Back to the Future - Seeing the Past in the Present

Co-written with Bev Clack -published in the Huffington Post Feb 2012

Over the last two years, it has been common for parallels to be drawn between the Thatcher and Reagan years of the 1980s and the experiences of today.

Many of us remember the 1980s and 1990s with mixed emotions.  When thinking back to those dark days, many remember the miners' strike that occurred in various parts of the UK.  Margaret Thatcher claimed victory but decades later we still find devastated communities with families trapped, unable to recover.  This article from the Guardian gives an idea of the price that we are all paying for that particular ‘victory’.  http://is.gd/HlNORV  

Today we are facing the destruction of the NHS.  The medical, nursing and associated clinical professions have all called for the Health Reform Bill to be completely withdrawn. And the public response has been just as damning. Why commence such reforms when only weeks earlier in May 2010 a patient satisfaction survey revealed that 97% of patients were happy with the NHS?  The last time the public felt as strongly opposed to a government policy was when millions came out on the streets to demonstrate against the unfair Poll Tax Bill. Their protests persuaded the government to revoke it. A victory for the common will.  

There is, however, another era which also looms into focus, and it is one that raises even more disturbing prospects for today than that return to the 1980s. And that is the 1930s.   

In October 1929 the American stock market crashed. The resulting economic collapse was felt across the globe. American credit dried up. World trade suffered. 

As a result, the UK suffered The Great Depression, economic instability also stemming from the debt incurred during the First World War. Countries across the world were affected. European countries' economies were destabilised. The industrial areas of the UK suffered severely as demand for British products almost ceased entirely. By 1931 unemployment increased significantly from 1 million to 2.5 million, growing to 6million by the mid-1930s.

The first General Strike took place in the UK, closely followed by the Jarrow March. The public, as this article from the times shows, were really behind the thrust of the march http://is.gd/huuoeA. (In 2011 a similar march was repeated http://is.gd/q8NtKr.)  

Significant unrest was also occurring in Germany. From the mid-1920s into the 1930s, the German government effectively evolved from being a democracy to a conservative–nationalist authoritarian state.  Other small parties emerged and the establishment of a majority government became more difficult, resulting in short-term coalition governments.  

Several elections took place in a fairly short space of time and it took the Nazi Party just a few years to gain popularity.  Its growth was encouraged as an increasing number of young nationalists joined.  We have all seen scenes of the huge marches that took place in Munich. In 1933 Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. 

When people are in trouble they look for others to blame. As unemployment rose, the Jewish population were seen to be taking jobs from the indigenous population. Gypsies, communists (the right's political opponents), and those who were weak, ill or disabled  were also targeted. No-one was allowed to get in the way of the ideological views of the Nazis. Many felt vulnerable. They were vulnerable!

During this time some of the smaller groups began talking about the disparity in society. There was an agenda aimed at wealth distribution and an encouragement towards economic growth.
But industrialists and business felt threatened by such agendas.

Businesses donated to the Nazi Party, believing they would allow business to function freely. The donations were mostly used to fund the Nazi’s propaganda against the Jews.  

We know the rest.....sadly and tragically.

Today in the UK attacks against Muslim and Jewish communities are increasing. We read reports that gangs are waiting outside mosques, ready to attack worshippers, as well as reports of arson. Here’s one such fairly recent report  http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/men-jailed-10-years-Hanley-mosque-arson-attack/story-14092777-detail/story.html
 
Only this week we hear that the Archbishop of York has received racist letters because of his attack on gay marriage. An example of one vulnerable group attacking another.

The World Economic Forum was recently held in Davos.  In attendance were over 70 billionaires and goodness knows how many millionaires. But even they acknowledged that a solution to the current economic crisis has to be found. As  Klaus Schwab, the Chairman of the Forum, said:

“Capitalism in its present form no longer suits our world. We have failed to learn the lessons from the financial crisis of 2009. A global transformation is urgently needed, and it must start with reinstating a global sense of social responsibility.”   http://is.gd/yi6Zdz  http://is.gd/P9sos6.  

It is important not to underestimate the problems that we face. We must not fall into the same mistakes of yesteryear.

This week we read that people who are disabled are being abused as a result of the language being banded about regarding benefit payments and the proposed welfare ‘reforms’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people  


Anyone with a shred of decency will be angered and ashamed that people can still be targeted in this way. As Lady Tanni Grey-Thompson explains, disabled people are not living a life of luxury http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/feb/06/tanni-grey-thompson-video
 
We are living in dangerous times. As the past has shown us, human rights’ atrocities often go hand-in-hand with poverty, neglect and inequity. We cannot ignore the past. And as we reflect on the errors of a different age, we must make sure that such messages are not repeated in 2012.

Will the British public forgive.. ever ?

An interesting article appears in the New Statesman  http://is.gd/IKrtj2    And Nick's expression really says it all.

So why doesn't he back his party members and say No ?  If they voted with Labour this Bill would be stopped in its track.  Are ministerial cars so attractive ?  Nasty Nick could become St. Nick in one House of Commons vote !  He'd have far more friends if he pushed Dave aside ! Maybe he realises that he took the wrong decision going into cahoots with Cameron and knows that if his party voted against the tories, it would be the start of the end of the coalition.  But he'd regain his party and maybe some sense of decency !


The money that is being spent on the reforms could be spent on the NHS - it needs investment - its as simple as that! I honestly don't think people have any real idea what damage is about to be done.  I'd like to hear every Labour MP who is interviewed on radio or tv bring this rotten Bill to the public's attention.  It isn't too late !! 

There are going to be closures of hospitals, treatment available now may only be available if you can afford it.  We know this in York from the Haxby Health Centre issue - hospitals will not retain Consultants to undertake some procedures/surgery if GPs are not willing to send patients unless the patients can pay or go where the service is available on the NHS - some distance away!   These changes are already happening !  http://is.gd/fZKx7p

We expect this sort of policy from the nasty tories but not from the Lib Dems !

Can someone explain how this government is pushing through the reforms before the Bill has gone through the legislative process – it’s still with the House of Lords ! This brings me to say that the Labour Lords have done a magnificent job in attempting to stall this Bill.  If only the Lib Dem Lords had have had the same strand of steel in their spines ! 


If this Bill is passed with the help of the Lib Dems, I do wonder when the British public realise that they have lost the service they hold so dear, whether they will forgive the Lib Dems - ever ?   This is the opportunity for the Lib Dems to show that they still care about people.  Maybe we should give them one last chance to show that they still have some compassion.

 Nick, it’s over to you !

WHEN THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.. THE GOVT DECIDES TO CHARGE!

A conservative peer, Lord MacKay,  is leading a revolt in the House of Lords regarding the intention to charge parents for using the Child Support Agency to determine and chase child maintenance payments. http://is.gd/WxvmSB   

When a former Conservative Minister is leading a rebellion and fighting his own party in government, there's something wrong !

 And Labour Lords are supporting him all the way !

I have just read that he has been successful but a government spokesperson has said to the Guardian that they will reverse Lord MacKay’s amendment once it returns to the Commons.  A huge defeat  in the House of Lords -  270 to 128 against plans to charge single parents to gain payments for children.. Here's the latest from The Guardian  http://is.gd/0vUs3e

Channel 4 News focussed  on a single parent with three children.  Her husband had obviously refused to provide financial support for his family.   This woman had no other choice but to chase child maintenance through the Child Support Agency.

This is not unusual. I know from working for a Member of Parliament that unfortunately there are many parents, usually the father, who need chasing in order for the mother to be able to provide for their children.   Where else are mothers to go to ensure that payments are made?  There are currently about one million people using the CSA.

Lord MacKay has said that it is unfair to charge women for this service:

 "A significant proportion who go to the CSA can't do anything else to get maintenance before they come.  It’s these people - I feel it’s quite unfair to charge - what else can they do?" 

The intention is that the CSA will charge £100 before they begin to process the request.  That is a difficult sum to find upfront for someone who is already struggling.  Once the maintenance payments are secured the Agency will then take 7-12% off the payment.  The CSA costs £450m to run.

Absent parents who fail to support their families also will have to pay an extra 15-20% charge on top of their maintenance.  The government believes it will level the playing field and take the blame game away.

Maria Miller, Minister for Disabled, appeared on Channel 4 news.  She said "Perhaps by having to think about paying fees for using the system, it will make them think twice about simply relying on the state to determine their child maintenance arrangements and actually encourage them to do what we know is best for the children, and to work together".   Its gone very cold in here..

I suppose this is what we can expect from a government front bench of millionaires ! Women and children are to suffer – yet again !

And if that isn't enough - I've just read that the government is determined to finish off the ultimate safety net - The Discretionary Social Fund.  This is available with discretion when all else fails, often people are penniless - the most marginilised within society.  We must not forget in this time of austerity that this can happen to any one of us.  Just lose your job and who knows what might happen..    Another one for the House of Lords too !  http://is.gd/iIwVVf

 There's suddenly another chill in the air...

Let's hope this chill spells another defeat for this outrageously discompassionate government.

Labour's Moral Crusade in a Time of Austerity

This is co-authored with Bev Clack and appeared in the Huffington Post today.

From time to time disaffected Labour voters ask what the Labour Party is for.

Even committed Labourites like ourselves feel it is an important question to ask.

It takes on a powerful new form as we slip evermore deeply into the age of austerity. The pressing issue of the day is the economy and how to reduce the deficit. Labour has been forthright in exposing the failure of Osborne’s deficit reduction plan and the absence of any meaningful strategy for growth.

But the problem with a focus solely on financial matters is that it can act as a distraction from Labour’s historic mission for social justice and the kind of real and lasting social change that will make Britain a country fit for all, not just the well off. Harold Wilson, not immediately remembered for his flights of rhetorical fancy, described Labour’s mission well. ‘Labour’, he said, ‘is a moral crusade or it is nothing’.

A moral crusade.

Yet much of our current political debate singularly fails to engage at all with what we might call the ethical aspects of politics and particularly with the ethics of deficit reduction.

Take the discussion on Newsnight that took place after the Lords had pushed through an amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill that would exempt child benefit from the cap the government want to place on benefits. http://is.gd/VsH9Qb (13.12min into the video).Jeremy Paxman interviewed a Conservative MP, a Shadow Minister and a Bishop.  The difference in language used by the three was staggering.

The Bishop of Leicester expressed concerns for people in his Diocese currently faced with the struggle to keep a roof over their heads as their housing benefit is cut.

Tory MP Margot James spoke about choice. This surprised even Jeremy Paxman – was there really a choice involved in keeping a home or losing it if you no longer had the money to pay the rent?

And how did Labour’s Liam Byrne choose to respond? He did not talk about the ethics of promoting a policy that will leave many facing homelessness. He did mention homelessness, but he focused on the cost to the taxpayer of having to pay for emergency accommodation for those made homeless by the cap. 

Now, he may well be right to raise this practical issue. But this focus on financial costs rather than morality suggests a peculiar problem for Labour. Obviously our plans have to be credible and costed. We are not Flat Earthers. But at the same time to talk only in such terms is to lose the vision of Labour’s history while running the risk of developing a strategy that fails to acknowledge the stark inequalities that the government’s flawed plan is exposing. 

It was left to the Bishop to raise the issue of an increasingly unequal society, and he did so in unequivocally ethical language. He argued that the effect on the poorest in society seeing the richest gain at their behest is extremely damaging for a cohesive society.  

Perhaps it would take a clergyman to make this connection, but it’s disappointing that a Shadow Minister didn’t.

There is something pathologically wrong with our society when we fail to look after poor families at the same time as sales in luxury diaries and letterheads are rocketing  and  http://is.gd/HgcsHd   and http://is.gd/ts5Sm1 Reference is often made to the ‘filthy rich’ but let’s make sure that we go after them with the same vigour Iain Duncan Smith is using to go after his undeserving poor. Let’s chase them for their taxes and close those loopholes!  

To take on the rich is not a sign of being anti-business.  It’s obviously the case that we need people to have ideas and to be entrepreneurs in order to provide employment and raise revenue. But if the inequality between rich and poor isn’t addressed in a better and more systematic way, we will not escape the evils that money can bring. 

Is it morally right to chase benefit claimants when the promised growth and jobs are not materialising?  The UK desperately needs to see jobs created with the revenue that comes from workers paying taxes. Yet we should never forget that there are tax evaders who owe this country in excess of £40billion. If we need to focus on deficit reduction, presumably the HMRC bill will be looking to increase late payment for taxes too?  

Labour should be wary of responding to the government’s plans by offering new forms of micromanagement. ’We would be better at making cuts’ is a dangerous narrative to pursue. Labour’s mission has to be more, and it has to involve speaking out for the vulnerable, the poor and the marginalised. Thank goodness that there are members of the Party who are doing just that. For without a message for a more ethical, more equal society, the Party fails in its mission to create a better and more hopeful Britain for all its citizens.

NHS Reforms - A Catalogue of Disasters is Gaining Momentum

Written for the Huffington Post by Bev Clack and I   January 2012

This week we learned that not only are vast swathes of the general public feeling nervous about the Conservative’s Healthcare Reform Bill, but so are healthcare professionals.

Several healthcare unions have started to sharpen their scalpels.

The Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives previously said they were willing to work with ministers. This week they expressed their concerns so strongly that they are now saying they want the bill to be dropped entirely http://is.gd/FbvpVZ

Back in November the BMA Council passed a motion expressing its "opposition to the whole Health and Social Care Bill" and called for a public campaign of opposition.  http://is.gd/wX4wo7 

This week the BMA went further in its opposition, announcing that two-thirds of doctors were in favour of striking over pay and pensions. This hasn’t happened in 40 years. Dr. Hamish Meldum pointed to the unfairness of the government’s position, noting that  "Doctors are at the forefront of attempts to save the NHS £20 billion, while trying to protect patient care…  and are about to enter a fourth successive year of a pay freeze"  http://is.gd/mhicp4 

Doctors and paramedics are being asked to work longer for less pay and for changes to their pension scheme.  Taken in tandem with the Health Reform Bill, these changes appear to be ‘the last straw’ for the BMA.

Given this wave of fresh criticism, how did Health Secretary Andrew Lansley choose to respond? The unions, he said, were simply playing politics, wanting to ‘have a go’ at the government about pay and pensions. 

Really, Mr. Lansley?

Two example we were told about personally this week show hospital staff feeling the strain of the cuts imposed by the government. 

·         Nurses in an outpatient clinic where the clinic over-ran and another clinic was about to begin had worked from 8.30am until almost 6.00pm. They were so busy they had to stand in the corridor to eat their lunch.  One nurse confessed that she was feeling ‘a bit agitated’. Who could blame her? Is there a correlation between such working practices and claims that nurses are not so caring anymore?   

·         An elderly woman requiring help with feeding and other personal care needed her husband to visit her in hospital more often, as nursing staff seemed unable to cope with such duties. Living in a rural area, he could not afford to visit her each day because of high petrol prices and expensive hospital parking charges. Considerable anxiety arose from the struggle to balance these conflicting demands.

No doubt we all could tell similar worrying stories.

But how are we to understand them? Do such tales reflect bad management, or do they come out of £20billion of cuts that the NHS is having to find? 

Every day brings new stories that challenge the claim of a free Health Service safe in Tory hands.

Dame Joan Ruddock MP recently shared her concerns in the House of Commons. She had received information from inside King’s College Hospital that priority was being given to private cancer patients in both diagnosis and treatment. She asked Andrew Lansley if he could confirm or deny this. He spoke about the legalities before saying, “If the right hon. Lady has information of a particular instance, she might as well give it to me”. 

Fair point, you might think, but as Ruddock said in response, Lansley clearly didn’t understand that the person with this information is terrified of putting it into the public domain for fear of the repercussions. After all, whistle blowers are not always treated kindly by their organisations. 

A further example of the government’s apparent obliviousness to this growing crisis in the Health Service arose at Prime Ministers Question Time this week.

David Cameron was asked about waiting times. He claimed there were no increases; if anything the numbers had decreased.  Yet according to a report on Thursday, waiting times have increased by 43% since the coalition came to power. Department of Health data confirmed that three PCTs failed to treat 75% of patients within 18 weeks: http://is.gd/7mW37H

These figures are unlikely to improve when we also learn that 49% of hospital beds will be handed to the private sector: http://is.gd/2srTmB.  Less NHS beds can only mean longer waiting times.

Andy Burnham, Shadow Minister, gave this stark warning: http://is.gd/3nDgVg

If all this were not bad enough, late on Friday came a report from Yvette Cooper that a hospital based in her constituency had called for the army to help keep the hospital A & E Department open http://is.gd/1lsSRa   Jon Trickett MP, Shadow Minister,  in whose constituency the hospital also falls,  said to the BBC.  “A brand new hospital.. with all the latest facilities...  you have to wonder if there is a secret agenda to close hospitals“

Calling in the army is something that only happens in times of crisis. 

Examples like this, coupled with public and professional anxieties about the government’s plans for the Health Service suggest there is only one thing that Messrs Cameron & Lansley should do.

Drop The Bill!