IDS + UBS Lord Freud's DWP contracts given to liars con-men

[TonyGosling]

More evidence that Atos Origin cheats benefits claimants
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2010/11/more-evidence-that-at os-origin.html
We reported last month how far too many genuinely sick people are being unfairly denied benefits and told to look for work.
One, breast cancer victim Sue Hutchings, was told to get a job while she was waiting for surgery.
Now an independent study has found some jaw-dropping examples of the "work capability assessments" carried out by French company Atos Origin.
These so-called medicals help decide whether people get £65-a-week Jobseeker's Allowance or the more generous Employment and Support Allowance, worth up to £97.
According to Professor Malcolm Harrington, one suicidal woman was told by the Atos doctor to "stop crying and hurry up because I need to go and pick up my children from school".
A man suffering from ME was told "There's a big world out there, you know - you should go out and see some of it."
One mum found 20 errors in the assessment of her son, including a claim that he'd driven himself to the medical when his dad had.
No wonder that 40% of the people who appeal against a decision to refuse them Employment and Support Allowance are successful.
Professor Harrington found a gulf between the high levels of customer satisfaction that Atos reported and the "considerable worry, even anger" of those who contacted him....

Atos wins DWP contracts
09/08/2012 : The Department for Work and Pensions awards two of the PIP assessment contracts to
Atos wins DWP contracts
http://www.consultant-news.com/Article_Display.aspx?p=adp&ID=8786
LONDON -- Atos announced that its business division and leading occupational health provider in the UK, Atos Healthcare, has been awarded a five year contract by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
DWP has awarded two contracts to Atos Healthcare covering Scotland, North East England, North West England, London and Southern England. Atos Healthcare will conduct assessments designed by the DWP for the delivery of the Personal Independence Payment.
This contract is the first significant contract awarded under the overarching Health and Disability Assessment Framework. Under this contract Atos Healthcare has created an innovative new supply chain including NHS hospital Trusts, Private Hospitals and regional networks of health professionals to deliver advice and assessment services. A key benefit of the Atos Healthcare supply model is the provision of a local, familiar service delivered by experienced practitioners.

[1984]

The government are now saying that a third of people on incapacity benefit are fit for work and that 1.5 million people will undergo reassessment by 2014.

Here is an interesting article: http://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/MES-Nnazi.html

[Caz]

It'd be nice to know where the Work Programme contracts are: irrespective to the legal obligation that DWP upload all contracts over £10,000 on the Contracts Finder website, the Work Programme contracts have yet to be seen.

https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/03/work-programme-contracts/

[TonyGosling]

The Nazis forced people with mental and other disabilities to wear black triangles in the extermination camps during the Holocaust. The generic classification they used was “Arbeitsscheu” – literally “Workshy”. This term is also the one most favoured in our right-wing tabloid press to described incapacity and disability benefit claimants today.

IMPORTANT: How to Gain Exemption from DWP/Atos ‘Fit for Work’ & WRAG decisions by Applying ESA Regulations 29 and 35 NEW CAMPAIGN BY BLACK TRIANGLE & DPAC
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/11/16/important-how-to-gain-exem ption-from-dwpatos-fit-for-work-wrag-decisions-by-applying-esa-regulat ions-29-and-35-new-campaign-by-black-triangle-dpac/

[TonyGosling]

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/the-results-of-the-real-p oll-on-the-govts-treatment-of-benefits-claimants/

The results of the REAL poll on the govt’s treatment of benefits claimants
23/12/2012 · by skwalker1964 · Bookmark the permalink. ·

Earlier this month, I posted a poll of 9 questions on the government’s actions on benefits, and its treatment of/pronouncements about benefit claimants. I posted my poll because I was incensed by one posted by the Tory party that was blatantly constructed to give only two choices – the one they want and a nonsense one. It also offered only two, slanted questions and used language intended to demonise those who find themselves in the position of having to claim benefits.

Clearly the Tories have to frame their questions like this because they’re afraid of the results if they ask fair questions – most people are not fools, and a fair phrasing of the questions would not give the Tories the soundbite they want – of being able to say that the public agrees with their measures.

I had no such fears, so I tried to construct the poll as fairly as possible, offering people the opportunity to agree with the government’s position, to disagree with it moderately, or to disagree extremely. I was right not to be worried. Each question was answered by an average of almost 400 people (so far). Here are the results:



Almost 98% of respondents feel that the government has been unfair in how it has framed the issue of benefit claimants.

This question was the only one to draw comments specifically on the question rather than on the blog post as a whole, so it seems worth including those here. Nigel Dougan, with a nice sense of correctly bitter humour, said:

They might well be working people but that’s no excuse. If they got off their arses and got jobs as merchant bankers and earned fortunes they wouldn’t need to be bailed out by the state. Why don’t they get extra jobs.

Sorry Mr Cameron but your a Twat. Come and live with some of my friends who are doing jobs way below their skill set and without state assistance their families would fall apart. Get real mate!! If it’s true you wanted to get your daughter to place a vote for you during X Factor for Will Young, you really need to step aside.

Chaz Stoll added:

Good survey and one that is fairly unique as it gives options that put a more Socialist, humane and fairer view forward.
I think most people understand that we are being conned left, right and centre.

In this area, Halesowen and Rowley Regis – West Midlands – my MP, James Morris claimed he had fought to keep the local fire station open. He did oppose, BUT what he never mentioned was that he voted to cut spending in the first place!!!!

Where was his opposition when it was needed?

He then seems to think that his opposition exonerates him. Does he not expect us to see through his nonsense?
Good stuff on the poll…as usual the Tories and their chums The Liberals are blaming, hurting those who can least afford it. They fight for their class – as usual and b* the rest.

(The sharp-eyed among you might spot that there are 3 comments, but the 3rd was just correcting a typo, which I’ve corrected in the quoted text).

Shame on James Morris, Tory MP for Halesowen and Rowley Regis. It seems like that area is cursed with some particularly dishonest Tory MPs, as Bromsgrove’s Sajid Javid has made similar attempts, posing as a defender of his local hospital while his department steals money from the NHS, lying about government spending on the NHS and even inviting a hospital-closing minister to come and talk about the importance of local hospitals(!).



All but 3 of 398 respondents felt that the Tories ‘shirkers’, ‘closed-curtain’ rhetoric is unfair, with all but 16 feeling strongly enough about it to call it ‘grossly unfair’. It’s quite likely that left-leaning people were more likely to find this poll and respond to it, but the question attempts to frame the issue fairly and gives people the chance to respond in favour of the government. So while the percentage in the general population won’t be as high as shown here, you can be confident that these results are a lot more representative than anything the Tories’ questions will show.



Just over 3% of responders felt that the government’s 1% cap on benefit rises until the next General Election is fair or ‘about right’, with the rest choosing one or other variety of it being unfair.

Interestingly, almost half of the people who felt that it was unfair felt that the right solution was for everyone – working or not – to receive decent rises, rather than the government’s approach of simply accepting poverty-wages for many working people and using this as an excuse to cut benefits in real-terms.



This question was an attempt to refine the results of the previous one – and, to me at least, the results of the refinement were extremely interesting.

4 out of every 5 respondents felt that mandating a ‘living wage‘ (currently £7.45 outside London, compared to the current minimum wage of £6.19) is the right way to achieve a cut in the benefits bill, as opposed to the government’s plan to cut benefits in real terms without increasing wages, which condemns many people to poverty. Only 1% felt that a living wage is an unworkable idea.

This is a strong steer for the Labour party as to the kind of policies it should be devising in readiness for the run-up to the next General Election, and it backs up my contention that the way to a landslide victory in 2015 (or sooner) is to be more radical, not to aim for the centre-ground.



Now we move on specifically to the government’s treatment of disabled people. I and many others have argued vehemently that the government’s statements and decisions about disabled people and the benefits they receive have been callous, unfair and have deliberately demonised disabled people.

In particular, implications by Iain Duncan Smith and other government spokespeople about disability benefit fraud have been massively misleading. Every single respondent who knew enough to have an opinion agreed that the government’s statements on disability benefit fraud have been unfair – with almost 94% feeling that the government deliberately demonises disabled people in order to win support for its measures.



Just one single respondent felt that the government’s ‘skiver vs striver’ rhetoric is fair when there are more than 5 times as many unemployed people as there are jobs to be filled. All but 8 of the remaining 373 respondents felt that it is grossly unfair. Clearly, a lot of people understand that tarring someone as a skiver when there’s no job for them to do even if they want to work is a deliberate mockery of the facts.



Again, only one respondent felt the government’s cap on the total benefits cap, which will force many people to move out of their homes to cheaper areas, is fair. Almost 90% agree with the idea that a rent-cap, not a benefits-cap, is the right way to control the cost of benefits – again, a very strong steer to Labour’s policy-planners.



Only 1 person (presumably the same person for all the questions!) felt that it’s fair for the government to cut benefits in real terms while reducing the tax rates for companies and wealthy individuals. More than 95% felt strongly enough about the question to respond that it is grossly unfair. Clearly people are looking for opposition leaders to take a strong stance on this issue, which vindicates completely Labour’s announcement that it will vote against the 1% cap, and shows that George Osborne’s decision to force an unnecessary vote on an ‘uprating amendment’ to try to put Labour out on a limb is simply cynical idiocy.



Not even our intrepid single ‘yea-sayer’ could bring himself or herself to say that calling welfare unaffordable while the tax contribution of the richest has fallen relative to their income is acceptable. Of the 100% who felt that it is not, almost 84% were in favour of taking any necessary measures to bring tax revenues up to meet the need before even considering reducing benefits.

I think the results speak for themselves, largely – and the poll is still open, so feel free to add your contribution. But I think it definitely bears repeating that the results provide a strong call on the Labour party to abandon any thought of trying to appear a ‘safe pair of hands’ to business and the markets.

If Labour wants to win the landslide victory it deserves and consign both the Tories and the LibDems to the irrelevance they deserve, the message is clear: be bold, be radical, and don’t be afraid to put forward a vision that is completely different to the dysfunctional, myth-based nightmare that the Tories have tried – and are now failing – to fool British people into believing.

[Andrew.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NiXy9kYvA6g

[TonyGosling]

Lord Freud's massive pad EASTRY COURT


Lord Freud's welfare 'lifestyle' comments show 'nasty party is back', say Labour
Labour have seized on comments by Lord Freud, the Minister for Welfare Reform who likened life on benefits to a funeral.
By Telegraph reporters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9698985/Lord-Freuds-welfare-l ifestyle-comments-show-nasty-party-is-back-say-Labour.html
2:30PM GMT 23 Nov 2012
Lord Freud said the benefits system was "dreadful" and allowed lone parents and sickness claimants to "have a lifestyle" on the state.
Poor people should be prepared to take more risks because they have the least to lose, according to the minister for welfare reform.
The Tory peer, a former banker and descendent of Sigmund Freud, who is helping to push through a radical overhaul of the welfare state, insisted he understood the reality of living on benefits, arguing "you don't have to be the corpse to go to a funeral".
Liam Byrne, the Shadow Work and Pensions secretary, said the comments were "disgusting", adding: "The nasty party is well and truly back."
In an interview with The House magazine, he said: "We've got the circumstances now where... people who are poorer should be prepared to take the biggest risks - they've got least to lose."
"We have, through our welfare system, created a system which has made them reluctant to take risks so we need to turn that on its head and make the system predictable so that people will take those risks.
"I think we have a dreadful welfare system." [actually the best in the world - ed.]
He added: "You know, the incapacity benefits, the lone parents, the people who are self-employed for year after year and only earn hundreds of pounds or a few thousand pounds, the people waiting for their work ability assessment then not going to it - all kinds of areas where people are able to have a lifestyle off benefits and actually off conditionality."
Lord Freud dismissed the possibility of taking part in a television documentary which filmed him living on benefits for a week, something a number of politicians have done in the past.
"I have thought of the issue," he said. "The trouble is, it's a stunt when someone like me does it because you do it for a week. That's not the point."
He added: "I think you don't have to be the corpse to go to a funeral, which is the implied criticism there."
Mr Byrne continued: "Lord Freud is a former investment banker and now a minister of the crown. For him of all people to compare people on benefits to corpses and likening their lives to a funeral is quite frankly disgusting.
"He is quite clearly a man in total denial about the pain his policies are about to cause."
Lord Freud advised the Labour government on welfare after publishing an independent report in March 2007 on the Welfare to Work system.
He said former prime minister Gordon Brown "thought he could soften me up and then dump me in with his officials and I would just capitulate" in talks they had on reforms.
He added: "Which I thought was a pretty demeaning thing for a chancellor and prime minister-to-be, to think that was his role.
"And in practice a pretty foolish strategy when you're up against someone who's an investment banker, who gets yelled at every day of his life, if not three times, by chief executives, finance directors and chairmen for one thing or another. So, if he was wanting to get an outcome, it was a pretty poor strategy."


Freud was first employed by the Financial Times as a journalist, writing the Lex column over a period of 4 years. In 1983 he was hired by the firm then known as Rowe & Pitman. He worked on more than 50 deals, raising more than £50bn in 19 countries. Many were high profile, including the flotations of Eurotunnel and EuroDisney, while he orchestrated the rescue of the Channel Tunnel railway link and National Air Traffic Services. His role in the deals, earned him a great deal of publicity and occasionally criticism. By 2003, Freud had become the vice-chairman of investing banking at the firm, now known as UBS AG. He retired early at the age 53, claiming that he was bored with the City. He later was chief executive of the Portland Trust, which aims "to promote the peace process" in Palestine and Israel using economic measures.

In late 2006, Freud was appointed by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to provide a nominally independent review of the British welfare to work system. His subsequent recommendations called for expanded private sector involvement in the welfare system, for substantial resources to be found to help those on Incapacity Benefit back into "economic activity" and for single parents to be required to take paid employment earlier. Although his recommendations on single parents were immediately adopted, when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007 other restructuring measures were soft-pedalled.

He was later rehired as an adviser to the government when James Purnell was appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2008. He was involved in producing a white paper, published in December 2008, which would require most people receiving benefits either to participate in some form of employment or prepare formally to find paid employment later.

In February 2009, Freud joined the Conservative Party, which at that time was not in government. He was given a life peerage as Baron Freud, of Eastry in the county of Kent, and became a shadow minister for welfare in the House of Lords.[1]

As of 2012, Freud is in charge of reform of the benefits system.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Freud,_Baron_Freud#Life_and_career


Lord Freud: People “too Comfortable” on Benefits.
November 24, 2012
Andrew Coates
http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/lord-freud-people-to o-comfortable-on-benefits/

The Guardian reports, on the latest wit and wisdom by our old friend Lord Freud,

The government’s welfare reform minister has suggested lone parents, sickness claimants and other people on benefits are too comfortable not having to work for their income, saying they are able to “have a lifestyle” on the state.

In an interview with House Magazine, Lord Freud is reported to have said the benefits system is “dreadful” and discourages poor people from taking the risks he implied they should be willing to bear to change their circumstances.

“The incapacity benefits, the lone parents, the people who are self-employed for year after year and only earn hundreds of pounds or a few thousand pounds, the people waiting for their work ability assessment then not going to it – all kinds of areas where people are able to have a lifestyle off benefits and actually off conditionality,” the Conservative peer said.

They add,

Freud, a former journalist and investment banker, told the magazine that his background did not make him unable to understand the reality of living on benefits. “You don’t have to be the corpse to go to the funeral, which is the implied criticism there,” he said.

What an odd metaphor.
No doubt he was thinking of us as living corpses.

Some may say that it is a bit rich for somebody who’s never done an honest day’s work in his life to complain about the lazy-bones out-of-work, single parents, and the sick and disabled.

Somebody who’s pretty comfortable to say the least.

His Lordlyship is cited elsewhere as saying that, “Too many people on benefits see it as a “lifestyle choice” rather than a safety net.”

Rumbled!


Lord Freud

We know you and the rest of the noble folks who populate the House of Lords are really into ermine – but have you been smoking it ?

Universal Jobmatch
November 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm | #2
Reply | Quote

Please note, spelling mistake… Its Lord Fraud…. (or should be)

Obi Wan Kenobi
November 24, 2012 at 1:54 pm | #3
Reply | Quote

Well Lord Freud, here’s brief overview of what we have to do to have our so-called comfortable life on Jobseekers Allowance:

1: We have to sign a Jobseekers Agreement listing how and what we will do every week to find a job.

2: We have to prove we have been looking for work every time we sign on via our up-to-date joblogs, if we can’t prove we have been looking for work, this raises a doubt on your claim for Jobseekers Allowance and we are sanctioned.

3: Most of us now have to attend The Work Programme with a Private Provider who have a black box approach regarding customers, we also have to show them our up-to-date joblogs and are subject to sanctions at their whim for miniscule infractions to their regime.

4: We are verbally bullied and lied to by both the Jobcentre and Private Providers, they try to verbally manovere you into a situation where a doubt can be raised on your claim for Jobseekers Allowance, then you are sanctioned.

5: The Private Provider trys to get you to sign away your rights to The Data Protection Act 1998 (as all the Jobcentres are now trying to do for Universal Jobmatch)

6: The Private Providers issue instructions and targets you have to meet for your next appointment with them, if you haven’t met these targets by your next appointment, this again raises a doubt on your claim for Jobseekers Allowance and you can be sanctioned.

And there’s a whole buttload of other things the Jobcentre and Private Providers can sanction you for – so you tell me – are our live’s comfortable – because if this is comfort – I really don’t want to know about hardship.

Obi Wan Kenobi
November 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm | #4
Reply | Quote

If I were Lord Freud, I’d belt up, have another whiskey, fall asleep in the House of Lords and forget about all this!

JBS
November 24, 2012 at 7:50 pm | #5
Reply | Quote

In 1970 Victor David Dinnerstein produced a book called ‘The Wit and Wisdom of Spiro T. Agnew’ which consists of blank pages.

I also remember that the singer/songwriter Tom Paxton wrote ‘The Ballad of Spiro Agnew’ which begins: “I’ll sing you a song of Spiro Agnew and all the things he’s done”. The rest of the song is an instrumental.

Of course I would never suggest that Lord Freud is the new Spiro Agnew.

Anton
November 24, 2012 at 7:57 pm | #6
Reply | Quote

“In an interview with House Magazine, Lord Freud is reported to have said the benefits system is ‘dreadful’ and discourages poor people from taking the risks he implied they should be willing to bear to change their circumstances.”

You cannot take risks when you have no income. The only risks he has taken are with other peoples money. When the majority of your income goes on food and fuel you cannot ‘risk’ a single penny. Perhaps we should try and get unsecured loans from him – since he’s keen on risk. I can’t believe how completely out of touch he is.

Looking at the register of Lords interests he is a trustee of something called the Jecda foundation a ‘charity’ worth 1.6 million.
Trustees: David Anthony Freud, Priscilla Jane Freud, Mr Andrew Alexander Freud, Ms Emily Annette Freud, Miss Juliet Freud (nothing like keeping it in the family)
Based in Eastry Court, Church Street, Eastry, Sandwich, Kent, CT13 0HL (next to the church – use google street view it’s not labeled properly on the map).

3. THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE COMPANY IS ESTABLISHED ARE:
3.1 THE RELIEF OF POVERTY;
3.2 THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION AND HEALTH;
3.3 THE ADVANCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OR IMPROVEMENT; AND
3.4 SUCH OTHER PURPOSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AS SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY CHARITABLE

Perhaps we should ask it for a grant.

Someone called ‘David Anthony Freud’ is a director of ’29 Montpelier Grove Management Company Limited’. This will probably be the freehold company for a London flat – which he may or may not be renting out to another MP.

Andrew Coates
November 25, 2012 at 12:40 pm | #7
Reply | Quote

“You cannot take risks when you have no income”.

Absolutely.

I really feel for those people cleansed from their flats and houses in London under new Benefit rules and who have to set up elsewhere.

R Isky
November 25, 2012 at 4:50 pm | #8
Quote

Too right, when I was a yoof I gave up my council flat to move to London for work – of course it didn’t work out… I ended up homeless on the streets of London and living out of bins. I wouldn’t advise anyone on benefits to “take risks”, it is OK if you have the “back-up”, like plenty of money or rich parents to bail you out if things go wrong. Lord Fraud is talking *, folks on their uppers cannot afford to “take risks”.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

‘Get ready for the future, it is going to be murder’
https://christopherjohnball.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/get-ready-for-the -future-it-is-murder/

‘And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil’s riding crop
Get ready for the future,
it is murder’ – The Future by Leonard Cohen

I will never forget that night. I found my beloved partner on the floor. She had made a makeshift bed for herself and was surrounded by her favourite JellyCat soft toy dogs. She takes these everywhere with her; a source of comfort. I froze for a moment as I saw the empty packets of medication and then the note she had left for me.

Then the adrenaline kicked in and I desperately tried to remember the first aid courses I had undertaken. I checked her breathing. It was there, just. I checked her airways for blockages. There were none I could find. I couldn’t rouse her and I was concerned that the position she was in wasn’t helping her breathing. So I moved her into a more suitable position. As I did this, I heard a loud crack. It came from me. My hip had decided this was the appropriate moment to partially dislocate as it is want to do at times. Usually I feel this a LOT but the adrenaline must have kept the pain at bay. I grabbed my phone and called 999.

The emergency services are brilliant. I was told an ambulance was on its way and the person on the phone stayed with me to reassure me. She kept me busy by having me count my partner’s breathing. I also collected all the packets of medication that I could find so an idea could be had as to how much had been taken and what kind. The door bell rang; the ambulance had arrived. At this point I was reminded about the state of my dislocated hip. The pain hit, hard! The ambulance crew were greeted with a torrent of swearing as I painfully manoeuvred my hip back into place. Another crack; there back in place.

After spending the night in emergency my partner was moved to an ITU bed. She was to stay there, unconscious, for a week. I phoned the hospital and visited at every opportunity hoping for news as to her progress. I brought up her favourite JellyCat dog to be with her. Don’t tell the other dogs but she does have a favourite.

It was heartbreaking to see her in that ITU bed with drips, medical machinery and tubes down her throat to assist breathing. I shall never shake that image.

Strange thoughts go through one’s head at times like these. Well they did mine. For some reason, I thought that I was going to get ‘told off’ by my partner for getting her medical attention. This thought was intense. I couldn’t rid myself of it. I really thought I was in trouble.

Thankfully, my lovely partner finally did wake up, and was later moved to another ward. She had contracted pneumonia due to fluids entering her lungs as she went into one of several seizures whilst in emergency. This had also resulted in some damage to her brain, though the medical staff thought this would rectify itself.

Suicide is a complicated issue and there are often many reasons involved that might build up to cause an individual to consider or carry out an attempt upon their own life. It is important to note that my partner had recently received a letter from the DWP in reference to her ESA claim. She was to face another reassessment and this scared her, indeed it weighed heavily upon her mind. As my partner said to both myself and the Crisis Team, that DWP letter, well, ‘it didn’t help’.

I spoke to many Doctors, staff at the Crisis Team and social workers, who worked with my partner, and they all stated that this is happening far more than is being reported. The fear is real and felt by many. These ‘reforms’ are having huge negative impact and causing harm. I have read several cases of suicide attempts and deaths linked to these damn ‘reforms’ but I never thought that that it would hit so close to home.

In addition to the cuts disabled and carers are facing, there is also the real fear of the, now, infamous sanctions regime.

My partner lives with severe mental health concerns. She has great difficulty reading, interacting and communicating with others. People frighten her.

She fears that she would end up sanctioned simply for exhibiting the symptoms of her diagnosis. The presentation of her symptoms could easily be misunderstood, or even exploited, by DWP staff intent on their quota of sanctions. Yes, we hear claims that there are no quotas but who believes Iain Duncan Smith or Esther McVey? Lying comes as easy to that pair of irresponsible, reckless Ministers as breathing.

I stated above that suicide is rarely about one issue but this must not be taken, by any supporter of the Coalition welfare ‘reforms’, as mitigation or an attempt to dismiss the impact of the ‘reforms’ upon my partner. Fear of these ‘reforms’, fear of the arrival of the next brown envelope from the DWP, played a major role within the reasoning behind her actions. As she said, ‘It didn’t help’.

These ‘reforms’ have been both cruel and unnecessary; an added extra burden, and worry, upon people who already have a lot to contend with as it is.

Now, we hear that we are to face a further £12Bn in cuts should David Cameron, and his Conservative Party, be elected on Thursday. This fills me with dread. My partner and I barely survived the past five years. The attacks never seem to stop. We have also faced an increase is disability related abuse. I describe this abuse in an article here.

One can never seem to draw breath before the next letter from the DWP arrives. Your heart stops in fear as you see it pushed through the letterbox. You hold your breath as you open it. What bad news will it bring? What fresh horror has Iain Duncan Smith seen fit to dump upon you today?

For many, the Social Security ‘reforms’, and their impact, are the straw that broke the camels back. To repeat, as I think it very important, my partner said, ‘It didn’t help’. In truth they are not helping because they are not designed to do so. These pernicious ‘reforms’ are designed, on first principle, simply to save money.

The Conservative Party want to place the Social Security safety net so close to the ground that it renders it useless, even fatal. You may not need it now, but you do not know what is around the corner. Can you really afford to lose its protection?

My own health has also been impacted by Iain Duncan Smith’s awful legacy. My Doctor is having to, not only treat the symptoms associated with my existing, deteriorating disability, he is now looking to the stress based illnesses I find myself with. My blood pressure is through the roof, blood has been found where it shouldn’t be and the additional stress is playing havoc with my chronic pain and state of mind. I worry that I may become too ill to act as carer for my partner, and I worry what will happen to her in the future. I worry about not being able to work. I worry, worry all of the time. I have difficulty sleeping due to constant worry, constant stress.

I never used to worry like this. I was always a glass half full ‘kinda’ guy. When I worked in education, I was often ‘named tutor’, and looked to the pastoral care of my students. I was the one with the answers; the person they turned to for solutions. Well, things change and, I am not ashamed to admit that, I now find myself going through counselling. Thanks Mr Cameron, thanks Mr Clegg, thanks for nothing.

My partner has been expressing fears again. She is deeply worried that the Conservatives will return to power and enact further hurt. She has talked about taking her life again, should they do. She is classed as ‘high risk’ by her medical specialists and they are offering what help they can with limited resources.

I have been critical of many a government before but this Coalition of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have been the first government that I have been scared of. The first government to put me in fear of, both, my and my partner’s health and future. Is this really a fairer society?

I am terrified at the thought of David Cameron and the Conservative Party being returned to power.

By the way, in case you are wondering. I wasn’t told off by my partner.

Christopher John Ball is, along with Dean Sipling, co-author of the play Throwing Stones – ‘What’s in your family album?’ Order your copy today from Amazon

“Mid-life male photographer meets young, nubile female student-cum-artistic muse – so far it’s old hat. But photographer turned playwright Christopher John Ball and co-writer Dean Sipling, whose background is film and television, bring the pairing into a thoroughly contemporary world of intercepted emails, sinister insinuation and sharp retorts. Their ‘guilty until proved innocent’ plot … is thoroughly watchable and believable – perhaps as a result of Ball’s professional insights and DS Dom Lucas’ services as police advisor to the production” Barbara Lewis – The Stage

2015 will see the publication of three monographs featuring fine art photography by Christopher John Ball. Watch this blog for further details.

[TonyGosling]

The Truth About Poverty In Britain Is Much Worse Than You Think

By Graham Vanbergen
Global Research, January 21, 2016
True Publica 19 January 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-truth-about-poverty-in-britain-is-muc h-worse-than-you-think/5502783

Forty years after Margaret Thatcher came to power the true extent of neoliberal market reforms are still unravelling and inequality, as we are now hearing almost daily, has inexhorably taken a grip and harming society much more widely as a direct result with evidence of rising poverty its consequence.

The Equality Trust and High Pay Centre has average pay for UK workers calculated as £26,500. However, average pay conceals the reality for millions.

For instance, the top 0.1% are earning a few pounds over £1 million a year and the top 1% are earning an average £271,888. What this figure hides is the fact that the top FTSE chief executives are earning an average of £4.3 million and it takes them just 2.5 days to earn the average annual workers pay. These statistics do not include other successful groups such as self employed entrepreneurs.

The top 10% of UK workers earn £79,196. But the truth here is that this also includes the earnings of the top 1%, meaning the next 9% don’t really earn that figure.

What is grotesque is the next number that should shock everyone. The average pay of the next 90%, (by stripping out all earnings of the top 10%, including the 1% and 0.1% groups) leaves an annual income of just £12,969. Yes, you read that right. Stripping out the top 10% of average pay, leaves just £12,969 average pay for the remaining 90% of the population.

What is interesting about the figures collated by the Inequality Trust is that the data is about two years old (not their fault – it’s what is available), so things will actually be slightly worse as all analysts agree that inequality is getting worse, not better.

That statistic itself is shocking enough on its own but many people in that 90% category earn considerably more than £12,969, leaving the bottom 20% earning around £5,500 per annum.

So how are British workers and families really doing?

Since 2008, just one in every forty jobs created is full-time. By 2014, this was the equivalent loss of nearly 700,000 full-time jobs.

In 2013, there were more working families living in poverty in the UK than non-working families for the first time since the birth of the welfare state. In fact, in that year (2013) alone there were 500,000 more families added to this over-stretched group.

According to an article in The Independent quoting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, out of 26,400,000 UK households there were “6.7 million families with adults in employment who meet the worrying criteria of living in poverty compared with a combined 6.3 million of retired and unemployed families living in poverty.”

If true, these figures combined clearly shows that about 45 per cent of all households in Britain are now living in what is defined as poverty and require some form of state aid to survive.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the largest group in poverty are working age adults without dependent children and there are 4.7 million people in this situation alone, the highest on record – ever.

According to the same charity and the New Policy Institute who worked together on a report, they found another 4.3 million families who were in work but need state support just to survive (data could only be collated from 2012).

Oxfam says 1 in 5 of the total UK population now lives below the official poverty line, meaning that they experience life as more than just a daily struggle.

It is bizarre that in the digital age another fact raises an eye-brow. A new report finds that up to 1.5 million benefit claimants may be facing destitution after disappearing from the welfare system.

Government is failing to track why all claimants have dropped off the roll meaning it has no idea how many people are being left penniless, according to Frank Field, the Work and Pensions Committee chairman. Field went further to say “Benefit sanctions are being applied on a scale unknown since the Second World War and the fate of those penalised is anyones guess.”

The government department responsible does not count them and HMRC doesn’t count anyone earning less than £8,500.

We know from various historical surveys and studies archived on such places as local histories.org that at the end of the 19th century about 25% of the population was living at or below subsistence level. Around 10% were living in total poverty and 15% were living just below the poverty line.

At the beginning of the 20th century, surveys showed 25% of the population still lived in poverty, with 15% struggling just below and 10% in abject poverty – so no change in 100 years.

Just after the First World War and before the Second World War, abject poverty (people unable to feed themselves) fell to 4% of the population and by 1950 this category had all but disappeared.

Yet, as Britain became wealthier, now the sixth richest nation on earth, Oxfam reports that we have over 2 million estimated to be malnourished and another 3 million at risk of becoming just that. Over one third of the population are just one heating bill from hardship with 1 in 6 parents across the country going without food themselves in order to feed their own families.

Over one million people use Trussell Trust food banks today, with experts warning figures showing a 19% rise year-on-year is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of UK food poverty. In 2009, the same charity only distributed food to 41,000 people.

Official government statistics confirms that one third of the entire UK population experienced poverty between 2010 and 2013 with overall poverty sitting at a staggering 16% – four times the level just after the First World War. The ONS tries to justify these figures by comparing the UK with the rest of Europe – including poor countries with a long history of poverty such as Moldova (lowest average income £2,300/$3,500), then Kosovo, Ukraine, Albania, Herzegovina and Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania and Bulgaria – the highest average income of all these, Bulgaria at £9,450.

During the Blair years, overall poverty declined 20% with dramatic falls for children and pensioners (both groups falling 36%). Under the Coalition and now Conservatives, overall poverty has not got officially worse but that depends on the statistics.

There are 500,000 more children in ‘absolute poverty’ since David Cameron became PM. The total number of Britain’s youngsters living below the waterline is now over 4 million.

In 2015, 100,000 additional pensioners reached this poverty stricken group alone and this is all before the latest huge axe to the national welfare fund is fully felt.

One of the Thatcher legacies of the 1980’s and 90’s was intensified by her successor John Major in 1994, who was famed for his attack on the quantity of beggars on Britain’s streets as a result of their merciless actions against the poor and what turned out to be a failed housing policy. Major said he wanted to “remove their offensive and unjustified presence from the streets.” The headlines “Major Declares War On Beggars” was reported widely.

From all this, it appears that at least 20% of the UK population are living in abject poverty and another 20-25% very close to it.

You would have thought in one of the worlds wealthiest nations that eradicating absolute poverty would have been a defining challenge, a proud achievement to attain. Instead, the clock has been turned backwards. The government target of no child poverty by 2020 is no longer even an aspiration. In fact, the government even went as far as to scrap the 2020 child poverty targets for obvious embarrassing reasons.

A report by savethechildren in 2014 makes depressing reading as it estimated that by 2020 another one million children will have reached poverty. Each child has at least one parent accompanying them into poverty increasing the overall numbers significantly. The latest statistics show the projections are slightly behind reality already.

[TonyGosling]

Over 12,000 blind people have had their social care taken away because of cuts
The cuts could have knock-on effects
Jon Stone @joncstone 22 hours ago3 comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over-12000-blind-people- have-had-their-social-care-taken-away-because-of-cuts-a6825916.html

The chief inspector of adult social care has warned the sector is under 'stress and strain' as figures reportedly reveal more than 150 allegations of abuse against the frail and elderly are being lodged every day
Blind and partially sighted people are disproportionately affected PA
Over 12,000 blind and partially sighted people have been deprived of social care in recent years, a new report has found.

The Royal National Institute for Blind People and Age UK found that between 2008/9 and 2012/13 there was a 36.5 per cent fall in older people with visual impairments receiving care.

The fall came despite a quickly aging population and a potentially growing pool of people needing social care.

The report says that while all areas of social care services have faced cut-backs overall, older people with difficulty seeing have faced disproportionate reductions.

Charities say the social care cuts could have knock-on effects on people with difficulty seeing.

The older people affected are more likely to have other health complications, live in poor quality housing, and have difficult accessing health services.

Without the help of carers these conditions could be made worse and cause further damage to the health of people missing out on carers.

Social care is delivered by councils, who have had their budgets slashed and their ability to raise revenues restricted by central government since 2010.

David Cameron came to blows with his own local Oxfordshire council last year after he accused the local authority of not making adequate efficiency savings.

In letters lead to the Oxfordshire Mail local newspaper Mr Cameron was accused of not understanding the state of local government finances when he claimed the cuts could be made through “back-office savings”.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister at the time said: “There is still significant scope for sensible savings across local government to be made by back office consolidation, disposing of surplus property and joining up our local public services; we will be discussing with Oxfordshire how this can be taken forward to help protect frontline services.”

READ MORE
Adult social care is under 'strain', says the care commissioner
150 allegations of abuse made to social care regulator every day
One in 10 health workers have colleagues who believe in a 'gay cure'
Local services like social care and child protection face deep 12 per
Most vulnerable people in country 'in jeopardy' over £1.1bn of cuts
Fazilet Hadi, Director of Engagement at RNIB, said: “Being left alone to cope with sight loss in later life is wholly unacceptable. No matter how tight government budgets are, this is essential support which must be provided.

“Social care support can be vital to blind and partially sighted people in later life, enabling them to live with dignity and choice. However, older people with sight loss are increasingly missing out on social care and vision rehabilitation services.”

Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director at Age UK says: “That so many blind or partially sighted older people who need social care aren’t getting is profoundly shocking.

“Losing our sight is something many of us fear the most, and the idea of struggling alone without social care assistance in such circumstances seems appalling in a civilised society.”