Brent Central Labour Party Gala Dinner offers more than bread and warter — but at what price?

Thanks to Wembley Matters blogger Martin Francis for this.(1)

Gala dinner flyer. Lowest charge £35 concessions

Regarding aspirations for social inclusion, I am reminded of the saying, "Money talks; merit walks." I am also reminded of Revd Paul Nicolson's statement, 

"It is beyond the comprehension of national and local law-makers that £73.10 a week [Income Support/JobSeekers Allowance/Employment & Support Allowance] is TOO LOW TO TAX"(2)

How about the menu?

The menu offers a lot more variety than bread and water

The menu offers a lot more variety than bread and water. I wonder though, do those who have no misgivings about whether they could afford to attend such a 'gala' ever pause to consider the costings of meals on £73.10 a week? How much nutrition can you get for £73.10 a week?

Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Link addresses

1. http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/fifty-quid-to-spare-come-to-dinner-with.html
2. http://taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/news/it-is-beyond-the-comprehension-of-national-and-local-law-makers-that-73.10-

UK's new SATs scores and the impacts of 'austerity measures'

The BBC reports Almost half of primary schools miss new SATs [Standardised Assessment Tests] standards.(1)

Wembley Matters blogger Martin Francis is a retired head teacher who keeps up to date with classroom experience of teachers and learners. He reports on the new SATs scores as lived experience of teachers, learners and headteachers:

"On top of the stress children and teachers suffered in the Gradgrind weeks before the tests and the stress of the tests themselves which saw many children reduced to tears, I now hear of children feeling deeply distressed and despondent because they 'haven't reached the required level' — some have gone weeping to their headteachers seeking comfort...."(2)

I dread to think what added damage the SATs scores of Boundary House youngsters — whose stressful living conditions have been reported by Kate Belgrave — would be!(3)

Further, Revd Paul Nicolson of Taxpayers Against Poverty has long argued that the low levels of UK social security payments are detrimental to nutrition and brain development. (4)

In the words of the Euripides play 'The Trojan Women' adapted by Jean-Paul Sartre: "Those who give the order seldom see the mess it makes." In line with 'Underclass Theory' they would probably blame the genetics of the victims rather than their policies of excessive stress and not nearly enough support.(5) 

If those who set the impossible 'targets' cannot change their world view, we certainly require a change of government!  

Link addresses

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36712029
2. http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/sats-plunge-is-not-childrens-or.html
3. http://www.katebelgrave.com/2016/07/the-future-will-be-wrecked-for-generations-while-women-and-little-kids-live-like-this/
4. https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/tag/paul-nicholson/ — no 'h' in the spelling of his name, but follow the link address all the same!
5. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/02/the-new-claiming-classes-its-t/

   

Why levels of benefit claimants' spending on rent payments should be shouted from the roof tops

The blog administrator has received the comment below by email and considers it well worth a much wider audience. And the comment's sender agrees.

It pertains to a Taxpayers Against Poverty posting that can be found at
http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/of-all-the-madness-that-has-currently-seized-the-london-housing-market-the-selling-of-public-land-at-market-prices-is-the-most-insane/

The comment about one-third of local average income being spent on rent is particularly germane to claimants. Prior to the benefits freeze and new allowances cap the local housing allowance, which determined housing benefit, was set at the 30th percentile of market rent. The suspension of these quantative outliers has created yet another arbitrary market. IIRC the dodgy old Austrian who first put it out there said: "Value is what you are prepared to pay". (Hayek).

Yet re the Hayek quotation Margaret Thatcher's favourite economist — while UK public land is sold to private global investers for a pittance, the question should be asked, do the landed sellers have the right to sell? Did the voters knowingly give those sellers the right to sell public land, land that should be held in public trust for people including those who have no voting power? And if 'the voters' did give away that right, which voters? Did all the voters consent to such a sale? See also http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/house-builders-own-600000-plots-of-land-so-barnet-council-sells-them-some-more-for-3-see-bbc-documentary/

Hustings Questions we might ask

1. Financial blackmail vs Funding natual immunity

The Australian Prime Minister has declared that families refusing to vaccinate their children should have their childcare benefits stopped in a 'no jab, no pay' policy.

Given that vaccination actually lowers people's natural immunity to a gamut of diseases and that this combination of a chemical cosh with a fiscal cosh puts society more into the clutches of Big Pharma, would it not be better for national health to ensure that benefit levels are sufficient to strengthen people's immune systems against a broad variety of diseases than to add to the risk of poverty?

2. Preparation of key decision makers to decide wisely

Disabled jobseekers and poor disabled people and carers in general are fed up of having their lives dictated by the ignorance and bigotry of investment bankers and others who talk of 'hardworking families' obsessively.

What will your party do to resource the UK's adoption of the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

3. Independent Living Fund integral to Inclusive Society. Discuss

Do you intend to restore the Independent living fund?

4. UK Benefit Levels

Given that state benefits are already supposed to be giving people just the minimum amount of money they need to live on

1. Will you vote to repeal the Bedroom Tax? 
1. Will you cancel all debt accruing to tenants because of this unworkable policy?
2. Will you vote to restore full council tax relief for people on benefits? 
1. Will you cancel all debt accruing to tenants because of this unworkable policy?

5. Reviewing UK benefit levels

The European Committee of Social Rights declared last year:"The Committee  concludes that the situation in United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article12§1 of the (European Social) Charter on the ground that: 

1. the minimum levels of short-term and long-term incapacity benefit is manifestly inadequate; 
2. the minimum level of state pension is manifestly inadequate; 
3. the minimum level of job seeker’s allowance is manifestly inadequate"

Manifestly Inadequate means that people are not getting enough money to live on.
What do you intend to do about this?

6. Funding of Parliamentary candidates and their Parties, and benefits to investors

 Who are the main funders of your parliamentary campaign and/or your political party, and what do they stand to gain at voters' expense from their investment?

Health and 'cost/benefits' analysis of the DWP in 'guidance for decision makers'

From Revd Paul Nicolson of Taxpayers Against Poverty, who says:

Looking at the guidance I doubt whether any Jobcentre decision maker is capable of making such decisions about health and should never have been asked. The guidance has more to do with Ministers answering legal challenges and complying with human rights legislation. 

THE DWP SEEMS TO THINK THAT MAKING PEOPLE ILL "IS A PRICE WORTH PAYING" TO "ENCOURAGE" THE UNEMPLOYED INTO WORK. 

The DWP never thinks about the additional costs in the NHS when the DWP makes people mentally and physically ill by shredding or even stopping their incomes; and then enforcing inevitable rent and council tax arrears, overpayments etc..........

This is a clip from a government document for Decision Makers (re Sanctions) in the DWP. You can find the full article on the Ekklesia website,  It was sent in by a TAP supporter.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21360

Guidance for hardship payments

“Comparing the decline in health with a healthy adult

35098 The DM must consider if the health of the person with the medical condition would decline more than a normal healthy adult. The DM should make this comparison based on a normal healthy adult who is in similar circumstances to the person with the medical condition.

35099 It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without

1. essential items, such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation or

2. sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks. 

See Appendix 6 to this Chapter for further guidance.

The DM must determine if a person with a medical condition would suffer a greater decline in health than a normal healthy adult and would suffer hardship (DMG 35142 et seq)”.

Here is the link to the whole of Chapter 35 of the DWP guidance to sanctions decision makers about Hardship Payments. It is 156 pages long. "two weeks" appears 17 times. Appendix 6 gets us nearest to what the DWP is getting at.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/391572/dmgch35.pdf

"Full health depends upon a regular and varied intake of food containing sufficient calories and essential nutrients. A normal healthy body contains enough reserves to cope with dietary changes over a short period but there are medical conditions that could deteriorate due to an inadequate diet over a two week period following a DM's decision". 

The other references to "two weeks" seem to be saying that its OK for the health of a healthy person with a sanction to deteriorate over two weeks but don't risk it with a mentally or physically ill person, who should be given a hardship payment.

Looking at the guidance I doubt whether any Jobcentre decision maker is capable of making such decisions about health and should never have been asked. The guidance has more to do with Ministers answering legal challenges and complying with human rights legislation. 

There are very few normal healthy bodies being sanctioned; they are mostly unable to buy a healthy diet and all other necessities for themselves or their children

The DWP description of "full health" has been ignored when deciding the level of benefits and deciding on the caps, cuts and council tax benefits for decades.

I have been writing since 1999 that the adult unemployment is not enough to live on (now at £72.40 a week). Since April 2013 many tenants have been paying rent due to the bedroom tax and council tax out of it; families have been suffering in the same way due to the overall benefit cap of £500. Making the purchase of a healthy diet even more impossible for nearly three years - not just two weeks. Before then we had 100% council tax and housing benefit.

Rev Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty