Terminal cruelty of the political class: report from Garston bedroom tax meeting

To Garston, now, where South Liverpool Combat The Bedroom Tax has organised a tenants’ meeting in the small hall of the Methodist church hall on Banks Street. There is a big turnout of local tenants, as there generally has been at these meetings – probably about 50 people on a freezing night for this first Garston meeting which was advertised mostly with leaflets and posters.

Once everyone’s in, there’s standing room only at the back. Two organisers, Jane Calveley and Adrian Gibbons, sit up front to answer questions and to explain how people in Dingle and Bootle are organising against the tax in their areas. The idea is for people for people to take leaflets away and get their groups going themselves, free of top-down structures and/or nefarious external political opportunists. Preserving that part of the scene could be a challenge in itself now that Labour is thrashing around trying to find the centre of it. I do sometimes wonder if there’ll be much left by the end of that.

Most of the people at this meeting are older – probably in their 40s, 50s and 60s. There are long-term tenants: people say they’ve been 30 years in a house, or 20 years, or “I’ve lived in the same house all my life” – statements like that. This post is a basic report of the sorts of questions that people asked and the topics the meeting canvassed. Some of the questions will appear incomplete: the bedroom tax is an inexact perversion and people had obviously heard things, or bits of information and were trying to find out the full story with their questions. I talked to a number of people at this meeting and at Monday’s one at St Bride’s as well and will write a more detailed piece soon.

Suffice to say for now that the bedroom tax is one of the most inhuman, backward-looking policies I’ve yet heard proposed and anyone who thinks it has merit in any form ought to be imprisoned permanently. They’re taunting people with homelessness, for god’s sake. That’s all this is. It is news to nobody that this “policy” will largely be undeliverable – you’ll see from this report that people are already being told smaller homes are not available and tenants, who are often already struggling financially, just won’t have the money to pay for “spare” rooms. That became very obvious as the evening rolled on. The tax does nothing to address homelessness, or housing shortages. It is there purely to inspire loathing of tenants and terror in tenants themselves. Which is why people are braving the rain and the cold to turn out to these meetings – meetings that have been growing across Liverpool in the last month or so, I might add. More attention should be paid to them.

I’m withholding names for now.

———–

The meeting begins with an older man at the back asking the question that people have asked at all the meetings and protests I’ve attended to date: “Why aren’t the (Liverpool city) councillors here now?” he says. “Where’s the councillors now?” There is plenty of murmuring when he puts that one out. There’s a message is coming through loud and clear here and Labour councillors want to wake up to it. Babblings from recently-annointed anti-bedroom tax warrior Liam Byrne don’t appear to be doing much to reassure people who are actually going through all this. They want to know where people are now.

Calveley knows where the councillors where, as do a number of us who have spent the afternoon at a protest outside Liverpool Town Hall. “They’re passing the council budget cuts in the town hall,” she says. “That’s where we’ve been before we come here.”

“There’s not one of them here,” the elderly man says angrily.

There’s a big meeting now where they’re passing all the cuts,” Calveley says grimly.  Around the room, people shake their heads at that news. Nobody is impressed. It is telling, to say the very least, that councillors would still rather be seen at a meeting where they’re cutting services than at a meeting where they could be saving them.

We move on.

“The councils and the housing associations should work with tenants groups, trade unions and all the bedroom tax campaigns that are springing up all over the country to build more homes,” Calveley says. “I’m actually talking council housing. Now, I’m going to open it up to the meeting.”

“I applied for a one bedroom house and I was told there is no one bedroom houses, or flats, in the whole of Liverpool,” says an older woman who is sitting just behind me. “So, if I want to get to a smaller property, I’d have to go out of Liverpool. But all my family live in Liverpool – so where would that leave me? I don’t drive – so where would that leave people like me?

Another woman asks if it is true that there is a cap on housing benefit for pensioners who are on pension credit if they “went private to a one bedroom flat….so you’ve had to spend your pension money to make that up…is that right?”

A man who says he is 56, unemployed and living in the three-bedroom flat that he’s lived in all his life asks straight out: “What happens if you can’t afford it [the tax]?”

“That’s why people have to fight it,” a woman says, “because people can’t afford it. They can’t afford it, literally.”

“Can you get your house taken from you?” the man asks. Everyone reacts to this: there’s shuffling and murmuring as soon as he says it.

“They can’t just kick you out,” says a woman who has come from the Dingle group to share information at this meeting. “They have to go through a process.”

The first man – the one who’d asked where councillors were – asks if there is a reason why housing associations shouldn’t pick up the bill. “You pay rent,” he says furiously. “It’s not even your flat, or your house. It’s their house – so why not let them pay [the shortfall between rent and the tax]?”

“They’re not going to pay,” an elderly woman at the back of the room says.

“Well, why not?” the man asks. “You’ve got to stand up for this stuff.”

“They won’t pay it,” says the woman from the Dingle group. “I asked them. I said – you can refuse to implement it. What they’re saying is that they know that you are poverty-stricken, but they still want their money.”

The woman who said she’d been she’d have to leave Liverpool to find a small flat asks how much money Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson earns. Various figures are suggested. I find these myself and the figures people talk about are close to those. All get a hostile reaction.

Another man at the back of the room says that he’d been to see Citizens’ Advice about the tax a couple of weeks ago. “The lad behind the counter was telling me like – it’s not just you. There are thousands like you.”

A woman asks a question about legal aid. She’s concerned that people’s chances of fighting the tax and eviction through the courts might be affected by cuts to legal aid funding. “You know how legal aid is being cut – so what happens to people wishing to fight it in the courts? Like this lady said before – she is prepared to move, but they can’t give her [a one-bedroom house in Liverpool]. Surely that makes it their problem, not hers? If this went to court, what representation would this lady get? With legal aid?”

“The people of Liverpool fought against the poll tax,”says the older man at the back. “If we can do that, we can do this. It’s only the Tories who would think of this, though. Next it will be – you’ve got too many windows.”

Bedroom size is discussed in detail, as it has been around the country. A number of people ask how big a room must be for classification as a bedroom. The figure everyone discusses is 70 square feet – “so one thing everybody can do really practically is measure your bedrooms,” people say.

“So, if it’s a boxroom – they can’t charge bedroom tax on a boxroom?”

“You need to measure it.”

“One of the things that we’ve been talking about in Dingle is getting letters made up to send back to people to say – you can say this isn’t a spare bedroom. It isn’t big enough,” the woman from the Dingle group says. (This is, just by the way, one of the aspects of the whole wreck that I find most upsetting: the thought of all these people – a lot of them older, as I say – being put in a position where they must grovel round on all fours with tape-measures for the pleasure of rich Tories. There’s something about that image which doesn’t sit well with me at all).

There is a lot of concern raised about getting into debt, or more debt: “Can they do like they do on the council tax – when they send you letters and you’re paying them money and it’s going up and up and up (as court costs and fines are added)?” one woman asks. “If you have that and the tax on top? Does it build up if you’re waiting for appeal?”

An older woman asks if people are allowed to take in lodgers now – there is confusion about the rules for subletting. “Also, if you were to go into private housing, what is the most benefit that they will pay you?”

A man asks if benefits will be docked if bedroom tax payments can’t be met: “you know with the council tax, they can take the money from your benefits. Could this happen with the housing one?”

It is appalling stuff and it goes on and on. There’s not enough time for everyone’s questions.

It becomes very clear that people here are in an impossible situation with the tax. After the meeting, I speak at length with the 56-year-old man who is out of work and on the brink of a battle to stay in the house he grew up in. He says that the house has three rooms, but one has never been used as a bedroom, because it is too small. He and his mother only ever used it for storage.

“The way I look at it – because of the fact that you claim housing benefit, you get a slap in the face for it. I sign on every two weeks. It’s not easy to find work. I get about £130 a fortnight and I think the bedroom tax will cost about £40 a fortnight – that has to come out of jobseekers. I said to them – this is going to be hard like. I find it hard at the moment to pay for the food. I haven’t got that 40 quid.”

Anyway.

How many bedrooms have MPs’ flipped houses got on average?

Ealing council, austerity and people with learning disabilities

Update 15 February 2013:

Utter chaos last night as Ealing’s overview and scrutiny committee considered the cabinet’s 22 January decision to close two important services for people with learning difficulties – the Learning Curve training-to-employment service and the Stirling Road daycentre. I haven’t seen such a shambles for a while, which is saying something in this cuts environment.

There was outrage as the chair tried to restrict a presentation by speakers from the Power Group – a group made up of people with learning difficulties who the council is specifically supposed to negotiate with – to three minutes. (By startling contrast, the chair later told members of the public off for not giving director of adult services Stephen Day adequate chance to speak when he was rattling on about the “savings” these closures will purportedly achieve).

In the end, people from the Power Group got five minutes or so to state their concerns about the closures and the shoddy manner in which they’d been “consulted” about the council’s plans, before they were hurried off stage. That was as repulsive as anything I’ve seen. Everyone should be entitled to speak and if people need a bit longer, they should get that. Everyone who has something to say should have the chance to say it.

People were trying to say that they didn’t approve of the closure decision, didn’t feel they’d been given anything like enough time to consider it (“we were told about it, but we weren’t told about it until it was too late” said one speaker), were worried about the overwhelmingly negative response to the closures from people who use the services and their families, and felt the council had often failed to provide the large-print and illustrated explanatory literature that some people require. They should have been given an hour to speak if they’d wanted it. That would certainly have beat hearing from Stephen Day ad infinitum. The whole thing was an absolute wreck.

Unions revealed that people at Learning Curve and Stirling Road and their families had been given even less notice and time to consider the closures than staff – about 25 days, it was said. There were gasps as it became clear that the council had yet to formally needs-assess people who attended Learning Curve to confirm the personal budgets they’ll be entitled to – and horror as speakers confirmed that up to 100 people who attend Learning Curve won’t be entitled to paid support or services at all.

As I note in the post below this update, the council claims in cabinet papers that after closure, it will “provide individual budgets for all eligible customers. People will be able to choose either a council-managed or cash-budget option and will be offered professional guidance and advice to develop their support plans, and arrange their services.” The very big problem with this is that a lot of people won’t meet the council’s criteria for “eligible customers.” According to the council’s own cabinet reports (page 3, point 2.6.5), at least 96 of the 144 people at Learning Curve won’t be eligible. Some live out of the borough and will need to apply to their own local boroughs for support. Others who live in the borough won’t be eligible, because their needs won’t be considered serious enough. This is crucial. Many people who attend Learning Curve have, or will be, placed in the Moderate or Low needs categories when the council assesses them against Fair Access to Care criteria – the standards councils use to determine eligibility for funding for care and support services. Ealing council – like so many others in this harsh funding environment – no longer funds people in the Moderate or Low needs bands.

Council officers said they could push through all assessments by about the middle of year. A disability assessments officer stood up to say that was rubbish – that the assessment process was too complex and extensive for that and that she knew at least one person who’d been waiting for an assessment for two years. Some expert or other was trucked out to inform everyone that the days of “institutional”-type facilities like daycentres were behind us. This is the usual “this isn’t a cut – it’s an advance in social ideology” line that councils inevitably try and run at these things. It’s generally rubbish.

For one thing, as one parent whose son has completed two computer-skills certificates there said, Learning Curve is a training-to-work service – it aims to help people acquire skills that will lead to employment. She was very sure that Learning Curve was not an “institution.” She saw it as the service that might just help her 28-year-old son into a job, which is something she desperately wants for him.

For another thing, not everyone will be entitled to the personal budgets that the council keeps trying to assure everyone will release people from “institutions” like daycentres and allow them to “purchase” replacement services. Saying that these cuts are all about embracing the future is disingenous in the extreme. People won’t be “freed” from an “institution” when Learning Curve closes. They’ll be left standing on the side of the road with stuff-all. As we’ve already seen, by the council’s own admission, at least 96 of the 144 people at Learning Curve won’t be eligible for financial support. There was also a great deal of debate about the purchasing power of personal budgets – I’ll be posting more on this, but it was said last night that personal budgets weren’t substantial enough to allow people to buy equivalent services from the private and third sectors.

So. It was rowdy, it was angry and it was a complete bloody shambles. Council leader Julian Bell turned up to say a few words (largely some cowardly rot about having delegated responsibility for the closure to officers) and was given very short shrift. His “central government cuts are forcing our hand” line went down like a cup of the cold proverbial. As well it might. People are sick of it.

—————–

Update Wedneday 23 January: in front of a full gallery last night and with a lot of verbal handwringing, if you can have such a thing – “it’s with a heavy heart that we make this decision,” etc – the cabinet voted for the closures. People who use the centres and their families were furious. The decision now goes to Overview and Scrutiny in February. I spoke to the chair of that committee briefly after last night’s meeting and he seemed worried. Parents are complaining about the council’s consultation processes with people with learning difficulties – they feel the consultation was rushed, not adequately geared towards people with learning difficulties and that feedback from representative groups was ignored. More on this soon.

————-

Original post:

This is the first in a series of posts I’m planning on Ealing council’s plans to close a training organisation and a daycentre for people with learning disabilities. The aim is to broaden this out into wider reporting about the consulting and treatment of people with learning disabilities as further council cuts are made and as the government continues with the ESA work capability assessment and brings in the overall benefit cap, the bedroom tax, council tax benefit cuts, DLA to PIP testing and universal credit. In the past few months, a number of people with learning disabilities and parents and carers have been in touch to talk about their growing concerns.

On Tuesday 22 January (see meeting item 7 here), Ealing council’s cabinet is due to make a decision that will radically affect the lives of a group of adults with learning disabilities, and their families and carers.

The decision will be to agree to close two organisations long used by people with learning disabilities: the Learning Curve training-for-employment service and the Stirling Road daycentre.

Learning Curve is, in the council’s definition – “a fully accredited training centre, which provides training in basic skills, preparation for work, job seeking skills, office practice and retail and information technology… it also supports disabled adults in work and can help find work experience placements…its aim is to help people obtain the skills needed to get into work.“

Stirling Road “provides a wide range of services… sport and leisure, health promotion, community based projects, work-based training and travel assistance. The service is provided to promote and support people to become more independent and access their community through community-based projects.”

It won’t for much longer, though – unless people can kick up enough rough to stall the juggernaut.

They’re certainly trying: I’ve attended several protests in the last month and spoken to centre attendees and parents who are desperate to keep the two organisations open.

“There’s nothing else like it. I didn’t have to explain anything to them – the staff understood his needs,” said the mother of a young man who has earned computer skills certificates at Learning Curve and wants to work towards paid employment if he can find it (I’ll be posting more interviews and feedback from people involved as things unfold).

Continue reading

Capita wins at Barnet council: the private sector wags the dog

Many people will know that for several years, Barnet council has been pursuing a deeply unpopular plan – called One Barnet – to outsource swathes of council services. Despite monumental opposition from residents, five legendary local bloggers, an extremely motivated and informed union branch secretary and council staff and union members, the council has decided to go ahead with its mass-privatising of council services. There are two contracts up for grabs in the first instance: one worth £275m to take over development and regulatory services and one worth a whopping £750m for a support and customer services “organisation”.

Today, Barnet council told staff that Capita had been confirmed as the preferred bidder for the £750m project. Staff heard more about the impact that this will have on their jobs and the services they provide this afternoon.

Barnet Unison explains in this press release:

“Today approximately 520 Barnet Council staff have been told in a series of briefings that Capita is to be their new employer.

From figures released in the presentations today, approximately 57% of staff will face redundancy as local jobs are exported to Belfast, Blackburn, Bromley, Carlisle, Darwen, Sheffield, Banstead, Swindon, Southampton.

For the last four years, UNISON has warned of the danger of jobs being exported out of Barnet. Leading councillors and senior officers have either played down this risk, or discounted it as irrelevant.

John Burgess, branch secretary said: “It is a dark day in the history of Barnet council. Staff and residents will remember this date as the day the council carried on marching over the cliff ignoring the stark warnings of residents and other key stakeholders. The implications for our members are awful.

I thought the morale of the workforce had already hit rock bottom. I believe this news will drag it down deeper and it will have an impact on other council staff. I also fear for the impact on future quality of services to Barnet residents. I really hope councillors will think again about the implications of what they are proposing and the risks of ignoring a growing dissenting community voice emerging from a resilient committed community campaign. But, it isn’t over yet, there is an alternative way to delivering public services and our campaign is still very alive and focused. Watch this space.”

***** Ends *****

Background

Barnet Council is implementing a policy known as the One Barnet Programme, sometimes referred to as the ‘Commissioning Council’. This mass privatisation policy is designed for the Council to divest itself of responsibility to deliver services to its residents.

Continue reading

Barnet council’s mass outsourcing plan and the perils of privatisation

Big, bad privatisation plans and failed private-public projects have caused near-meltdowns at Cornwall  and Somerset councils in recent times – but that hasn’t stopped Tory Barnet council from storming towards oblivion with a plan called One Barnet – a deeply unpopular proposal to outsource swathes of council services which has brought the council to its knees before it has even begun. With just a few weeks left before the first major One Barnet contract is decided, this post looks at the controversy and a bit of Barnet council’s outsourcing history.

Photo: a protestor at a march and rally for Fremantle careworkers, 2007 (By @skinnyvoice)

I first became aware of the problems faced by people who were on the rough end of Barnet council’s privatisation deals in 2007.

That was when I started to spend Wednesday evenings at union shop meetings held by Barnet careworkers whose lives had been wrecked by outsourcing.

The careworkers were a group of low-paid staff (mostly women) who were in the middle of a bitter industrial dispute with the Fremantle Trust (a partner of Catalyst Housing) – the so-called not-for-profit organisation to which Barnet council had outsourced care for elderly people.

Earlier that year, the Trust had slaughtered the careworkers’ salaries and terms of employment. Their wages and working conditions had (supposedly) been protected when the council privatised care and TUPE-transferred staff to their new, outsourced employer – “they said it was all going to be super duper and we were going to be fine,” careworker Carmel Reynolds told me in 2007 – but in December 2006, the Trust made its move.

Staff were presented with a harsh new employment contract and told that anyone who refused to sign it by April 2007 would be sacked. With the new contract, the Trust cut careworkers’ annual leave allowances and reduced their sick leave to a statutory minimum. Worst of all was the abolishing of the weekend enhancement payments that many careworkers relied on to make up a reasonable wage. Barnet Unison estimated that after those cuts, some careworkers lost 30% of their pay.

When they complained, staff were told by management that they could make up their lost pay by working extra shifts. ‘I said [to management] – how do you expect us to be able to cope [with these cuts]? What [management] said is that you have to do extra hours to make up your pay. But what about the quality of our daily life?” said careworker Lango Gamanga in 2007.

The truly appalling part of all this, though – the part should not be forgotten in light of Barnet’s current outsourcing quest – was the discovery, late in 2007, that the cuts to the careworkers’ salaries and conditions had very likely been for nothing.

In a 6 December 2007 cabinet resources committee report, the council admitted that the “high profile” change (by which, presumably, it meant the much-publicised industrial dispute over the new contract) had not helped Catalyst blunt financial losses and that those losses presented “an ongoing and increasing budget risk to the council.” Catalyst lodged a claim for further funds from the council – and was ultimately awarded £8m in arbitration. So. The moral of this tale is that outsourcing often goes arse-over for everyone involved, except those selling it. Don’t take my word for it – here’s a list of outsourcing catastrophes for you to weep over. The point in this post is that the Fremantle-Catalyst endeavour was a Barnet council debacle to beat the band.

One Barnet

Unfortunately, that experience has not deterred the council from pursuing new and even bigger potential outsourcing disasters.

As we speak, the council nears a decision on the now-infamous (even before it is launched – not a good sign) One Barnet project – an amazingly unpopular plan to pay private companies the best part of £1bn to provide a mass of council services. There’s £275m up for grabs for development and regulatory services and a whopping £750m for a new, if ill-defined, support and customer services “organisation” from which services like council estates, finance, human resources, IT and revenues and benefits will, allegedly,  spring. In the face of monumental opposition from residents, five legendary local bloggers, an extremely motivated and informed union branch secretary and council staff and union members, the council will, on December 6, decide which (very lucky) private company will win the £750m contract. The second contract will be awarded in January.

The scale of the proposed private sector entanglement terrifies people – recent scandals like the G4S Olympic security failure demonstrated a) how spectacularly private companies can fail to meet obligations and b) that in the end, you need the public sector to come in and clean up the crap.

And One Barnet could be a very big turd indeed. Estimates are that 70% of the council’s services could be tied up in ten-year contracts with the private sector if One Barnet gets the green light. Unison expects hundreds of job losses as a result of outsourcing and “efficiency savings” – the sort of numbers that can only have a negative impact on services.

Pointed questions have also been asked about Barnet’s ability to keep a grip on all or even some of its relationships and contracts with private companies. I’ve already talked about the Fremantle-Catalyst wreck. Last year, there was another scandal, when Barnet bloggers revealed that the council had spent more more than £1m to hire a private security firm company called MetPro. The council engaged the firm without putting the contract out to tender, or running basic security and financial checks. I had the pleasure of that firm myself at a very feisty (ie full of pissed-off locals being denied the right to attend the meeting by overzealous private security guards) 2011 Barnet council budget cuts meeting. Security guards confiscated our laptops and cameras, bullied people who wanted to sit in on the public council meeting and overrode police decisions to let members of the public into chambers.

So.

There are just a few weeks left before Barnet council decides on that first major One Barnet contract. The council could hardly be in worse shape for it. Chief Executive Nick Walkley resigned at the beginning of October. Jury’s out on that one – depending who you talk to, that was either a great career move, or a running jump off the sinking ship (the two probably go hand in hand). A week or so ago, council leader Richard Cornelius faced a no-confidence vote.  Then controversial (many other words work as well) councillor Brian Coleman publicly slammed One Barnet as an “officer-driven juggernaut” and a turkey which needed to see Christmas. Only this week, a disabled woman has started legal proceedings against the council, saying that One Barnet does not give due regard to the needs of disabled people. Now, the fabulous Mr Mustard has published the impressive (as in size) One Barnet risk register.

And if you think Cornelius has lost control now – just wait until he signs off on this thing. There won’t be many people looking to make it work.

Why not to privatise…

Residents in Barnet have made this brilliant short animation to explain the risks associated with Barnet council’s plans to go ahead with its massive, and massively unpopular, one-billion pound outsourcing deal.

As many people will know, Barnet residents, bloggers and unions have been fighting the council’s plans to mass privatise council services (a plan called One Barnet). Already, they’ve won a fight to keep the council’s waste and recycling services in house.

Meeting tonight – a “Question Time” in Barnet on the One Barnet outsourcing programme
Tonight (Thursday 8 November at 7pm at the Greek Cypriot Centre, Britannia Road, London N12 9RU) Barnet residents will hold a ‘Question Time’ debate about the proposed One Barnet programme. On the panel will be Barnet resident and chair, Barbara Jacobson, Barnet Conservative Council Leader, Richard Cornelius, Labour Leader, Alison Moore, Lib Dem Leader Jack Cohen and Andy Mudd from the Association for Public Service Excellence.

Many people will know that it’s all hit the fan in a very big way over that mass-outsourcing deal. Council CE Nick Walkley recently resigned – only a couple of months before the mass-privatisation decision was due to be made. Everyone else is fighting – so this evening’s meeting could be a belter.

Top job done there by residents, bloggers and union members who have simply refused to accept that the private sector is entitled to their money and services. Hope they win.

Hartlepool, actors and singers, and the bedroom tax

These are the latest excerpts from recorded interviews I’m publishing as I talk to people around the country who are dealing with fallout from public sector cuts, welfare reform and the recession. These transcripts are from interviews with actors, singers and writers at Shoot Your Mouth Off films – a filmmaking project in Hartlepool for people with learning disabilities.

In the transcripts, people talk about their work as actors, singers and writers.

The people who spoke for the interviews were David Miller, Carole Gill, David Lodge, Daniel Judge, Liz Yeats, Graeme Booth and Wendy Elsley.

Photos by @skinnyvoice at deptfordvisions.com.

People here are dealing with many issues: Karen Sheader, the disability rights activist who set SYMO up, says, for example, that two people in the group are worried that they will be affected by the proposed bedroom tax. The two people live by themselves in two-bedroom flats and are concerned that they will either have to move to one-bedroom flats (if they’re available) or lose part of their benefits. There’s a lot of confusion and worry:

“It does make you wonder where they think people are going to to get the money from, especially those people who are already on benefits. There are a couple of people in our group who live in two bedroom flats who were allocated the flats by the local authority who are now being told that they might have to be moved to a one bedroom flat because of the changes to housing benefit.

“Peter (one of the people who is in a two-bedroom flat) came in (one day) with a letter and he didn’t understand it, because he can’t read. It was about his council tax benefit and his housing benefit and he was panicking. When he got this letter, I rang [the council officer] and she offered to see Peter to reassure him. She was saying this is not going to happen in the immediate future – this (the letter) was just saying that it might happen at some point in the future.”

Some people in the group are on benefits, while others work in other jobs, too: Wendy Elsley and Graeme Booth, for example, both work part-time at Asda.

I’ll be posting more on this soon. In the meantime, here are some thoughts from people involved in Shoot Your Mouth Off films. Videos to follow.

Graeme Booth
“I’ve got to work two days a week (at Asda), so I’m here on a Monday now. I swapped days over, so I could come back and make films. The best film I’ve done is Dr Why with Wendy. It was just a Dr Who spoof, really. We did it all in front of a green screen. [In the end], I got done in by a big plastic dinosaur.”

David Miller
“I’ve been at Shoot Your Mouth Off films from the start, for five years. When we first came, there were no tables, no chairs – just boxes to sit on. Some of us have got bands in it as well. I’ve got a band called Friends Forever and my friend Daniel Judge over there, he does rapping. He’s going solo now as well. Hope Springs [a soap] is the film I enjoyed the most. The other one I love is called Maniac Mum. It’ll be done for the Christmas show.

Daniel Judge
My name is Daniel Judge, but really my name is… Dr Judge. I’m a musician…and with a good friend of mine. Coming into SYMO has changed my life. All my friends are in here. My heroes too. I’ve been coming here quite a long time. By 2007 – that’s the year when I did a new group with a certain guy called Mr Miller over here – Big Daddy Cool. And I produced the album called Rise to Fame and I was on the radio, Radio Hartlepool.

David Lodge
My name is David Lodge and I’ve been coming to SYMO for just over a year. Acting’s been part of my life [since I was young]. I went to college for four years and did drama and got qualifications. The best way to describe myself is as an all rounder – acting singing as well. I’ve just played the devil in Nuts To You. A couple of weeks ago, it was on Northeast Tonight, which is our local news for the region. Everybody – from my girlfriend to my Mum and Dad and other people have said I’ve seen you on the TV. Even people are coming up three weeks on have seen it. Acting’s been my passion.

Carole Gill
I’ve only been coming here for seven months, since Easter. I like singing and acting and I like to come here, because everybody’s friendly and made me welcome when I came in. I’m in Maniac Mum. I love singing.

I do get nervous…[before our last show] it was terrible. I couldn’t eat nowt. I did it, though. I wouldn’t let them down anyway. When I heard that there was a group called SYMO, I came with one of our staff members. I thought it would be the right thing for me to do and so I wanted to join. Everybody made me welcome and they give us a cup of tea and made me feel that I felt was at home. My best part was when I was singing live music. We had about 150 people in the room. I sang One Moment In Time and Karen was playing it on the synthesiser.

Wendy Elsley
I used to come here on a Friday, but I stopped coming in on a Friday, because I’m working in Asda now and they swapped my days. So I had to finish this film off – otherwise they would have been up the creek without a paddle. I’d worked really hard with it and finished it off. [That was] Nuts To You.

I do adult literacy [classes]. In Asda, I’m doing all the clothes work in the clothes department. We start round about nine o’clock and then we have our dinners around about 12 o’clock and then we have two breaks between ten and three, so it’s been a long day but it goes very quick. I’ve been there quite a while now – 20 years now in Asda. I just get on with what I’ve been told to get on with.

With the [adult literacy classes] – Karen helped me [find one]. I met this new tutor and she is dead lovely. She said – what do you want to do? and I said – I want to learn to read. I want to read and write, because if I don’t read and write, that’s it – my brain is totally switched off. I love reading and writing. My Mum says my reading has improved a lot from what is used to be and it’s helped me with my acting as well because I can read scripts as well.

I just love coming here. If I wasn’t coming here now, I’d just be sitting at home 24-7, so I’m looking for something else to do on a Tuesday. I like art, making cards and stuff.

Liz Yeats
I come here on a Monday. I prefer Mondays than Fridays, because I seem to get on better on on a Monday. I’ve got lots of friends on a Monday, because I love everybody. That’s why I’m here for. And I’m best at drama and I’m a good comedian. I just like to join in.

The Billion Pound Gamble – film on Barnet cuts & privatisation

From the makers of The Billion Pound Gamble:

On Monday 22nd October at 6pm, the world premiere of a new film, Barnet – The Billion Pound Gamble – will be shown at the iconic Phoenix Cinema in East Finchley (52 High Road London N2 9PJ).

The film has been made by acclaimed US film director Charles Honderick and exposes the chaos being wrought by the policies of Barnet Council as the council cuts services and pursues a highly-controversial billion-pound outsourcing deal.

Local residents are interviewed and explain just how difficult life has become. A family with a child suffering severe disability tells how no appropriate accommodation has been provided for 11 years.

Users of day centres explain how cuts to transport have affected them and how they get charged £1.20 for a cup of nescafe. Local traders tell the tale of how the parking policies have forced them to the brink.

Award winning film director Ken Loach explains how outsourcing destroys local economies. A host of experts explain how the One Barnet programme is doomed to failure, it is a Billion Pound Gamble, where private companies will pick up fat cheques, local residents will get shoddy services and local taxpayers will be left to pick up the bill.

The film also features shocking scenes filmed inside the Town Hall as uncaring local councillors dismiss the concerns of residents and laugh as important decisions, which will cause misery for thousands, are passed without proper debate.

The official trailer for the film has been released today and can be viewed on the film website – http://www.billionpoundgamble.co.uk

Notes for Editors.

1. The world premiere for the film will be shown at The Phoenix Cinema on Monday 22nd October. Doors open at 6pm and the film will be shown at 6.30pm. Entrance costs £1.

2. The film has been directed by USA film director Charles Honderick. The film is a follow up to the acclaimed film “A Tale of Two Barnets” which has been screened at The House of Commons, The Edinburgh Festival, The Unison National Conference and the TUC centre at Great Russell St. There have also been over 20 local screenings.

3. The film features a new exclusive interview with award winning film director Ken Loach, talking about life, football and outsourcing.

4. The film website is http://www.billionpoundgamble.co.uk/ . This is being constantly updated with information, details and clips as we move towards the full screening.

5. The website for “A Tale of Two Barnets” is http://ataleoftwobarnets.yolasite.com/. This has full details of all press coverage and clips from the film including full interviews with Ken Loach, Richard Cornelius (Leader of Barnet Council) and Nick Walkley (CEO of Barnet Council).

 

A few truths about benefits

This is the latest in the transcripts from recorded interviews I’m publishing as I talk to people around the country who are dealing firsthand with fallout from public sector cuts, welfare reform and the recession. I’m posting these transcripts between longer articles and testimonies that are appearing at False Economy and elsewhere.

In this transcript, Michael H, who is 43, from Newcastle and on benefits, talks about growing up on Gateshead’s Springwell estate, his worries for his children in an era and region of high unemployment, his concerns about being moved out of his council flat if the government’s bedroom tax is enforced (he was moved to his current flat years ago after run-ins with gangs on his previous estate) and his own conviction for benefit fraud. Michael has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, has depression and suffers from anxiety and panic attacks.

“I know that this is going to come across really, really strong but I think that it’s a social cleansing what they [the government] are doing, with people the likes of us on benefits… because he’s [Cameron] turned around, calling us the likes of scroungers.

I go to doctors, I go to groups – I’m trying to get better, but when you’re diagnosed with things like this and you’re on the waiting list… I’m diabetic. I was diagnosed in 2005 – I almost died [in 2000]. I’ve got summat in my hands where they attack down the nerves. It’s affecting me like joints and things and the medication that they put us on, I don’t think it agreeing with us. I’m thinking like more suicidal thoughts. I don’t know if this drug is right for me.

I was a caretaker years ago and I worked with a broken arm, so it isn’t if I haven’t worked or anything. I have done lots of various jobs. Obviously, growing up, I wasn’t brought up in the best world. It was like…really bad times – a very violent household if you get my drift, so I didn’t have the best of the starts in life. [But] I’m doing everything like I’m supposed to be doing…

Bedroom tax its a different way of cutting the housing benefit bill. That’s all it is. It isn’t anything about encouraging people to move on, because they know that there isn’t any one bedroom properties going. My daughter still comes across [to stay in my flat]. She lives at home with her mam and stepdad and she comes across to mine and she has that room as a little sanctuary thing, because she she’s doing 6th form now. She is going to be a teacher and it’s nice for her to have that sanctuary. In everything, you will get people who will take advantage. It’s doesn’t matter what job you are in – in any walk of life. Look at the Tories with their expenses. Those MPs – in real life, they would have lost their jobs.

I haven’t had an [Atos work capability assessment yet]. I’m on incapacity benefit…I’ve watched the things on the television and seen how [ESA] is decided for people to fail on it. People don’t understand how that plays with your mind, because if your mind is fragile enough now, when you get things like that put on top of you, it just makes you think – what I am good for? The best thing to do would be to end it, because then I wouldn’t be on benefits.

My son and his pals have been on benefits for ages and there is nothing there. He has to go around and hand in CVs to firms in the local areas [as a requirement for jobseekers’ allowance]. They [the job centre] keep asking him to do it and he’s like – if I’ve done every one, how can I go around and do it again? And they are now wanting to sanction people £72 [sic]. That’s their whole benefit, if they don’t meet whatever they [the job centre] wants. Yes, we do know that there is people who do not want to work, because there’s ones that do crime, do drugs, do whatever, but that’s always been there since day dot, but to tar every single person…

The thing is, he [Cameron] claims that it [welfare changes and bedroom tax] won’t have that much impact – but how does he know? He’s a millionaire. He’s not been in our shoes, I would love to have been in his. Because most people round these areas to be honest, they are poor and they accept their lot in life.

At the job centre, they have not got a clue. If they brought in schemes where it wouldn’t affect your benefit – employment training for 12 months, you could go out and train. If disabled people had those rights, if that would then give them the confidence to go back into the workplace and try things out and learn different things. They let the likes of us rot now. We are classed as the worst thing since bubonic plague.

Continue reading

People on the frontline of austerity Britain. Part two: the Southwest

Extracts from this article are printed in the Guardian today (18 July).

This is the second article from my series of interviews with people around the country who are affected by this appalling government’s welfare changes, NHS reform and cuts. This report is from the southwest.

The interviews from Weymouth are with a group of older men who were  in and out of homelessness and battling to keep their jobseekers’ and employment and support allowances.

The names of people on jobseekers’ allowance or ESA have been changed and marked *. Most of these people were going through Atos work capability assessments and were concerned that the mere act of giving interviews would be construed as fitness for work. There are accompanying audio recordings.

There is also a list of policy changes and cuts which affect each person at the end of each section.

———————–

Weymouth, May 2012

Olympics 2012 costs-in-austerity controversies:
Stone mushrooms cost more than £330,000.
Local hoteliers fear thousands in losses during the games
Sandcastle costing £5000 demolished

 

Weymouth pier

Image: Pier at Weymouth, May 2012.

Of all the cowflop that David Cameron speaks, there is no bigger pile than his deceitful and misleading “culture of entitlement” line on people on benefits.

Lives on benefits are not, as Cameron would have us believe, simple and sorry stories of unreal “expectations” from people who believe “the state will support you whatever decisions you make… you can have a home of your own… you will always be able to take out, no matter what you put in.”

It’s one of modern politics’ most loathsome sells: this notion that people who need state support hold any cards, let alone all of them. The idea of a culture of entitlement is entirely romantic. There’s nothing left for anyone to feel entitled to. No aspect of taking state money in this day and age is painless, or liberating – except, perhaps, if you’re a bailed-out banker.

For the rest, a life on benefits is an appalling tale of financial and personal reduction, particularly when you’ve no hope of buying yourself back by finding a job. You must have the state in that case. You can’t do without it. Your desperation, though, means that the state also has you.

I’ll give you an example of this reduction from Weymouth. It will sound tiny, but it wasn’t. It’s probably common, but it wasn’t insignificant. At the time, I was worried – I thought there was a chance that I may have put someone’s benefits in jeopardy. It was probably a small chance, but the thought did occur to me.

It all started merrily enough. I was horsing around in a carpark with Sean Needham* (in his 50s and made redundant from a Woolworth’s warehouse when Woolies went bust), Pete Gyte* (ex-armed forces), Mike Gale* (also ex-services) and H*, Mike’s cheerful, turbo-charged, Alsatian when Needham made a sudden decision.

He invited me to the next meeting of the job club that the men said they had to regularly attend as a condition of collecting their jobseekers’ and employment and support allowances. All three men were in their late 40s, or early 50s. All were unemployed and all had been homeless from time to time over the years.

Nobody seemed entirely sure what the job club was for (“we’re supposed talk about getting work and CVs,” Needham said, vaguely), but they could see two clear advantages to it for me.

The first was that they thought it would give me some insight into the hoops they had to jump through to keep their benefits and/or find employment in their challenging patch. Employment rates in the southwest are among the country’s best, but unemployment has been on the rise. If you’re a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or have serious mental health problems, or a history of homelessness – well, the guys said that it might happen, but it might not.

“I mean – come on,” Gyte said when we touched on the topic. “They reckon everybody’s fit for work, but if I had a company, most of the people I know – I wouldn’t let them in the door! Operating expensive machinery…?”

The second was that there was a sex shop somewhere along the way. There was no real advantage to that news, I suppose, except that it made us all incredibly funny for the rest of the night.

“You can get a pair of knickers first!” Gyte giggled.

“No crotch for me,” I said, which was, obviously, hilarious. The entire conversation seemed hilarious – a whole lot of giggling and snorting about David Cameron, Tories, government, CVs and dildos. Continue reading