Save Our Job Centres - protest November 6th

Via Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group

Monday November 6^th 3-4pm

Department of Work and Pensions, Caxton House, 12 Tothill St, Westminster, SW1H

The government has already closed 24 jobcentres since August this year. They plan to close a further 78 Jobcentres by April of 2018.

16 of these Jobcentres are in London.

The poor and vulnerable need local jobcentres, not some superhub that they have to walk miles to reach.

Benefit money is too little to cover regular trips on public transport. People will have to walk. And don't be late or too ill to walk over a mile each way as often as the jobcentre demands– you'll be up for a sanction!

The Tories say that much of the jobcentres' work is now done online, but 5.3 million people in Britain have never used the internet, and 10 million lack the basic digital skills. And millions of these people will be in receipt of benefits.

You can't use the internet if you are learning disabled.

You can't use the internet if you can't afford a computer or a mobile phone contract or or the fee for using library or internet cafe

You can't use the internet if you are illiterate (and six to eight million Britons are borderline or fully illiterate)

Our local Jobcentres, Kilburn and Neasden, serve one of the most deprived areas in the country. If they are closed then over half of the borough of Camden and around two thirds of Brent will be more than half a mile from the nearest jobcentre, i.e. more than a mile round trip. These areas contain heavily populated areas: a lot of people are going to be affected.

In amongst the people who can't use the internet are hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their disability benefit because they aren't disabled enough for the Tories. They may be able to walk just 200 metres, or sometimes panic when out and get lost, or nor be able to plan a journey to places they don’t know, or have epilepsy. They may be seriously depressed or suffering from brain fog brought on by medication or illnesses like Fibromyalgia. They may be recovering from cancer or waiting for a heart operation. They may have variable conditions that mean that they can't guarantee being able to go out at all on any particular day.

But if you miss an appointment, or are simply late, you'll be considered for a sanction!

Let's meet outside the DWP's headquarters at Caxton House and let them know what we think about this.

Save our Jobcentres!

The 16 London jobcentres that are closing are:
Highgate, 24 November 2017
Edgware, 8 December 2017
Finchley, 12 January 2018
Dagenham, 19 January 2018
Southall, January 2018
Kingston, February 2018
Brixton,- 9 February 2018
Neasden 16 February 2018
Clapham 23 February 2018
Kilburn, March 2018
Hammersmith 9 March 2018
Croydon, 16 March 2018
Wandsworth, 23 March 2018
Leytonstone,- 30 March 2018
Hounslow, 10 Montague Road,

An account of a recent meeting on the issue can be found on the Brent Green Party blog HERE

Giving a voice to child casualties of the callous Coalition on Saturday

I heard recently about a child who faced exclusion from a local academy school because of recent lateness. He is late because the family were evicted from their home and moved to temporary accommodation in a bed and breakfast hotel a long way from the school. Dad says they get up at 6.30am. I have seen the sad sight of the  family's belongings, including the children's toys, piled high in their ex-home's front garden because there was no room for their belongings in the two hotel rooms they are allocated.

I have heard about a mother having to improvise cooking facilities in the bathroom of their bed and breakfast hotel so as to be able to feed their children.

There is absolutely no doubt that children are the most vulnerable casualties of the Coalition's war on the poor.  This is something that many teachers acknowledged when they spoke to me during the strike day. They see the children every day, they see the stress in the children's parents and hear from distressed children the possibility that they may be moved to Luton, Milton Keynes, Birmingham away from their friends and family - away from their support systems. In time these families will cost the state far more in treating the consequences of this ill treatment than it will have saved in cutting benefit.

The long term impact on the stability of the family and their mental and physical health is incalculable. The impact on children's life chances hardly bears thinking about.

Saturday's demonstration aims to give a voice to these children.  They will be encouraged to wear their school uniforms to highlight how the benefit cuts, council tax charges, bedroom tax etc are affecting school age children.

I have to attend another local event on that day but hope that this demonstration gets the support it deserves.

Greens denounce budget that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens

Responding to the Budget announcement, the Green Party today said the Budget was yet again ignoring the needs of ordinary citizens. With its focus on tax breaks for the rich, lack of concern over climate change, discriminatory childcare policies and economically illiterate housing schemes, the budget is not delivering solutions to problems facing us today, says the Green Party.

Green Party Leader, Natalie Bennett, said:

This was not a budget for a resilient economy but for a fantasy economy that exists only in Mr Osborne's head. It does nothing to address the need to transform the British economy for a low-carbon future that ensures everyone has access to a decent quality of life. Instead this budget clings to the dinosaur idea that growth towards a new model of 'Britain 2006' will not lead to even further economic and environmental disaster.

The budget promotes what can only be dead-end smokestack industries, the export loans are likely to benefit most notably the arms industry, and the offerings on ISAs will further expand our already dreadful levels of inequality.

The claim that this would be the 'greenest government ever' has long been a sick joke.

The Green Party is calling for an increase to the amount of social housing and commonly owned housing

  

Green Party Finance Spokesperson, Molly Scott Cato, commented:

A garden city built in a quarry and growth built on a re-inflated housing bubble are hardly reassuring evidence of the economy based on "more economic security and economic resilience" that Osborne claims to be his objective. While on the issue of finance, we should also tell George that his desperate attempt to re-inflate the housing bubble through extending the life of Help to Buy is storing up exactly the sort of catastrophic financial collapse that put us in this economic mess. It also does nothing for those who are most in need of reasonably priced housing, since it will only support mortgages they cannot afford and encourage house prices to rise even further beyond their reach.

Osborne claims that more people are in work under the Coalition, but many of these are low paid, low skilled and subject to zero hours contracts

Green Party Welfare Spokesperson, Romayne Phoenix, said:

Where we could have decent properly paid jobs for many thousands of experienced workers and those looking for their first paid employment we have unemployment, under employment, exploitation through zero hours contracts and low pay. The cost of living is rising, there is no genuine social security when job seekers can be sanctioned for minor errors.

Council MUST extend Council Tax Support consultation deadline

With just one day before the closure of Brent Council's consultation on the Council Tax Support scheme, the Council has only just this afternoon sent out notice of the consultation to Forum and Panel members,

Clearly this is not long enough to consider the quite complex issues involved and with such inadequate publicity and notice the Council must end the consultation.

Any other decision would reveal the consultation as a travesty.

Sarah Teather's full personal statement on her decision not to stand in 2015

In just over a week's time, I shall reach the tenth anniversary of my election to Parliament in the Brent East by-election. I took some time off this summer and found myself reflecting a great deal on the last ten years.
It has been an enormous privilege to serve as an MP in Brent. Indeed, for me personally, so much of the last decade has been both rich and surprising. I am not sure that I would ever have expected to be elected so young, and I certainly never expected that I would have had the opportunity to serve in Government.

The greatest privilege of my work both as a constituency MP and as a Minister has been the gift of being able to share in the private joys and struggles of so many people's lives - many different from one another and very different from my own. I shall always be inspired by the profound courage and dignity I have witnessed in people I have worked with, often in the face of the most extraordinary difficulties.

Of all my parliamentary work, the campaign I remain most proud of is the campaign to get my constituent released from Guantanamo Bay. I shall always count the moment my constituent walked back in through his own front door and picked up his five year-old daughter for the first time in her life as one of the most precious of my life.

In Government, the moment I count as my proudest is the one where I listened to Nick Clegg announce our intention to end the routine detention of children in the immigration system - something I worked hard to deliver, in what, at times, felt an almost insurmountable battle with the Home Office. I feel humbled too to have been able to play my part in delivering the pupil premium to schools and to extend free early education to two year olds, and perhaps the work dearest to my heart, that of reforming the system of support for children with special educational needs.

There have been so many rewards to this work -- too many to list here. But having taken the summer to reflect on the future, I feel now that at the General Election, the right time will be right for me to step aside. I wanted to explain why I have decided not to seek re-election in 2015.

I first joined the party almost exactly twenty years ago, during fresher's week at university. It was then -- and still is now - absolutely inconceivable that I could ever join any other political party. As with most party members, there have always been a few issues where I have disagreed with party policy. But over the last three years, what has been difficult is that policy has moved in some of the issues that ground my own personal sense of political vocation - that of working with and serving the most vulnerable members of society. I have disagreed with both Government and official party lines on a whole range of welfare and immigration policies, and those differences have been getting larger rather than smaller. Disagreements with the party on other areas of policy I have always felt could be managed, but these things are just core to my own sense of calling to politics. I have tried hard to balance my own desire to truthfully fight for what I believe on these issues with the very real loyalty and friendship I feel to party colleagues, but that has created intense pressure, and at times left me very tired. I don't think it is sustainable for me personally to continue to try and do that in the long term.

I want to reassure people in Brent that I shall continue to work very hard to represent them over the next 18 months until the next General Election. My constituency office will remain open five days a week, just as it has always been. I shall be out campaigning for the local elections with my local LibDem team over the forthcoming months and will campaign to get my Liberal Democrat successor elected to Parliament in the General Election. In Parliament I shall continue with my work as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and will carry on making the case for a fair and humane immigration system as Parliament considers a new immigration bill in the coming months.

I hope that I have been able to support and represent the people of Brent well as their MP, but I feel rich beyond measure to have been able to do this work here. I shall always count myself indebted to those who gave me this opportunity to serve - to the thousands of constituents who voted for me and to the many Liberal Democrat supporters and members who campaigned and walked the streets for me over three elections. I hope that, over the last 10 years, I have at least gone some way in repaying the faith that so many have shown in me.

Sarah

1,000 Mothers March for Justice next Saturday

From Taxpayers Against Poverty - your support will be welcomed

At 11am on Saturday April 13th, 2013, London Mothers and their supporting friends and family will march for justice in opposition to the economic hardship being forced upon them by the government’s decision to make low income mothers the prime target for cuts, and they will march for a change to fair and just polices. 

The march is organised by Taxpayers Against Poverty with the support of the Haringey Trades Council, Unions, the  Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic Justice and Peace, United Reformed Church, the National Pensioners Convention, the Turkish, Kurdish and Congalese communities and many local organisations,  

“Mothers claiming benefits suffer for their children. They go without food to feed them and struggle with the misery of rent, council tax and utility arrears. The coalition has added to their financial hardship. There is nothing fair about the current welfare policies. " said the Rev Paul Nicolson

A high proportion of people affected by coalition's welfare policies in Haringey and other parts of London are from black and ethnic minority communities. The policies could lead to greater feelings of powerlessness, alienation and greater social tension which were some of the underlying reasons for the 2011 riots. 

Mothers on the march will be campaigning for justice. It is part of a continuing unrelenting campaign to inject economic justice into the policies of political parties by demanding affordable housing, rent controls, the living wage, benefits linked to prices, full benefits and rights for disabled people, and the recognition of mothering and caring as work. 

No one can understand why families are under attack in this way at the same time as millionaires and corporations are getting tax cuts.

Teather: 'Some families are being targeted over and over again' by welfare changes

This article by Patrick Wintour appears in the Guardian today:

Almost 440,000 families will see their income cut by £16.90 a week as they are hit by both the “bedroom tax” and the changes to council tax benefit, according to research by the New Policy Institute.

The cumulative impact of the welfare changes prompted a former Lib Dem minister, Sarah Teather, to urge the coalition to review its reforms. She said: “My concern is that some families are being targeted over and over again.”

The MP for Brent Central added: “Hitting the same people repeatedly means it adds up to a very significant cut in income. I am not sure how they are supposed to manage, where they are supposed to live, or whether the government has looked at the cumulative impact.”

Her warning came as the chief executive of a leading social housing provider warned some tenants were panicking as the reality of the bedroom tax began to bite.

Research by the New Policy Institute reveals that of the 660,000 families hit by the bedroom tax, or spare room subsidy in ministers’ parlance, 440,000 will have their council tax discount reduced as well. It adds that, on average, this group will be £16.90 worse off a week.

The three main reforms introduced this week are:
• The replacement of council tax benefit by council tax support, estimated to cost 2.4 million families in England an average of £2.60 per week. The coalition says the council tax benefit bill rose by 50% under the last government.
• An under-occupation penalty (commonly known as the bedroom tax) is expected to cost 660,000 families an average of £14 per week. The government says 1.8 million people are on council house waiting lists.
• An overall household benefit cap, set at £500 for a family with children, is expected to affect 56,000 households with an average cut of £93 per week.

In addition there has been a below-inflation rise for those on tax credits and benefits. The NPI estimates a total of 1.3 million families will be affected by the lower-than-inflation benefit uprating, council tax changes and the bedroom tax. It said it had been impossible to calculate precisely which categories of people will also be hit by the absolute cap on housing benefit, due to be introduced later this month in four pilot areas and then phased in nationwide in the autumn.

Teather says the benefit cap is the single reform that worries her most in her north London constituency, adding that larger families are already preparing to move out of the area.
The NPI estimates that around 63% of families affected by one of the cuts are already in poverty. This rises to 67% for those affected by both council tax benefit and the bedroom tax. In total 1.6 million families already in poverty – as officially defined by the government – now have to cope with further reductions in income.

The NPI said: “Three-quarters of those affected are out of work. When their benefits are cut, they do not have other sources of income to fall back on. To someone receiving jobseeker’s allowance of £71.70 a week, even the smallest of these cuts (for council tax) represents a 3.5% drop in disposable income.”
Just under two-thirds of families affected by the bedroom tax include a disabled adult. It has been argued that the bedroom tax is particularly unfair on disabled people who require adapted accommodation. While not all disabled people will require specialised accommodation, the NPI says its figures suggests that the dilemma facing the disabled will not be uncommon.

Meanwhile, the chief executive of social housing provider Riverside – which owns or runs more than 50,000 homes – has also warned of the fear felt by some of its 7,000 tenants affected by the bedroom tax.
In an open letter to David Cameron and Nick Clegg, Carol Matthews warns that “most of those affected are precisely the people government should be helping ‘get on’ rather than ‘get out’”.

Matthews goes on to say that those who will be worst hit are: “Families with teenage children who need their own bedrooms to enable them to study; fathers who have split from their partners and are trying to do the right thing by sharing responsibility for bringing up their children; grandparents who are helping their own children to work by providing low cost childcare for their grandchildren.

“In addition there are the thousands of tenants who are now deemed to be able to share, when the reality is that they need to sleep in separate rooms as a result of disability or illness.

“These are not minor exceptions that can be regulated away, or helped with small amounts of discretionary payments. Rather they illustrate that the line has been drawn in the wrong place.”

Greens call on MPs to vote against 'mean and miserable' Welfare Bill

Together we shout (We are Spartacus)

As the Commons debate welfare benefits and ex Coalition Sarah Teather wields her new found conscience the Green Party has called upon all MPs to reject the coalition’s Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. 

The Bill, which has its Second Reading in Parliament today, would raise benefits by 1% per year until April 2015. The current policy sees benefits rise in line with inflation, and so welfare recipients will have a real-terms cut. 

In the debate Caroline Lucas said that this was 'mean and miserable legislation' by a 'mean and miserable' government.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, said::

MPs are being asked whether they are prepared to deliberately, with all of the facts before them, choose to significantly reduce the living standards of millions of their voters.

 

We can start with the one in five UK workers paid less than a living wage – who either as parents, or as householders, will have been receiving state support to enable them to continue to live. The responsibility should being lying with their employers - if they all paid a living wage the net benefit to the government would be about  £7.5 billion - but the government is showing no inclination to lift the minimum wage to a liveable level, ending the past decades of corporate welfare payments. 

We can also add in the hundreds of thousands of people surviving – not living, but surviving - on the measly sum of £71/week or less in job seekers’ allowance.

And we can add in millions of children. As the Child Poverty Action group says, the Bill can “only increase absolute child poverty, relative child poverty and material deprivation for children”.  Its figures show that having slowly got the rate of child poverty below 20%, the rate is set under this regime to leap back to 25% in a decade.

Not only is the cut immoral, but it is economically illiterate - facing the clear risk of a triple-dip recession, the government is planning to pull millions of pounds out of the pockets of people who, had they received it, would certainly have fed the money back into the economy in buying food, buying energy, and buying services.

The Green Party argues that the only ethical and effective way of reducing social security costs is to create jobs - not slash budgets. 

Natalie said: 

What we need to do in the longer term is change the direction of the British economy – bring manufacturing and food production back to Britain, restore strong, diverse local economies built around small businesses and co-operatives paying decent wages on which their staff can build lives and communities.

That’s a longterm project – but today we can think about the British people – the nurses, the soldiers, the teaching staff, the local government workers, and yes, the unemployed – and say no to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

That’s what Green MP Caroline Lucas will be doing in Westminster today. What’s your MP doing?

Key questions for the anti-cuts movement as councils start budget setting process

Brent Council, along with all other local councils and public sector bodies, are beginning the process of formulating its budget this month.   The anti-cuts movement is faced with what to say to councils as they review their policy in the face of reduced central government funding.

I outline some of the issues below. In the last two Brent by-elections Brent Green Party has stood anti-cuts candidates and the party as a whole has opposed the austerity agenda. However it is no secret that there has been disagreement over the minority Green council in Brighton and Hove, where a 'Purple Coalition' of Labour and Conservative councillors defeated the Green budget. The Greens rather than resigning, decided (with one dissenter) to work with the budget, which has led to the implementation of cuts.

Green Left, of which I am a member, organised a public debate on the situation which was reported in Red Pepper.LINK Romayne Phoenix, a supporter of Green Left, who is Chair of the Coalition of Resistance, stood in the recent leadership election which was won by Natalie Bennett. However, Will Duckworth,  her running mate, won the deputy leadership contest - not on the highest number of votes but because of our rules which require the deputy should be male if the leader is female and vice versa.

I think the main issues are:

1. Probably fundamental - whether local authorities have any real power when most of their funding comes from central government and that has been cut and is to be cut further.  LAs of whatever political complexion end up delivering central government cuts locally and have little room for manoeuvre once statutory services have been provided.
2. Whether devising a 'needs based' budget - either to shape an actual over-spend budget or as a campaigning tool to show the area needs more money than government.funding provides, is a demand we should make.
3.  If it is, how should we go about campaigning for such budgets and what form should consultations with the local community take?
4. Where do we stand on the raising of council taxes when local councils argue that this is the only way to protect vital services. Aren't  council tax rises,  particularly with the changes in council tax benefits, going to cut the disposable income of the poor even more?
5. If we decide that such rises are needed should we be triggering a local referendum on them to bring the cuts right out into open democratic debate?
6. The Brighton Question - the Socialist Party/TUSC are busy 'exposing' Labour (and probably Green) councils who implement cuts and advocating old Militant/Liverpool solutions of setting deficit budgets to defy the Coalition and being taken over by commissioners etc. They are planning to stand TUSC candidates in the local elections and re are busy building their platform now. (See Fightback Facebook http://www.facebook.com/groups/151133068251358/)
7. Recognise that cuts are being passed down the line and that soon school governing bodies will be facing making cuts in staffing (if they have not already done so). What should Green and anti-cuts governors do? (In answer to the question 'Are schools allowed to submit a deficit budget?' Brent Council  has responded 'No. A school that identifies a potential deficit must submit a deficit recovery plan, and work with [the council's] Children and Families Finance department to get formal approval for the deficit and recovery plan'.)
8. How do we build an anti-cuts movement across local authorities involving trade unions, political organisations, voluntary groups,  single issue local campaigns, patient groups, parents, etc?

We are being denied 'rightful access' to funding for day-to-day living - Disabled People Against Cuts

Report from Kate Belgrave.com

I Went down to the Royal Courts of Justice this morning, where an application had been made by members of the Mental Health Resistance Network for permission for a judicial review of the work capability assessment process. A judge was deciding whether or not people with mental health issues should be able to apply for a judicial review of the WCA process. 

Adam Lotun, press spokesperson for Disabled People Against The Cuts, said that Employment and Support Allowance work capability assessments had developed “into a vehicle that is being used to deny people [with disabilities] their rightful access to funding and resources to assist them in their day-to-day living.” 

He said that the other reason for seeking the review was to stop the same damaging process being used to assess people on disability living allowance as DLA is phased out and replaced with the personal independence payment – “we want to stop the killing of the disability living allowance.” 

“These (benefits) were brought in to ensure that people of all different levels would be able to get access to funding, or resources, to enable them to cope and exist with the rest of society. Well, now that’s being taken away from us.”

 Claimants argue that the work capability assessment process discriminates against people with mental health issues.

 Result from the end of the day: Adam Lotun texted to say that: “The judge will give a decision early next week. In closing remarks, the judge said that this is something that involves hundreds and thousands of people,” and that there was concern that people would ultimately fill the court system with individual claims.

Brent faces 'difficult decisions' on Council Tax support

Brent Council will be consulting in June on the level of Council Tax payment for those on benefits. It is likely that many families and individuals will have to pay more.

From the Brent Council website:

The Government is abolishing the Council Tax Benefit scheme and is asking councils to replace it with their own locally run service called Council Tax Support. To ensure we have a scheme that suits our borough Brent is consulting with residents on its proposals. 

As well as having to create a local scheme that is suitable for Brent, the council will also have to work within a budget that has been reduced by ten per cent.  Early estimates suggest this represents an initial reduction of at least £3.5 million, but this gap will increase if the number of people claiming benefit goes up, which already appears to be the trend.  

This shortage in funding means we have to make some difficult decisions about who gets financial support and how much.  

To create a system that is as fair as possible and in line with the needs of the community, Brent Council is putting together proposals for a new system and is consulting with residents to see how you feel this would work in our borough.

• Why is the Council Tax Benefit scheme being abolished?
• What the changes mean
• What happens next? 

Why is the Council Tax Benefit scheme being abolished?

The benefit system is facing a radical over-haul which was kick started back in 2011 with changes to Housing Benefit For the most part reform has meant the amount of money available to councils has been reduced.

At the same time, the Government has introduced the Localism Bill, much of this bill involves the government handing over control of budgets and decision making powers to local councils. One of the many benefits to be affected by these changes is the national Council Tax Benefit scheme which will be replaced by local Council Tax Support in April 2013.

What the changes mean

• Every single council will have their own local Council Tax Support scheme, with its own eligibility criteria.
• Next year Brent will have ten per cent less money for Council Tax Support than it currently spends on Council Tax Benefit.  It will also have to manage what it spends on helping people within this budget, even if more people start to claim benefit.
• The government has specified that certain groups such as pensioners will be  protected and should see no changes to their entitlement - however, it's up to each council to consider whether to protect other groups - and how to fund any extra protections.
• The government wants councils to incentivise people to find work, by making the system support them better when they move into work.

• Brent has to decide whether to change the current rules for claiming Council Tax Benefit in order to operate the new scheme at a lower cost. However, if a council decides to keep the current scheme and continues to assess people as the government does now, then it will have to make cuts to other services in order to make up the reduction in funding.

What happens next?

Consultation starts in June and ends in early August.  A decision - taking account of your feedback for a localised version of the scheme - will be made later in the year.