Starbucks versus Sure Start and women's services- the protest

I accuse the Coalition of knowingly increasing child poverty

Blurb of 'Born to Fail?' 1973

A month or so ago during morning play at a local primary school a 5 year old boy came up to me, rubbing his stomach looking at me with pleading eyes, and saying 'I'm hungry'.

Sympathetic school staff  found some biscuits and fruit to keep him going until dinner time. Apparently it wasn't the first time he had made that appeal. 

Inevitably schools are the first to see the direct impact of economic pressure on families, not just hunger but inadequate clothing, worn out shoes, tiredness caused by lack of sleep through living in one room in a bed and breakfast or shared housing. We are also seeing children disappearing from the school roll as they are rehoused out of London away from family and support systems.

Although the Coalition is keen to shift the blame on to 'work shy' families, fecklessness and dependency culture in an effort to divide and rule the working class, the truth is that 62% of children currently in poverty have one working parent. However the Coalition  seem determined to punish children for the perceived sins of their parents.

Coalition policies including the Housing Benefit cap, the Universal Benefit cap, and the move to restrict child benefit to the  first two children, will reduce disposable income and thus amount available to buy food.

The Coalition are taking food out of children's mouths.

There has been some progress recently in closing the gap in educational achievement between the poor and the rich, a gap so vividly illustrated by the National Children's Bureau in 'Born to Fail' in 1973. More recently the Child Poverty Action Group has listed the impact of child poverty:

• There are 3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four.
• There are even more serious concentrations of child poverty at a local level: in 100 local wards, for example, between 50 and 70 per cent of children are growing up in poverty.
• Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one member works.
• People are poor for many reasons. But explanations which put poverty down to drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdown, poor parenting, or a culture of worklessness are not supported by the facts.
• Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For example, 62 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week a year.
• Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier peers. Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower earnings over the course of a working life.
• Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average, eight years longer than unskilled workers.
• Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at least £25 billion a year. Governments forgo prospective revenues as well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they fail to address child poverty in the here and now.
• Child poverty reduced dramatically between 1998/9-2010/12 when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty (BHC).This reduction is credited in large part to measures that increased the levels of lone parents working, as well as real and often significant increases in the level of benefits paid to families with children.
• Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 300,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16.This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.2 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020.

The last Labour government pledged to reduce child poverty with some limited success and the goal was supposed to have cross-party support. Clearly the Coalition is going in the opposite direction.

'Born to Fail' in 1973 concluded:

...if it is accepted that many parents are expected to cope with impossible burdens and that their material circumstances provide a major contribution to those burdens then there is much to be said for tackling  more earnestly the poor housing and low income that our study has revealed, Arguably it could eliminate a large part of many families' difficulties. And on humanitarian grounds alone large numbers of children need a better chance to grow, develop, learn and live that they currently received...

Are we more interested in a bigger national cake so that some children get a bigger slice eventually - or are we ready for disadvantaged children to have a bigger slice now even if as a result our personal slice is smaller. 

How many of our pleasures are bought at the expense of the disadvantaged.

It is not just the immediate hunger that a child might feel today but the way that will affect their life chances in terms of education attainment, health and income. For society it raises questions about polarisation, alienation, disaffection and conflict.

In 2011 the Institute for Fiscal Studies in Child and Working Age Poverty 2010-2014 modelling the changes ahead in welfare and fiscal policy concluded:

The results therefore suggest that there can be almost no chance of eradicating child poverty - as defined in the Child Poverty Act - on current government policy.

 

Although this project did not assess what policies would be required in order for child poverty to be eradicated, it is impossible to see how relative child poverty could fall by so much in the next 10 years without changes to the labour market and welfare policy, and an increase in the amount of redistribution performed by the tax and benefit system, both to an extent never before seen in the UK. IFS researchers have always argued that the targets set in the Child Poverty Act were extremely challenging, and the findings here confirm that view. It now seems almost incredible that the targets could be met, yet the government confirmed its commitment to them earlier this year, in its first Child Poverty Strategy, and remains legally-bound to hit them.

There is no shortage of evidence about the damage that is currently being done and that will increase over the next few years.  The only conclusion I can reach is that the Coalition  is prepared to see children suffer as they pursue their aim to destroy the welfare state.

Harlesden incinerator plans put on hold

The Brent and Kilburn Times is reporting that the application for an incinerator at Willesden Junction have been put on hold by Ealing Council. This follows a letter from HS2 regarding their need for the proposed site.

How the poor will be hit by Council Tax Support scheme

The Special Meeting of Brent Council on Monday will be making decisions on the new Council Tax Support scheme that will leave many residents worse off. This follows the Coalition handing implementation of the schemes to local councils whilst at the same time reducing the money available by at least 10%.

The overall result in Brent is that residents who used to receive Brent will now generally  have to pay double the contribution to Council Tax that they used to pay.   These residents will also be hit by other benefit changes including the Housing Benefit cap and the Universal Benefit cap. 24,604 residents will be affected by the changes which can only have the effect of pushing more people into poverty.

The following table gives an overall picture but the full document needs to be read for detail on excemptions and the means-testing involved.
 

Description of deduction	Amount of weekly deduction 2012/13	Proposed weekly CTS scheme deduction	Annual change in 2013/14
Adult in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit or savings credit	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult in receipt of employment support allowance (income related) main or assessment phase	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult in receipt of job seekers allowance (contribution based) or employment support allowance (contributed based)	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Gross income of adult  in remunerative work is less than £183	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £183 but less than £316	£6.55	£13.10	£340.60
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £316 but less than £394	£8.25	£16.50	£429.00
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £394	£9.90	£19.80	£514.80
Adult in receipt if job seekers allowance (income based)	Nil	£6.60	£343.20
Adult in receipt of income support	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult working less than 16 hours per week or is on maternity, paternity, adoption or sick leave	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Any other adult not included in the above descriptions	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60

There are likely to be difficulties concerning collection of council tax where resident are already financial pressed or where they have not paid anything before.

A second decision that the Full Council will have to make is on changing the amount of tax paid on empty properties. Owners of such properties will now have to pay more Council Tax and in the case of long-term empty homes this could be a 150% tax after two years.

These are the proposals set out in the report:
 

• Class A empty properties (requiring major repairs or undergoing structural alterations) – reduce the current 100% exemption to 50% discount for the first twelve months.

• Class C empty properties (vacant and substantially unfurnished) – reduce the current 100% exemption to zero so that the owners of such properties pay 100% of their Council Tax liability with immediate effect from the date of vacation.

• Second Homes – Remove the current 10% discount so that owners of such properties pay 100% of their Council Tax liability

• Long term empty properties – charge a 50% premium after they have been empty and unfurnished for 2 years so that the Council Tax liability for such properties is 150% (after two years).

This is the full report:

 

Local press continue to hold Brent Council to account

Following my recent posting on the importance of the local press in ensuring the accountability of councillors and the counter claim that the BKT was too close to the council, it was heartening to see the front page of the newspaper this week. LINK

Clearly the BKT is continuing to dig up stories that ensure resident know what is really  going on in the Town Hall.

The Wembley and Willesden Observer also has a story this week about the importance of the local press with post-Leveson comments from campaigners about the part local newspapers have played in enabling them to put their message across.

McDonnell: Let's form a national coalition against poverty

John McDonnell MP has sent the following open letter to his Labour colleagues:

Dear Colleague,

Proposed Welfare Benefits Bill

As you know, Osborne announced that the Coalition is to bring forward before Christmas a Bill to sanction the cuts in welfare benefits set out in yesterday’s autumn statement.

We all know that there is no need for primary legislation to implement these cuts and that this is his crude and blatantly cynical attempt to lay what he considers will be a political trap for Labour.

In his crude political terms, his obvious aim is to be able to claim that if Labour votes against or abstains on his Bill then we are on the side of the so called skivers whilst the Tories are the champions of the strivers. If we do vote for the Bill he will then cite our vote as support for his attack on benefits.

Like many right wing politicians over the years, when their policies are demonstrably failing they reach for a scapegoat. It’s often the poor simply because they haven’t the power to defend themselves.

I believe that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be dragged into the gutter of politics by Osborne’s exploitation of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Instead of falling for this grubby trap us let’s take them on, on this issue.

If we have the courage and behave astutely, we could turn this cynical ploy by Osborne into an opportunity for us to transform the debate on the issues of welfare, poverty, unemployment and fairness in our society.

 

This means stop all hesitation on this matter and making it clear now that we are not voting for this cynical attack on the poorest, which includes cutting benefits to many people in work and struggling to survive on low pay and often poverty wages.

It means saying now that we are taking the Tories on, on the issue of fairness. Nobody, especially ordinary working people, likes a skiver but there are mechanisms that can deal with this and if they need improving well let’s have that debate. The fact is that it is becoming increasingly obvious to our people that it is the rich and wealthy, who are ripping us off with tax dodging. It is equally becoming obvious whose side the Tories are on.

Let’s seize upon this opportunity to highlight the real facts about the hardship that so many of our people are facing. Most of our community are under pressure. Many are only a couple of pay packets away from a life on the edge. Many others have tipped over into debt and poverty.

Let’s turn the tables on Osborne and use this opportunity to expose this reality and offer our alternative of a fair tax system and investment for growth led employment.

Let’s get out there and build the coalition of all those people and organisations who are willing to speak out on what is happening to our people. That means nationally and locally bringing together not just all the charities and campaigning organisations that take an interest in poverty and welfare but all the churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, community organisations and anyone with a conscience on this issue.

Let’s lead in forming a new national coalition against poverty and those who attack the poor.

Let’s enlist the support of people from all walks of life, including artists and performers, in the same way we did in the fight against the prejudice of the Nazis against black people and ethnic minorities.

In many ways it’s the same struggle against prejudice mobilised by cynical politicians.

It should start though by making it clear immediately that we are not playing Osborne’s cynical political games. We are not voting for his cuts to the poor.

Yours ,

John McDonnell MP

Greens' alternative to 'cuts at all costs'

The Green Party is calling for positive economic policies instead of the Coalition’s dogmatic, self-perpetuating and failed “cut at all costs” approach.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said:

We reject this government’s self-defeating and contradictory approach of trying to cut its way to growth while providing tax giveaways to large corporations, including environmentally and socially destructive fossil fuel companies.

And we reject its inhuman and inhumane pressure on the poorest in society - households with members in work and those without - with non-pensioner benefits restricted to real-term decreases (below inflation, 1% increases) for the next three years. That’s £3.7bn being squeezed from people whose lives are often already insecure and desperate.

One certainty George Osborne has ensured is that the foodbank “industry” is going to become a permanent feature in Coalition Britain, the world’s seventh-wealthiest economy.

Britain needs to invest in environmentally-positive, jobs-creating policies, rather than using the UK’s historically unremarkable debt to GDP ratio to justify slashing state expenditure and further tax cuts for the wealthiest.

A Green government would immediately invest the £4bn windfall from the 4G phone spectrum auction and the £35 billion quantitative easing surplus to create jobs in low-carbon infrastructure and in sectors such as renewable energy, energy-efficiency, low-carbon finance and manufacturing and in our contracting construction sector. The Green New Deal group has called for green quantitative easing to fund solar PV, insulation and other efficiency schemes that could create 140,000 jobs.

Despite Osborne’s best efforts to hold them back, green industries are already providing essential goods and services that we need - from insulation to clean power from wind turbines - having contributed over 9% of UK GDP in 2011 - yet they retain enormous job creation potential.

The Green Party would  ‘reboot’ the tax system to ensure that wealthy individuals and multinational companies pay their fair share, levelling the playing field for small businesses that are currently paying their taxes and struggling to compete against the tax-avoiding business giants.

Ms Bennett said:

Our reformed tax system would replace council tax and business rates with a land value tax, a wealth tax to recover some of the gains from those who benefited from the boom years and have surfed unscathed through the bust. Furthermore, we would end tax relief on private pensions, putting the savings into a Citizens’ Pension that would immediately lift all pensioners out of poverty.

There would be a financial transaction tax to discourage casino-style financial trading, moves to force transparency in the books of multinational corporations and a genuine, effective crackdown on tax avoidance.

And it is difficult to have faith in the Chancellor’s announcement of new infrastructure projects, as his government announced a similar scheme in 2010, which has actually delivered a decrease in spending on construction. The government has also delivered just £750m of a £5bn expenditure it promised for public works at last year’s Autumn Statement.

Natalie added:

In recreating the failed PFI schemes of the last Labour government, this government is repeating its predecessor’s mistakes and announcing headline projects that are unlikely to be delivered. According to the Office for National Statistics, we already have future PFI liabilities of £144bn. Renegotiations that have saved £2.5bn are small beer in comparison.

A Green government would provide genuine government investment in the new schools and transport infrastructure that we need. What we don’t need is spending on new roads, an action shown to simply move congestion from one place to another.

Power from Pee process invented by schoolgirls