class war

Government exposed by games over lobbying register

Spread the love

http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/lobbying/item/5530-government-exposed-by-games-over-lobbying-register

By Tamasin Cave

The government’s so-called ‘Lobbying Bill’ has provoked a furious response from charities and unions. They are right to be up in arms. The Bill couples a fake lobbying register with a very real assault on democracy in the form of a clampdown on the ability of charities and unions to campaign.

One consequence of this unannounced swipe at charities and unions in the same Bill is that debate over the proposals for a register of lobbyists have been muted. The very real concerns people have about the influence large companies have on our government have been silenced. The fundamental weaknesses of the current proposals for a register of lobbyists have been eclipsed. The attack on charities and unions is a very useful diversion. It is as if the government planned it.

The game-playing was predictable. Despite its firm commitment to shine a light on lobbying, this government has shown no appetite to expose its dealmaking with lobbyists to public scrutiny.

A brief look at the recent history of the lobbying register exposes how little regard they have for transparency and our right to know who is bending their ear.

<snipped>

May 2010

  • The Coalition commits to tackling lobbying through the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists.
  • More lobbying scandals hit the headlines: Liam Fox resigns over links to lobbyist; agency Bell Pottinger boasts of access to No10; and undue influence of corporations dogs NHS reforms.
  • But no action is taken for nearly two years.

January 2012

  • Senior Conservative Party figures reported as saying that election strategist and lobbyist, Lynton Crosby advised government to drop register of lobbyists from Queen’s Speech.

July 2013

  • Government has had enough and publishes its proposals for a register of lobbyists. They are worse than its previous plans. What they have proposed is a fake register. Government decides to couple this with an attack on charities and unions, which could put them at risk of prosecution and could be in breach of the right to free speech.

If these proposals weren’t so damaging they would be absurd. But what they are is a diversion from the problem sketched out above, which is that commercial lobbying is embedded in our politics.

Ninety per cent of the UK public believe that ‘the country’s government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves‘. Over half of people in the UK think that Parliament is corrupt or extremely corrupt.

The government’s answer to this is to play silly games.

 

 

 

Continue ReadingGovernment exposed by games over lobbying register

Tory marginal MPs facing electoral axe because of NHS crises in their patch

Spread the love

http://www.opendemocracy.net/rachael-maskell/tory-marginal-mps-facing-electoral-axe-because-of-nhs-crises-in-their-patch

by Racheal Maskell

New research from Unite union predicts that the fate of 11 Tory MPs at the 2015 election could be strongly influenced by the rising tide of public concern about the state of the NHS in their areas.

A chill electoral wind is gathering strength. Public anger and revulsion at what the Tories have done to the NHS with their pro-privatisation agenda could end the tenure of David Cameron in Downing Street.

Not one Tory MP voted against the pro-privatisation Health and Social Care Bill. Now, Unite says, the chickens are coming home to roost. Several Tory MPs could lose their marginal seats because of what is happening to the NHS in or near their constituencies.

These include George Eustice, David Cameron’s ex-spin doctor, who has a wafer-thin majority of just 66 in Cambourne and Redruth.

Public health minister Anna Soubry, who was on the committee that scrutinised the bill, is also clinging onto her Nottinghamshire seat of Broxtowe by 389 votes.

New research from Unite union, titled NHS critical in Tory marginals, has highlighted 11 tight marginal seats: Amber Valley, Brighton Kempton, Broxtowe, Cambourne & Redruth, Lancaster & Fleetwood, Lincoln, Morecambe & Lunesdale, North Warwickshire, Sherwood, Thurrock, and Truro & Falmouth.

But don’t just take the word of the country’s largest union.

Tory grandee Lord Ashcroft finances in-depth polling on behalf of the Conservative party.

His latest poll interviewed 12,809 people in the 40 most marginal Tory-held seats between 1 August and 5 September. Interviews were also conducted in seats where Labour and the Liberal Democrats were the runners up in 2010.

The polling revealed that the NHS is the second most important issue for voters after “jobs and the economy.” It’s even more important in the 40 key Tory marginals that Ed Miliband must take back to win a majority.

Labour is ranked twice as likely to improve the NHS as the Tories.

The fact that at least 55,000 people marched through Manchester on the Save our NHS rally at the start of the Conservative party conference on Sunday (29 September) is firm evidence of mounting public concern about the plight of the NHS.

It should not be forgotten that there was no mention of plans for the biggest overhaul of the NHS in the 2010 Tory manifesto. Or that within three months of government the then health secretary, Andrew Lansley, had come up with legislation that is now handing over great swathes of the NHS to the likes of Richard Branson and other private healthcare operators.

The electorate has never wanted to turn over Aneurin Bevan’s 1948 creation – promising universal free healthcare at the point of delivery to all those in need – to the aggressive and predatory instincts of the market.

continues

Continue ReadingTory marginal MPs facing electoral axe because of NHS crises in their patch

Child poverty UK

Spread the love

http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

Child poverty facts and figures

  • There are 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four.1
  • 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.2
  • Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Two-thirds (66 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a family where at least one member works.3
  • 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.4
  • Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For example, 61 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.5
  • Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier peers.6 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.7
  • Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at least £29 billion a year.8 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 1998/9-2011/12 when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty (BHC).9 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 600,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16.10 This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.7 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020.

 

  • 1. Households Below Average Income, An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 : 2011/12, Tables 4.1tr and 4.3tr. Department for Work and Pensions, 2013
  • 2. Child Poverty Map of the UK, End Child Poverty, March 2011
  • 3. Households Below Average Income, An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 : 2011/12, Table 4.3db. Department for Work and Pensions, 2013
  • 4. For example, G Hay and L Bauld, Population estimates of problematic drug users in England who access DWP benefits, Department for Work and Pensions, 2008, suggest that 6.6 per cent of the total number of benefit claimants in England were problem drug users. While drug misuse may prove to be a key reason this group of people finds it hard to escape poverty, it clearly has no explanatory power for the other 93.4 per cent of claimants.
  • 5. Households Below Average Income, An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 : 2011/12, Table 4.7 db. Department for Work and Pensions, 2012
  • 6. GCSE and Equivalent Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England 2009/10, Department for Education 2011
  • 7. Life expectancy at birth and at the age of 65 by local areas in the UK, 2004-6 and 2008-10, Office of National Statistics, October 2011
  • 8. D Hirsch, Estimating the costs of child poverty, 2013
  • 9. Households Below Average Income, An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 – 2011/2, Department for Work and Pensions, 2013
  • 10. J Browne, A Hood and R Joyce, Child and working age poverty in Northern Ireland, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2103

 

Continue ReadingChild poverty UK

ATOS DWP appeal :: How to Appeal

Spread the love

The sequel to an earlier article ATOS DWP appeal :: How it works, this article suggests ways of appealing against ATOS and DWP decisions that disabled people do not have limited capability for work. A final article describes the appeal hearing.

Citizens Advice Bureaus, Welfare Rights Officers, Legal Advice Centres are all overwhelmed by the demand for their services. It is very unlikely that anybody is able to help you. You have to do it yourself with the help of a few friends, family or colleagues. This is where being a member of some group helps.

There are now many resources on the web e.g. this one. If you’re not able to use the web yourself, ask somebody who can. For previous decisions just enter the reference into a search engine.

Once you’re told that you’ve been found to have failed the Work Capabilities Assessment you have a month to appeal. The article linked above gives good advice on a general request for appeal. Also ask for reasons for the decision if they have not been sent with the decision.

When the bundle (the Decision Maker’s response) arrives you need to go through it carefully. It’s detective work piecing together the arguments employed.

I personally find that missing documents are very revealing – it’s worth being suspicious of the Decision Maker instead of assuming that they’re absent accidentally. In my friend’s bundle two documents are missing: the notification of the decision with reasons attached and a simple sick note by my clients GP that accompanied her request for appeal.

There are many errors in the missing notification letter e.g. stating that you need to score 15 points and therefore providing misleading legal advice on the issue of exceptional circumstances. However, I think that the real issue is that there is a list of descriptors – admittedly with inaccurate, summarised descriptors – which is both helpful to the claimant and highlights quite clearly one descriptor which should have but has not even been considered.

The missing simple sick note is missing because it’s medical evidence from a qualified, experienced GP that is familiar with my client’s condition that has a named medical diagnosis. The Decision Maker is supposed to consider all evidence. To include this document would highlight the fact that the Decision Maker has totally disregarded my client’s GP’s medical evidence without providing any justification or reasoning.

My client has been awarded 6 points for having to raise from being seated because of significant discomfort or fatigue after 15 minutes. The Decision Maker agrees with Atos Health Care Professional that my client can sit for between 30 and 60 minutes without having to move because of significant discomfort or fatigue despite having to move after 15 minutes! This is what you’re up against.

That should be 9 points not 6.

Looking at the HCP’s descriptions of my clients abilities we notice that she should have been – but has not been – awarded 6 points for failing to raise either arm above head height.

Then there’s 9 points for failing to climb two steps with the help of a handrail. Hold on, it says my client can climb two steps where there are two handrails. How many steps or stairs do you see with two handrails? The descriptor’s definition is a handrail, that’s one handrail not two. They have these definitions to be precise.

The score so far looks like 9 + 6 + 9 = 24. That’s 9 more than the 15 needed and this is on Atos’s medical report as it stands. I wonder why the Decision Maker didn’t notice this – he is trained, professional and experienced after all. Perhaps he just didn’t notice by accident again?

What really pisses my client off is that she’s been awarded nothing for mobility (moving with or without a manual wheelchair or other aid on a level surface). The Decision Maker has decided that she can repeatedly walk 200 metres without stopping because of significant discomfort or fatigue). The distances vary: less than 50 metres, 50 to a 100 metres and 100 to 200 metres. Over 200 metres repeatedly is nothing. This is the same descriptor as the steps so the 9 for the steps would go if she was awarded 9 or above.

My client’s problem is that she completed the ESA50 very poorly with many “It varies” and incomplete lengthy answers to questions. For the walking she’s said it varies but then failed to say why she had to stop to rest. The Decision Maker should have asked for clarification but for some unknown reason decided instead that she had absolutely no problem repeatedly walking over 200 metres. The reasons for this? She drives a manual car and shops at a supermarket!

So at the appeal we have to point out that my client’s right hand side is her weak side, the side that she really has trouble with and manual cars have clutches and gearboxes on their left hand sides. We will also be pointing out that it’s a very small supermarket involving about 100 metres walking accompanied by a friend who does the reaching and emptying of the shopping trolley at the checkout, the packing of bags, loading and unloading of car, etc and that it doesn’t really indicate that you can walk 200 metres without stopping because of significant discomfort or fatigue because when you go shopping you are continually stopping. This is not rocket science is it?

As I mentioned earlier the Decision Maker has not considered my client’s GP’s evidence preferring BS like this instead. I also said that my client had answered the ESA50 badly with many “it varies”. Look at what my client’s GP says: “VERY VARIABLE SYMPTOMS, SOMETIMES COMPLETELY IMMOBILIZED” and “SEVERE BACK PAIN ON BAD DAYS IMMOBILISED”. There is more but I don’t expect any real problems at appeal.

 

 

Continue ReadingATOS DWP appeal :: How to Appeal