Saturday, 6 April 2013

Natalie Bennett delivers a dose of reality on welfare

 Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader, posted this article on the Huffington Post yesterday:

The government's stated aim in introducing the bedroom tax, in slashing of council tax benefit that forms a new poll tax, in ending of Disability Living Allowance and making a host of other benefit cuts is to 'make work pay'. That's utterly detached from the reality of the lives of the people that this cabinet of millionaires is airily playing with - and it's time to end this fantasy land politics.

Just start with the fact that the smaller social homes that the bedroom tax sufferers are supposed to move into simply don't exist. And as many have pointed out, the jobs that the government is telling benefit recipients to 'go out and get' also don't exist - 2.5 million people, 7.8% of the workforce, are looking for jobs, and there are about half a million vacancies.

In gross terms there are around five people chasing each job. Of course on the ground it is often much worse than that - when a new Tesco opened in Tynemouth there were more than 70 applicants for each of a handful of posts; when a new Costa opened in Nottingham, there were 1,700 applications for about eight jobs.
But even for those lucky enough to beat odds like these, the government is undercutting its stated aim - for it emerged yesterday that it is considering cutting the already seriously inadequate minimum wage. This at a time when inflation is again continuing to slash away at the already limited spending power of those at the bottom of society.

That's not 'making work pay'. In fact it's making living even less viable for millions.

And of course lots of those jobs being advertised are only part-time - not enough hours to satisfy Iain Duncan-Smith, who is pushing on with plans to 'force' low-paid workers to work more hours, ignoring the fact that one in 10 workers want more hours, but are unable to get them.

More than that, many of the jobs, particularly with larger companies, don't even offer regular hours. The cancer of zero-hours contracts is spreading fast - workers being treated like robots on a production line - machines to be switched on and off at the convenience of corporate profits. But robots don't need to pay the rent, to buy food, to heat their homes - and zero-hours contracts offer no guarantee of the ability to do any of those essential things - to make work liveable, let alone make it pay.

It's past time to say enough. To point out that, after Hans Christian, this is a Cabinet that is wearing no clothes. (Apologies to anyone eating while reading for that image.) David Cameron, George Osborne and Iain Duncan-Smith seem determined to ignore reality. In their fantasy world the economy is recovering, a few handfuls of multi-national companies, mostly employing minimum-wage workers on zero-hours contracts, can be the basis of a healthy economy around which communities can be built, people with severe long-term disabilities and illnesses can find jobs and live without public support.

It's time to deliver a dose of reality. A good start's been made by the more than 350,000 people who have told Iain Duncan Smith to try living on £53 a week. UK Uncut is also planning action on April 13 that will bring home to reality of eviction to more Cabinet ministers. But we need to go further. We need to deliver a message to every Cabinet member, every member of this fantasy land government. These are real lives they are playing with - real lives they are destroying.

We do need to make work pay, but we need to do that by ensuring every job pays at least a living wage, is stable and secure - is a job that you can build a life on, a job you can pay the rent and pay the bills on. And we need to provide benefits - decent benefits - that allow those who don't have their jobs to have a decent life.

James Powney: Catherine West 'very inspiring'

Catherine West
As the contest for Labour's nomination for Brent Central heats up Cllr James Powney posted this about one of the possible candidates on his blog yesterday.LINK  He didn't mention the Brent Central contest but Catherine West seems to have gained a fan.
I went to hear the very inspiring Catherine West, Leader of Islington Council, speak last night at a meeting in Kensal Green.  Although Islington is very different to Brent (for instance, in the amount of social housing), I am sure we could learn much from both their policies and campaign techniques.
West was recently awarded 'Council Leader of the Year' by the Local Government Information Unit and praised as a 'doer and thinker'.

Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North)  congratulated her:
Congratulations Catherine on your prorities of social justice and making our borough a better place. Well deserved award for your wonderfully inclusive approach to dealing with all the issues that face us!

Friday, 5 April 2013

(Another) Open Letter to Fairview Homes: When is enough enough?


Guest Blog from Save The Queensbury Group. The Queensbury Pub in Willesden Green has been bought by developers who plan to demolish it and build flats.


 Dear Fairview Homes: when is enough enough?
 
When 3000 people petition against your plans, is that enough for you to think you may have underestimated local feeling?

When the Leader of Brent council waxes lyrical about the services The Queensbury offers is that enough to realise you didn’t appreciate what you bought a year ago – i.e. not just a pub?

When the area’s biggest resident association surveys its members, meets to hear your changes in response to criticism, but still objects formally to Brent council - isn’t that enough to realise you do not have any community support?

When The Wanted, DJ Sara Cox, the local MP, the local GLA member, local Councillors and the former Mayor of London all oppose your plans do you not think you may struggle to get these accepted?

When 450 thoughtful, eloquent objections are lodged on Brent’s planning site isn’t that enough to appreciate The Queensbury is a valued amenity?

When other pubs in London and England have been saved by recent changes to legislation didn’t your experts suggest The Queensbury would not be so straightforward?

When you decided not to consult pub users or Busy Rascals on your plans last summer did you really not know they existed? Or were you reluctant to hear their views?

When you fuel rumours about the viability of a pub on the site, but when challenged (and the pub clarifies it is thriving) you cannot offer any information to substantiate your claims, isn’t that enough to appreciate the community is not stupid?

When you claim community support for your scheme (based on 22 comments at your consultation) but when challenged you hide behind “Data Protection Legislation” as a reason to not publish these comments, isn’t that just a bit weird?

When you lodge a plan with Brent Council but stall a decision for 6 months because you know it will be refused, isn’t that enough to go back to the drawing board and devise a scheme that keeps the pub but perhaps makes you less profit?

When you attempt to pacify the locals by offering a broom cupboard as a replacement community space did you really think this would be accepted as a substitute for the potential loss of The Queensbury? And did you seriously think that your lack of profit would be accepted by locals as a reason to demolish the pub?

When is enough negative media coverage, which continually damages your company’s reputation, enough to work with the community rather than against it?

Fairview Homes: tell us, when is enough enough?


http://savethequeensbury.info

Butt vows to go full-out on Central Middlesex A&E campaign


Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, has told Labour Group members that he is determined to get behind the campaign to Save Central Middlesex Accident and Emergency.

Butt and some of his colleagues took part in the Brent Fightback march against the closure but they cited lack of Liberal Democrat and Conservative support as the reason they could not take an official Brent Council stand on the issue. They claimed this  meant that they could not mount a campaign such as that by Ealing Council that mobilised thousands of the local population.

In addition Brent Council's Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee failed to take a strong stand in defence of the A&E, accepting many of the arguments for closure, and then defeated a motion to join Ealing Council to refer back the reorganisation.

Butt now wants to take a much stronger position and has challenged his colleagues to give him full backing.The issue has already been mentioned by several of the candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary candidate nomination.

The leadership of Brent Labour will again be up for challenge at the May Annual General Meeting. A challenge to Butt's leadership fizzled out in February when his opponents were unable to muster enough support to table a no confidence vote.