on a package of measures to “mitigate the £30”, which she said would be in place “before April”.(4)

Facing fierce criticism over the cut, Mordaunt told the MPs that she was working at “ensuring that someone’s outgoings can be managed”, and at reducing their “non-work-related costs”, such as energy, broadband and phone bills.(5)

She told them: “I know what I need to do and I have put a large amount of resource in the department behind it, and I can only repeat that the more reassurance I can give on this the better.

“I am not in a position to outline chapter and verse, but I hope to be soon, and I very much understand what I need to do.”

She also said that she was “talking to energy suppliers, mobile phone companies and broadband suppliers”.

But when Disability News Service (DNS) asked this week what Mordaunt had managed to achieve in the four months since November, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) suggested that her only success was ensuring that new WRAG claimants would be told by their jobcentre work coaches how to secure the cheapest BT telephone tariff....
[A Department for Work & Pensions Spokesperson] declined to comment when asked if working with businesses “to harness the power of technology to ensure disabled consumers are better informed about the accessibility and inclusivity of products and services available” was another way of saying that Mordaunt was helping businesses to market their products to disabled people.
So, essentially, such bad government can be regarded as colonising disadvantaged groups for the benefit of global capitalism.

Understand 'the benefits jungle'

By contrast, London Green Party is hosting an event on Sunday 23 April toward helping caring people better understand 'the benefits jungle':(6)

Description

An information, casework and campaigning base about Universal Credit, the bedroom tax, benefit caps and cuts for disabled people. You can book your free place any time now.

The main speaker will be Barb Jacobson, who is a benefits adviser and coordinator of Basic Income UK and member of the board of Unconditional Basic Income Europe.

Background docs are on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mueihb7UdXJfgH91zjGYR7Cr-NWOzmghKGXPkkpfyHQ/edit?usp=sharing

Date and Time

Sun, April 23, 2017
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM BST

Location

Chadswell Healthy Living Centre
Lower ground floor, Chadswell Flats
Harrison St (off Grays Inn Rd)
London
WC1H 8LD
View Map


Though hosted by London Green Party, the event is open to non-Green Party members and members of other politicall parties who want to help people get what they require from the benefits system and to make the benefits system serve vulnerable people more than global corporations.

Even if we do not ourselves do casework as such, for whatever reason, we can gain insights that help us campaign better for social and economic justice.

Link references

  1. https://uk.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=%22welfare%20reform%22%20%22lifestyle%20choices%22&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-100&type=newtab
  2. http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/exposed-mordaunts-false-promises-on-wrag-cut-mitigation/ 
  3. ibid.
  4. http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mordaunt-working-on-urgent-plans-to-reduce-living-costs-ahead-of-wrag-cuts/ 
  5. http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/disability-employment-gap/oral/44058.html 
  6. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/london-green-parties-understanding-the-benefits-jungle-tickets-33261650492



Friday, 4 November 2016

One line in 92 page DWP 'consultation paper' proposes imposing 'mandatory' activity on all ESA claimants

(How about that for a lack of transparency?) 

by Dude Swheatie of Kwug — aka Alan Wheatley of the Green Party of England & Wales and London Green Left

(The below is based on a submission just now by the author to the Green Left Discuss e-list)

Disability News Service reports:
The Department for Work and Pensions is considering forcing all sick and disabled people on out-of-work disability benefits to take part in “mandatory” activity, its new green paper has revealed.
The suggestion of compulsory activity is revealed in a single line of the 92-page work, health and disability green paper, published this week....

This Green Paper 'consultation' closes at 11:45pm on 17 February 2017. The next Green Party of England & Wales Conference is not scheduled till March-April 2017.

Meanwhile, what is mental health charity Mind doing in bed with DWP?

And what have coroners said about claimant deaths?

In 2008 it was largely Green Left members (Anne Gray and me) that brought about a GPEW alternative to Labour's 'No-one written off' Green Paper. https://cse.google.com/cse?q=writing+off+workfare&ajaxSearch_submit.x=0&ajaxSearch_submit.y=0&cx=014602880548773237108%3Abfmqbz3c1w4&ie=UTF-8#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=writing%20off%20workfare&gsc.page=1

I propose that we at least republish those materials that were sat upon by national news media at the time. (Though I doubt that I would be able to contribute fresh this time around for health reasons, our 2008 publication is rich in background and can serve as 'we told you so' background to what has passed since.) Perhaps there could even be scope for 'Progressive Allaince' responses?

Alan Wheatley

PS:

"The [2008] consultation asks 29 questions, none of which are addressed to the impact of growing global recession and diminishing global resources upon employment. [Neither did they address anything about rewarding claimants.]" — https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/workfare-is-not-the-answer.html

"In September [2016], a book by disabled researcher Mo Stewart detailed the influence of the US insurance giant Unum over successive UK governments, and how it had undermined the social security system in order to boost the market for its own income protection policies." — http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/ministers-set-to-force-work-related-activity-on-everyone-in-esa-support-group/

See also

https://scottishunemployedworkers.net/2016/10/29/suwn-response-to-the-consultation-on-social-security-in-scotland/
http://www.reform.uk/event/a-welfare-state-that-works-for-all/

Tuesday, 30 August 2016

UK benefit cap, party conference season, BBC, Russia and hegemony

Blogger Johnny Void reports that when the overall benefit cap is lowered this Autumn, it will be for the third time in just five years. What does that all mean? How about, as JV writes, Hunger, Homelessness and Despair, The Stark Reality of the Benefit Cap?

Of course that is not the analysis we shall be hearing trumpeted this October when BBC News reports from Conservative & Unionist Party Autumn Conference 2016. What will other political parties have to say about this third lowering of the benefit cap in five years? And if they do say anything about the benefit cap at those Autumn conferences, will the BBC report it? 

Oh, no! What have I done now? I've probably sown the seeds for more and more page viewings of Kwug Blog from Russia, where it seems their larger population are dead keen to seek out reports of how nasty the UK Government is to poor people within the UK. (For the past month or two, there have been about four times more page viewings of this blog from Russia than from within the UK, until my health forced me to cut back on my output — reducing the number of page viewings of this blog per week to practically zero from Russia.)

Needless to say, while internal debate is potentially healthy, as a Green Party member too poor to attend party conference and very restricted by the agendas of DWP regarding how much money the law says I need to live on and what I need to declare, and the timetabling of Green Party of England & Wales Conference Arrangements Committee etc, I hope the Green Party Autumn Conference discussions about 'progressive alliance' politics do not entirely overwhelm matters of how nasty 'austerity government' is to poor people.

Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Sunday, 28 August 2016

Progressive Alliance vs tribalism as an aid to democracy?

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug, expressing a personal viewpoint


Reading the Wembley Matters and London Green Left blogs and observing the output of Green Party leadership hustings, it seems to me that the idea of Green Party participation in a 'Progressive Alliance' arouses a lot of tribalism within the Green Party's eco-socialist tendency Green Left and Green Party activists in general. (1) (2) (3)

Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group is not party-politically aligned, containing members of various political parties and none, and we come together over the common concern of supporting vulnerable people while most of us are vulnerable ourselves as individuals.

Sure, there should have been more conferring with party members by the Green Party leadership before they made any pronouncements about a 'Progressive Alliance'.(4) Yet rather than condemning the other political parties, I believe that Greens including Green Left members could use the concept of a Progressive Alliance as a means of bringing those other political parties to change their ways.

Those other political parties would have to make great strides toward getting Greens to stand down. In a previous council election, Brent Green Party stood down one candidate in a three-seat ward to allow space for a candidate from pressure group Keep Willesden Green.(5)

Meanwhile, one of the greatest challenges for democracy is where a political party becomes so dominant for so long that its elected representatives lose any sense of connection with poor people who are so disenchanted as to become non-voters while that party uses 'regeneration' as a pathway to social exclusion. As Revd Paul Nicolson observes, while those in political power can become very detached we should not write them all off.(6)

Ultimately, a political party is a coalition. So too is a non-party-political grouping such as Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group. Co-operation as in the forming of a progressive alliance or even moving toward the formation of a progressive alliance can be a challenge. Kwug has had at least one Lib Dem activist among its members and we have not written them off for what Lib Dem MPs colluded with in a Con-Dem coalition. The standards required in forming and moving toward a progressive alliance can be a bridge whereas excessive tribalism can be a wall that shuts us out of exerting any influence. Mahatma Gandhi observed that no enemy can be thoroughly disarmed until they have become befriended.

Link addresses


  1. http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/search?q="progressive+alliance"
  2. http://londongreenleft.blogspot.co.uk/search?q="progressive+alliance"
  3. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=green+party+leadership+hustings+2016
  4. https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/06/29/green-party-calls-for-progressive-electoral-alliance-talks/
  5. http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/greens-back-independent-grassroots.html
  6. Around 35 minutes to 36 minutes mark at https://soundcloud.com/oldvictheatre/how-to-change-the-world 



Dude Swheatie of Kwug, a Green Party and Green Left member expressing a personal viewpoint.

Thursday, 7 July 2016

Anarchy vs Government terrorism? Also, party leadership elections

An earlier Kwug blob post refers to Theresa May as a Government terrorist: 'Hostage taking' by Government as an act of terrorism.(1) Perhaps electoral politics too often brings out the worst in people? Perhaps it depends on the political party involved?

What about anarchism? Anarchist Bookfair website reports:(2)

What is anarchism?

Like all really good ideas, anarchy is pretty simple when you get down to it. Human beings are at their very best when thy are living free of authority, deciding things among themselves, rather than being ordered about. That's what the word means: without government. Read on ....(3)
The author of this blog post is a Green Party member looking forward to voting in the Green Party of England & Wales leadership and deputy leadership elections shortly.(4) Joint-leadership candidate Jonathan Bartley (on a jobshare basis with Caroline Lucas MP) first entered politics in 1995 as part of the [paid] campaign team for John Major's Conservative Party leadership.(5) 

Jonathan Bartley has said of that episode that opposition to John Redwood was a major factor in why he wanted to support John Major! Over 20 years on from that, his politics have become much more positive; often reacting against what we don't like can be a great driving force for discovering what we do like. (Incidentally, the current issue of Private Eye says that John Redwood and Iain Duncan Smith are backing the same female candidate in opposition to Theresa May.)

There are other political parties within the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group, and also we have anarchist friends and members. For further exploration of anarchism, there is the Anarchist Bookfair 2016 on 29 October from 10am to 7pm at Park View School, West Green Road, London N15 3QR.(6) Visiting that could help you broaden your mind even further whatever political party you are a member of, or whether you are 'non-party-politically inclined'.

Link addresses


  1. http://kilburnunemployed.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/hostage-taking-by-government-as-act-of-terrorism.html
  2. http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk
  3. http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk/anarchism.html
  4. https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/07/05/green-party-leadership-candidates-announced/
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Bartley
  6. http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk

Thursday, 30 June 2016

Leaders of Britain's Green Parties call on leaders of Labour, Lib Dem and Plaid Cwmry for progressive alliance in face of snap general election

In the wake of the UK's EU Brexit referendum debacle, the leaders of 

  • the Green Party of England & Wales (Natalie Bennett)
  • the Green Party of Northern Ireland (Stephen Agnew, MLA) and
  • the Wales Green Party (Alice Hooker-Stroud)

together with Green Party of England & Wales one MP, Caroline Lucas, have jointly written an Open Letter to: 

  • Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of the Labour Party)
  • Tim Farron (Leader of the Liberal Democrats) and 
  • Leanne Wood (Leader of Plaid Cwmry [the Welsh Nationalist Party]).

The UK's biased mass media seem to be showing enormous glee at a Parliamentary Labour Party coup against a party leader chosen more by the rank and file membership than old-guard Blairites would like. Those Kilburn Unemployed members who are Labour Party members are in a different league from the Blairites that laid down foundations of the 'welfare reforms' that the Conservatives are now exploiting, and are generally much happier with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership than those Blairites who would look forward to high paid lobbying positions for global corporations on top of the prospect of seats in the House of Lords.

Against that backdrop, it is not very likely that this letter would get much publicity from the BBC, say, or Sky News, and certainly not from the Daily Mail. So without further ado, this Kwug blog editor is republishing that 'Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, and Leanne Wood' here, while 'declaring an interest in that I am a member of the Green Party of England & Wales. Perhaps it speaks more for Kwug's Labour Party members than the coup leaders against Corbyn could possibly do?



Open letter to: Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, Leanne Wood on behalf of Green Party of England and Wales
In a spirit of openness and transparency, we are writing to you as Leaders of parties which oppose Brexit, to invite you to a cross-party meeting to explore how we best rise to the challenge posed by last week’s vote to Leave the EU.  

Britain is in crisis and people are scared about the future. Never have we had a greater need for calm leadership to be shown by politicians.  

We have a UK Government in chaos, an economy facing a crisis and people up and down the country facing serious hardship. There is an urgent need to make a stand against any austerity and the slashing of environmental legislation, human and workers’ rights, that may come with Brexit. 

With the growing likelihood of an early General Election, the importance of progressive parties working together to prevent the formation of a Tory-UKIP-DUP government that would seek to enact an ultra-right Brexit scenario is ever more pressing.

This is an opportunity to recognise that a more plural politics is in both the Left’s electoral and political interests. This crisis exposes the absurdity of our first past the post electoral system.  Just 24 per cent of those eligible to vote elected the government that called the referendum. The only fair way to proceed is to have a proportional voting system where people can back the politicians who they believe in, rather than taking a gamble and not knowing who they will end up with.  

The idea of a progressive alliance has been floated for several years, and proposals have once again been put forward in the context of the current crisis.  We believe that the time has come to urgently consider such ideas together in the context of a Westminster Government. We recognise the very different political situation in Scotland, given the strongly pro-EU majority there. We hope that co-operation between progressive parties their can ensure that this mandate is respected, and we will support them to keep all options open.
We look forward to your response,

Natalie Bennett, Leader of The Green Party of England and WalesSteven Agnew MLA, Leader of the Green Party of Northern IrelandAlice Hooker-Stroud, Leader of Wales Green PartyCaroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion

Related posts and pages





Tuesday, 18 August 2015

Questioning the wisdom of 'boot camp for young unemployed' in 'no excuses' crackdown on youth unemployment

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

The Green Party website announces:(1)

Greens slam government over ‘boot camp’ plans

17 August 2015
The Green Party has accused the government of fighting a ‘war on young people’ after ministers unveiled plans to force unemployed young people to attend a three-week ‘boot camp.’ (2)
Amelia Womack, the Green Party’s Deputy Leader, has called the plans ‘damaging’ and called for the government to take a longer-term approach to youth unemployment. 

Womack said:

“This latest announcement is yet another outrageous step in what can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people. This move and the rhetoric surrounding it are typical of the government’s approach to unemployment: placing the blame on ‘welfare culture’ and those affected rather than taking real action to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment....
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/17/greens-slam-government-over-%E2%80%98boot-camp%E2%80%99-plans/#sthash.NbQOX1Jj.dpuf

Greens slam government over ‘boot camp’ plans

17 August 2015
The Green Party has accused the government of fighting a ‘war on young people’ after ministers unveiled plans to force unemployed young people to attend a three-week ‘boot camp.’ 
Amelia Womack, the Green Party’s Deputy Leader, has called the plans ‘damaging’ and called for the government to take a longer-term approach to youth unemployment. 
Womack said:
“This latest announcement is yet another outrageous step in what can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people. This move and the rhetoric surrounding it are typical of the government’s approach to unemployment: placing the blame on ‘welfare culture’ and those affected rather than taking real action to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/17/greens-slam-government-over-%E2%80%98boot-camp%E2%80%99-plans/#sthash.NbQOX1Jj.dpuf

Greens slam government over ‘boot camp’ plans

17 August 2015
The Green Party has accused the government of fighting a ‘war on young people’ after ministers unveiled plans to force unemployed young people to attend a three-week ‘boot camp.’ 
Amelia Womack, the Green Party’s Deputy Leader, has called the plans ‘damaging’ and called for the government to take a longer-term approach to youth unemployment. 
Womack said:
“This latest announcement is yet another outrageous step in what can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people. This move and the rhetoric surrounding it are typical of the government’s approach to unemployment: placing the blame on ‘welfare culture’ and those affected rather than taking real action to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/17/greens-slam-government-over-%E2%80%98boot-camp%E2%80%99-plans/#sthash.NbQOX1Jj.dpuf
While I broadly concur with this statement, I suppose it would take a Young Green to say that this "can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people."

Threats against poor unemployed people are nothing new, and Amelia Womack is correct in observing that this announcement and Government policy is directed toward condemning young unemployed people more than supporting them. The lack of support has actually manifested itself from the time that Mass Higher Education was brought in at the expense of proper mandatory grant support for students. And of course Mass Higher Education largely masked the unemployment system, just while the Microsoft dominated PC industry invested heavily into the promotion of Microsoft Office related jobcentre-funded training courses. Furthering the burden on young people, the Blair Government brought in tuition fees that widened the gap between student outcomes based on parental background.

I was a dole queue veteran even before becoming a mature graduate. Applying Sociology graduate discipline to my vast reservoir of experience of a progressively worsening system, questions I would ask would include:
  1. What training would these 'work coaches' have in order to qualify as 'Work Coaches'? Eg, would they actually have experience and understanding of what goes on in job recruitment, or would they be of the old school that says, "The more jobs you apply for, the better your chances. [Quality of job application is irrelevant in the numbers game. To maximise your jobsearch output, draw up one CV and if you don't have home computer access, get that photocopied and sent out for each job you apply for. [We don't care how much you waste employers' time with output that will be binned very shortly. Our game is to keep you busy rather toeing our bullying line rather than demanding more support. There is no alternative]."
  2. Will the power of Work Coaches to sanction be in any sense of proportion to their understanding of the people they are given the power to sanction?
  3. Will ther power of Work Coaches to sanction apply only to jobcentre employees, or will it include employees of privatised 'workfare companies' that have peverse financial incentives to reduce the claimant count at any cost?
  4. How does the Government treatment of young unemployed people relate to the increasingly urgent need to help support older people in a society where centenarians are becoming more the norm than the exception?
  5. Will this clamp down on younger people's benefit entitlement increase slavery?
  6. Re the Conservatives' "'no excuses' crackdown on youth unemployment," is this not just a matter of abusers always blaming their victims?(3)
  7. How much does the weekly crack budget of those promoting such rubbish policies compare with what they are keen to limit the incomes of those less well off young unemployed people to?
    ;-)

Notes

While I broadly concur with this statement, I suppose it would take a Young Green to say that this "can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people."

Threats against poor unemployed people are nothing new, and Amelia Womack is correct in observing that this announcement and Government policy is directed toward condemning young unemployed people more than supporting them. The lack of support has actually manifested itself from the time that Mass Higher Education was brought in at the expense of proper mandatory grant support for students. And of course Mass Higher Education largely masked the unemployment system, just while the Microsoft dominated PC industry invested heavily into the promotion of Microsoft Office related jobcentre-funded training courses. Furthering the burden on young people, the Blair Government brought in tuition fees that widened the gap between student outcomes based on parental background.

I was a dole queue veteran even before becoming a mature graduate. Applying Sociology graduate discipline to my vast reservoir of experience of a progressively worsening system, questions I would ask would include:
1. What training would these 'work coaches' have in order to qualify as 'Work Coaches'? Eg, would they actually have experience and understanding of what goes on in job recruitment, or would they be of the old school that says, "The more jobs you apply for, the better your chances. [Quality of job application is irrelevant in the numbers game. To maximise your jobsearch output, draw up one CV and if you don't have home computer access, get that photocopied and sent out for each job you apply for. [We don't care how much you waste employers' time with output that will be binned very shortly. Our game is to keep you busy rather toeing our bullying line rather than demanding more support. There is no alternative]."
2. Will the power of Work Coaches to sanction be in any sense of proportion to their understanding of the people they are given the power to sanction?
3. Will ther power of Work Coaches to sanction apply only to jobcentre employees, or will it include employees of privatised 'workfare companies' that have peverse financial incentives to reduce the claimant count at any cost?
4. How does the Government treatment of young unemployed people relate to the increasingly urgent need to help support older people in a society where centenarians are becoming more the norm than the exception?
5. Will this clamp down on younger people's benefit entitlement increase slavery?

Dude Swheatie of Kwug - See more at: http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/greens-boot-camps-part-of-governments.html#comment-form
While I broadly concur with this statement, I suppose it would take a Young Green to say that this "can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people."

Threats against poor unemployed people are nothing new, and Amelia Womack is correct in observing that this announcement and Government policy is directed toward condemning young unemployed people more than supporting them. The lack of support has actually manifested itself from the time that Mass Higher Education was brought in at the expense of proper mandatory grant support for students. And of course Mass Higher Education largely masked the unemployment system, just while the Microsoft dominated PC industry invested heavily into the promotion of Microsoft Office related jobcentre-funded training courses. Furthering the burden on young people, the Blair Government brought in tuition fees that widened the gap between student outcomes based on parental background.

I was a dole queue veteran even before becoming a mature graduate. Applying Sociology graduate discipline to my vast reservoir of experience of a progressively worsening system, questions I would ask would include:
1. What training would these 'work coaches' have in order to qualify as 'Work Coaches'? Eg, would they actually have experience and understanding of what goes on in job recruitment, or would they be of the old school that says, "The more jobs you apply for, the better your chances. [Quality of job application is irrelevant in the numbers game. To maximise your jobsearch output, draw up one CV and if you don't have home computer access, get that photocopied and sent out for each job you apply for. [We don't care how much you waste employers' time with output that will be binned very shortly. Our game is to keep you busy rather toeing our bullying line rather than demanding more support. There is no alternative]."
2. Will the power of Work Coaches to sanction be in any sense of proportion to their understanding of the people they are given the power to sanction?
3. Will ther power of Work Coaches to sanction apply only to jobcentre employees, or will it include employees of privatised 'workfare companies' that have peverse financial incentives to reduce the claimant count at any cost?
4. How does the Government treatment of young unemployed people relate to the increasingly urgent need to help support older people in a society where centenarians are becoming more the norm than the exception?
5. Will this clamp down on younger people's benefit entitlement increase slavery?

Dude Swheatie of Kwug - See more at: http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/greens-boot-camps-part-of-governments.html#comment-form

Monday, 10 August 2015

Spied-upon political activists and 'the mainstream'

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

While reading an autobiographical book of American 1950's and 1960's anti-blackisting campaigner John Henry Faulk, Fear on Trial,(1) I have also come across this Islington Tribune article about Metropolitan Police spying on Labour Party activists including Jeremy Corbyn MP.(2)

Already familiar with reports of Metropolitan Police spying on Green Party activists including London Assembly Member and now-life-peer Jenny Jones,(3) I wonder whether more-mainstream politicians such as Yvette Cooper seek their own salvation from being spied upon by being downright nasty to benefit claimants including sick and disabled people?

And I am reminded of a Kris Kristofferson song, The Law is for Protection of the People, (6)regarding police officers attacking the vulnerable or at least 'temporarily incapacitated' because of their deviance from 'the mainstream'.

Source Notes (all link addresses noted on date of blog piece publication)

(1) http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/795321.Fear_on_Trial

(2) http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2015/apr/did-holloway-road-uni%E2%80%99s-former-police-spy-watch-veteran-islington-mp-corbyn

(3) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-peer-put-on-database-of-extremists-by-police

(4) http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568244

Even harsher new ESA Medical approved''(warning very bad news inc)


(5) http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2010/09/06/welfare-rights-the-reassessment-of-incapacity-benefit-claimants/

(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK8TSJuBMgM Kris Kristofferson singing his own composition, The Law is for Protection of the People

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Electoral reform, wishful thinking and informed decision making

A guest post by Joan Grant, a member of KUWG expressing personal views. Internet search-term-friendly title by Dude Swheatie. Joan's original title appears below

Be careful what you wish for, or Nigel was right


I thought it was ironic that both Nigel Farage and Natalie Bennett were “pissed off” for want of a better word, by the election result. They made strange bed fellows calling for reform of the electoral system. One has to say that Farage had more to moan about than Bennett. UKIP got 4 million votes and yet just one MP. [Editor's note: The electoral system under which the UK currently operates as it has done for centuries is generally known as 'first past the post'.]

The Electoral Reform Societyi have produced a very interesting report which shows how many seats each party would have got had the election been held under a proportional representation scheme.(1) There are a number of different versions of PR. The report looked at them all. Their preferred system is the Single Transferrable Vote system.

Had the election been held under this system, the result would have been the hung parliament that all the polls predicted. The Tories would still be the biggest party but with 276 seats as opposed to the 331 they have got. Labour would be about the same but it only have 40 fewer seats rather than 99, which it is now.

The Lib Dem would have got 26 seats rather than a mere 8. That would have been fairly respectable and Nick Clegg might well have stayed on as party leader. The SNP would have done well, but not as well. They would have got 34 seats.
The Greens would have got 3 seats which better reflects the overall support that they got.

But it is UKIP who would have been the biggest winners. They would have got 54 seats. Yes, you read that right. 54 seats. I think it is fair to say that would have been a quite astonishing result. That would have been the earthquake that Nigel Farage keeps harping on about.

UKIP would have held the balance of power. There would have been a coalition. Nigel Farage would now be Deputy Prime Minister. There might be two or three UKIP ministers.
 
I am really not sure which is worse: an electoral system that does not properly reflect the votes cast or the thought of Nigel Farage as Deputy Prime Minister. Whichever way you cut it, Nigel Farage was right about the level of support for UKIP. Only time will tell if their support will rise or fall over the next few years.

Note


i The 2015 General Election, A voting system in Crisis by jess Garland and Chris Terry. May 2015 (Electoral Reform Society)

Friday, 8 May 2015

GE2015: Hampstead & Kilburn constituency result

Uploaded by Dude Swheatie of Kwug with the help of Camden New Journal and the BBC

  RESULT: Labour's Tulip Siddiq is the new MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
Tulip Siddiq, Labour, 23,977.
Simon Marcus, Conservative, 22,839.
Maajid Nawaz, Lib Dems, 3,039.
Rebecca Johnson, Green, 2,387.
Magnus Nielsen, UKIP, 1,532.
The Eurovisionary Carroll, Independent, 113.
Robin Ellison, The U(niversal) Party, 77.
Pie chart by Dude Swheatie and Lotus 123 shows percentage shares of result.

Dude Swheatie's analysis

Tulip Siddiq's polling shows an Labour majority. Nationwide Labour did very poorly by contrast in terms of numbers of seats won. That largely demonstrates that local Labour activists who could be seen going to and from Labour campaign HQ on the Kilburn High Road were successful in trumping the combined impact of opinion polls and fallout from the failings of 'austerity-lite' and local Labour councils in LB Brent and LB Camden.

It also perhaps demonstrates that Tulip Siddiq was much more electable than London SE3 resident Glenda 'What Do You Expect Me to Do About It?' Jackson who only achieved a majority of 42 at the 2010 General Election.

KUWG activists were among Tulip Siddiq's supporters. My own favourite was Rebecca Johnson who proved an excellent candidate, performing well at hustings and reportedly being excellent at engaging with the public on the street. My contacts with Green Party activists in Camden and Brent, though based on limited sampling, showed much greater interest and support for Rebecca's campaign on the Brent side than the Kilburn side. Like those who 'held their noses' to vote Labour' the one Camden Green Party member I spoke to about Rebecca's campaign was concerned that Rebecca's campaign were worried about 'letting the Tories in'.

Rebecca and some Green Party inclusion in initial televised 'leaders' debates' served to increase the Green Party's 'market share' of the vote by 3% from the 2010 General Election. (2)

This should help the Green Party in the 2016 London Assembly Elections that have a number of Assembly Members elected by Proportional Representation. The Green Party currently has two Assembly Members in London, Darren Johnson and Dame Jenny Jones, who will be standing down from the London Assembly at the next elections for the Greater London Authority.

Nationally, the Green Party of England & Wales achieved only the return of the one Green Party MP Caroline Lucas albeit with an enhanced majority.(3) Gifted and experienced public performer commendable Caroline Lucas had a great record in Parliament but also a strong focus of national activists' support.

In order to have a chance of getting one parliamentary seat in a 'first past the post system', the Green Party has targeted resources into a few constituencies. A vast proportional pooling of the Green Party of England & Wales' financial resources are required even to come 2nd in a parliamentary constituency, and with 'first past the post' even that does not 'hit the spot' into having an impact on Parliament this time around.

Note

(1) http://www.camdennewjournal.com/liveblog
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000727
(3)  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32633718

Wednesday, 6 May 2015

Welfare cuts and suicides revelations

Compiled by Dude Swhatie of Kwug from email inbox content

The Guardian reveals:(1)

Revealed: hitlist of welfare cuts facing next chancellor

Exclusive: ‘Extremely controversial’ ideas drawn up by civil servants include benefit freeze and making it harder for sick people to claim state aid, leaked papers show...
Green Party Work & Pensions Spokesperson's follow-up to Daily Politics Welfare Debate (2)

Green Party calls on Duncan Smith to  apologise for misleading public over benefit claimant deaths


7 May 2015

The Green Party has requested that Iain Duncan Smith, Secetary of State for Work and Pensions, issue a formal apology for misleading the public after  he denied knowledge of the number of benefit claimant deaths shown to be caused by suicide.

Contrary to Mr Smith's statement, issued whilst taking part in a BBC Daily Politics debate on Welfare, research by the Disability News Service (DNS) has found that the Department for Work and Pensions has withheld research showing that over 40 benfit claimant deaths since 2012 have been linked to suicide.(3)

Commenting on the exposure by the DNS, Jonathan Bartley, Green Party Spokesperson for Work and Pensions, said: ....


Notes
(1)
(2) https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/06/green-party-calls-on-duncan-smith-to-apologise-for-misleading-public-over-benefit-claimant-deaths/
(3) http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/information-watchdog-to-probe-dwps-secret-reviews-on-benefit-deaths/

Green Party calls on Duncan Smith to apologise for misleading public over benefit claimant deaths

6 May 2015
The Green Party has requested that Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, issue a formal apology for misleading the public after he denied knowledge of the number of benefit claimant deaths shown to be caused by suicide.
Contrary to Mr. Smith's statement, issued whilst taking part in a BBC Daily Politics debate on Welfare, research by the Disability News Service (DNS) has found that the Department for Work and Pensions has withheld research showing that over 40 benefit claimant deaths since 2012 have been linked to suicide.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/06/green-party-calls-on-duncan-smith-to-apologise-for-misleading-public-over-benefit-claimant-deaths/#sthash.bK0iHG1o.dpuf

Green Party calls on Duncan Smith to apologise for misleading public over benefit claimant deaths

6 May 2015
The Green Party has requested that Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, issue a formal apology for misleading the public after he denied knowledge of the number of benefit claimant deaths shown to be caused by suicide.
Contrary to Mr. Smith's statement, issued whilst taking part in a BBC Daily Politics debate on Welfare, research by the Disability News Service (DNS) has found that the Department for Work and Pensions has withheld research showing that over 40 benefit claimant deaths since 2012 have been linked to suicide.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/06/green-party-calls-on-duncan-smith-to-apologise-for-misleading-public-over-benefit-claimant-deaths/#sthash.bK0iHG1o.dpuf

Green Party calls on Duncan Smith to apologise for misleading public over benefit claimant deaths

6 May 2015
The Green Party has requested that Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, issue a formal apology for misleading the public after he denied knowledge of the number of benefit claimant deaths shown to be caused by suicide.
Contrary to Mr. Smith's statement, issued whilst taking part in a BBC Daily Politics debate on Welfare, research by the Disability News Service (DNS) has found that the Department for Work and Pensions has withheld research showing that over 40 benefit claimant deaths since 2012 have been linked to suicide.
- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/05/06/green-party-calls-on-duncan-smith-to-apologise-for-misleading-public-over-benefit-claimant-deaths/#sthash.bK0iHG1o.dpuf