Leeds: screwing council tax out of people who can’t afford it

Update Tuesday 30 July: Haringey resident Reverend Paul Nicolson is refusing to pay his council tax in protest at the cuts to council tax benefit and other government welfare ‘reforms.’ He’s been summonsed to court on Friday for a liability order hearing. I spent this morning talking to him about it. There’s a protest on Friday to support him – see more at DPAC here.

Scroll down for an update from Monday 29 July – where Leeds city council finally confirmed to me that it WAS slapping liability orders on people who were summonsed to court last week and that it WILL send in bailiffs and also deduct outstanding council tax from people’s low wages and benefits if they don’t/can’t pay now that their council tax benefit has been cut. Charming. Really bloody charming this is.

Grim scenes on Thursday inside and outside Leeds Magistrates Court – where people with no money gathered with court summonses for non-payment of council tax. Apparently, several thousand people have been summonsed to appear over the next few weeks: a group for July 25 (the day I went there) and more for 1 August. I’ve asked the council to confirm the numbers and plenty more besides, but it has been slow to respond, as you’ll see below…

Anyway – as most people will know, one of this government’s charming initiatives this year has been to cut council tax benefit for people on benefits and low incomes. People who previously paid little or no council tax – because their incomes were low, let’s not forget –  must now pay. Leeds city council is enforcing this benefit cut, with predictable results – hardship, plenty of agony for people who have nothing anyway and people in tears outside the courts as the terror of further costs and even arrest takes over. But tough shit for them, it seems – here’s council leader Keith Wakefield in the very same week of the summons date, if you don’t mind, explaining why toughlove is important (particularly for people on benefits) and why we’ll all grow as a result of it, or some such crap. It’s just a pity we don’t see the same toughlove being applied to the financial sector, or, say, to the senior management teams at G4S and Serco for £50m worth of fraud, for example (although I’m sure the fraud inquiry there will see any wrongs righted. Ahem). Some serious bloody toughlove is in order there, but yeah – it’s taking a while. I can only imagine that the political class can’t stomach the idea of seeing Serco’s board in floods of tears as the company is reduced to its last millions. I can’t remember seeing Fred Goodwin standing outside a courthouse bawling as owed coins were wrung out of him. A bit of toughlove for tax avoiders would also be welcome, but it’s pretty clear that we’re all going to die waiting for that one.

In the meantime, we get toughlove for people for whom the rules do apply and are made to apply. There’s plenty of toughlove around for them. I saw that toughlove in all its glory outside the front of Leeds magistrates on Thursday and have to say I didn’t think much of it. It looked like good old-fashioned bullying to me – frightening and humiliating for people in equal parts.

I talked to people who were in tears about their council tax bills. I spoke at length, for example, to a woman called Claire who cried for a lot of the morning. She was on employment and support allowance, had a teenage daughter who was still living at home and studying, and said that she would have to cut her food money to pay her council tax bill – which, with costs, now stood at about £200.

She had gone into the court building with her summons letter and come out having agreed to pay £12.50 a fortnight – no small sum for her out of her benefit. “I didn’t know whether to come here or not, but I didn’t know if they could arrest you [if you didn’t attend]. Do you know if they can arrest you?” She said she’d tried to make an appointment at her local Citizens’ Advice Bureau to get some advice, but the CAB was so busy with people with similar “welfare reform” problems that she hadn’t been able to make contact. People also told me that queues outside local CAB offices formed early these days and that it wasn’t easy to get appointments, because demand is high. The Leeds Hands Off Our Homes campaigning group was out the front – there are lawyers and people with knowledge of the social security system in their number, so they at least were in a position to give some support.

But there is a major issue here and you find it all over. People are isolated and their options for help are dwindling as advice centres are cut – and simultaneously overwhelmed by skyrocketing numbers of people who are being hit with a whole range of rubbish: the bedroom tax, council tax benefit cuts, workfare, problems with Atos, the shift from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. People have a lot of worries and a lot of questions and nobody to ask a lot of the time.

A young man called David showed me his summons letter – he’d built up council tax arrears of about £130 and it seemed that another £60 or so in costs had been slapped on the top of it. “Is this the place that you can ask about your council tax bill?” he asked. “I can’t afford to pay it.” Another man called Mark said he was not going to pay. He couldn’t afford to, but he’d also decided not to. He didn’t think the process was legal and wanted to know more about his rights before he tried to pay up.

And who is doing what here, exactly?
As the morning went on, too, questions were asked by people going in and out of the building re: exactly who they were seeing and how their summons were being processed. People said that they were seeing council officers once inside and being told to agree payment terms on “outstanding” council tax. Which was an interesting report and had me imagining a variety of unacceptable scenarios – including one where people were sent heavy-handed court summons letters, were frightened by those letters into turning up at court and then herded in and off to agree repayment terms with the council at the very last minute in the hope of avoiding further fines, or even jail. Those letters certainly had people thinking that they were about to find themselves up before a judge. Finding yourself before a judge and finding yourself before a council officer are two slightly different things and we need to know why those letters were sent, who people were expecting to see and who they ended up in front of.

I’ve asked the council for more on this. If councils are going to hunt less-than-rich people down like dogs and to punish them brutally for a financial crisis that they didn’t cause, let’s see exactly how they’re doing it. We need a lot more clarity on way that these persecutions are being handled and how these large numbers of people are being “processed” through the system. Who exactly is processing this number of “outstanding” payments and how do they expect to manage non-payment as it worsens? Which it will, as we all know. I’m a shit mathematician, but even I have worked out that people who have no money now are unlikely to have money further down the track, especially if they’re already in debt and wearing court costs that they can’t afford. (An interesting aside – the home country just introduced legislation where benefits are cut if people have arrest warrants for outstanding fines. I can see that kind of crap making its way over the ocean here. Such is our punitive age). We also need to know who is and isn’t being slapped with a liability order as these things “progress.” And we need to know what the big plan is if people can’t afford to pay. Will “outstanding” payments ultimately be deducted from benefits? – that sort of carry-on does appear to be Leeds council policy and there was a lot of concern about it on Thursday. And what happens to people who didn’t appear at court on summons day?

And probably at the top of the pile – how long and how far do councils like Leeds plan to turn the screw on people on this one?

Anyway, I rang the council a goodly number of times on Thursday afternoon and couldn’t get through to their press office (their twitter account also seems to be down https://twitter.com/lccpressoffice). I finally got through on Friday morning and sent questions, which they were going to answer by Friday afternoon. They didn’t, so I followed it up. Monday, they said. I said how about an answer to the “who were people seeing when they went into the court building” question. It all went very quiet after that. Monday it is, then.

What bollocks this all is.

Update Monday 29 July:

So, after a fair bit of nagging, I finally got a response from the council. It’s not good and I can’t tell you how angry this makes me.

To start with – it was indeed Leeds City Council who issued the summonses. They issued a whopping 3000 for last week’s hearing (which makes me wonder if they issued another tranche for the 1 August hearing. I’ll find out, because those numbers are important). They’re important because they are such big numbers – and they are summonses that were, by the council’s own admission, issued predominantly for people who have been hit by the council tax benefit cut that came in earlier this year. That “change” has led to this terrible problem and this hounding of people who have no money through the courts. Let’s not forget that the people being targeted here are people on low wages, or on benefits – that’s why they got council tax benefit – so they are least able to absorb this kind of blow. But they are the people who are being hunted and abused in austerity. The financial sector caused the recession and the political class enables the ongoing slaughter of social security – but it’s the disabled, sick, unemployed and poorly-paid who are paying.

And paying and paying. In a stroke of “genius”, Leeds council and the courts (this happens all over, of course) have whacked court costs on top of the outstanding council tax sums – the “logic” here being that people who can’t afford to pay their new council tax bills will of course be in a position to pay £60+ in court costs as well. “I’ll have to take it out of my food money,” ESA claimant Claire told me on Thursday, as you will have noted above. The thing is – she WILL have to take it out of her food money. She has no other money. She has no alternative. She was in tears and, once inside the courthouse, had agreed to pay £12.50 towards that bill out of her benefit, just to get the council and courts off her back.

These are vindictive times we have here, my friends. And at a jolly old Labour council, too. Isn’t that fun. Mark my words – the political class is more than happy to pressure people for money until they go hungry.

Regarding the officers people saw when they turned up with their summonses: they did indeed see council officers. The court summons frightened people into turning up at court. Once, there, said the council, council staff were there to “resolve any queries and make arrangements to prevent further recovery action being necessary.” Right. The purpose of the day, though, was for the council to apply for liability orders and council officers were also inside making “arrangements” with people to pay. That would explain people coming out of the courts saying that they’d agreed to pay a certain sum every week, or fortnight, or so on.

Liability orders are dreadful. Liability orders, as the council puts it, “give us the right to demand information about you and give us certain powers which we can use to obtain payment.” That is oppressive. Those “certain powers” include taking money from people’s low pay, or small benefits and sending the bailiffs round to uplift your dwindling possessions.

Remember how I told you earlier in this piece that New Zealand just introduced legislation where benefits are cut if people have arrest warrants for outstanding fines? You’ll get that here soon – people having their tiny incomes slashed, because they’ve ended up with fines and court costs which they only ended up with because they had no money in the first place and were not able to absorb “reforms” like the bedroom tax and council tax benefit cuts.

Isn’t that charming. I hope Fred Goodwin’s happy. Hell – I hope the whole political class is happy. Doubtless it is. How often to you get to kick 3000 poor people in the face at once? What fun. What a gift.

IDS does a runner on explaining his made-up statistics

From Jayne Linney (sharing this everywhere):

After last week’s post where we confirmed IDS WOULD be attending the Work and Pensions Select on Sept 4; we now have yet a further update!!

Sheila Gilmore MP yesterday wrote

“I am afraid that IDS is now NOT coming to the meeting on September 4. This was always going to be a session on the Department’s annual report as well as the statistics and apparently the Annual Report is not ready. A new date is being sought but this is now unlikely to be before October, which is extremely disappointing”

Clearly this is NOT what we want but there’s nothing we can do except continue with our plans to formally submit our petition to Parliament; actual date to follow; this is disappointing to say the least but it makes our petition all the more relevant as it reads – Work & Pensions Committee: Hold IDS to account for his use of statistics“.

Entering 100,492+ signatures into the Commons should help the members of the W&P Select ensure that IDS DOES attend in Oct & that he IS held to account. So we ask you all to continue to work with and share, Tweet ,talk about the petition and let’s do everything we can to make sure IDS DOES is made to answer for his Untruths and to remind Parliament WE the People Deserve the TRUTH!

Why people are refusing to accept they must take pay cuts when others don’t

Our latest New Statesman article on cuts – this one is on the escalating war against low pay:

“Salaries across the country are not only being cut – they’re being trashed, as the people we talked to for this article know all too well. They, like people all over the country, are locked in vicious disputes with their employers about proposals for wage cuts. Staff at One Housing Group, which is featured in this story, are striking today. They know that they’re being forced into a race to the bottom, but refuse to join it – or buy the line that employers can only compete if wages plunge…

While the wages of One Housing Group workers were being slashed, Mick Sweeney, the group’s CEO, accepted a pay increase of just over £30,000, taking his salary to £176,000. OHG refuses to explain to us why it quoted a lower figure of £150,075 in Inside Housing’s 2012 salary survey.

Samantha Cameron, the disability charity and PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Now this is interesting: Samantha Cameron as a new patron of a charity which provides respite services to people with disabilities – services that are rapidly being closed across the public sector, may I just add. The bloody cheek of it.

I mean – I wonder if we’ll see dear Sam posing outside the Your Choice Barnet respite residences which are getting rid of waking night staff to – so that failing company says – save money and stay competitive. Parents there are at the end of their tethers at the knowledge that their children – adults with learning difficulties – will be priced out of services that they rely on. “Winterbourne View,” they told us again and again. “We’re facing another Winterbourne View.”

Wonder if we’ll see the great Sam meeting and greeting parents in Lancashire who’ve been fighting the closures of respite centres for children with disabilities for god knows how long. Actually – I do know how long. It’s been at least two years, this time around (they had to fight to save those services several years before this latest attack).

Probably not.

The list of “corporate volunteers” at Sam’s charity makes compelling reading as well – it includes Unum, the Association of British Insurers and PriceWaterhouseCoopers – the very firm that Mark Hoban announced today would “provide independent advice” (god knows at what cost) as part of his shakeup (right) of “quality assurance processes across all its health and disability assessments.” And oh yeah (update 23 July) – I forgot to mention that Mark Hoban used to work for PriceWaterhouseCoopers, so maybe the “independent advice” that PwC gives on disability assessments will be somewhat on the matey side. This is what I like to describe as “we’ll get our private sector mates in to assess the crap caused by our other private sector mates who can continue to cause crap for our other private sector mates to assess.”

Certainly a small world we have here. We do keep seeing the same faces.

Here’s a list of prices for a stay at the charity. And yes, I’ve read the annual review which talks about helping some people in financial hardship. Wonder if that can/will extend to supporting people who are losing the Independent Living Fund money which has paid for the extra carer hours they need to live independent lives.

UK Uncut, HSBC shutdowns video and the joys of letting your arse grow old

Just before heading off to today’s UK Uncut HSBC-Pay Your Tax protest, I read, by coincidence, a very weird article which, inadvertently, laid out everything that is wrong with the world and proved again, inadvertently, why screwed priorities are not just a feature of the banking industry, but a feature of so much of our world.

The article was this thing (I’m kind of presuming it was meant seriously and wasn’t just some joke that I missed, being a humourless old lefty bag who needs a good plucking) about getting older, but looking younger, while emptying your wallet on trash such as “Vaishaly Signature Facials” for £100, or a “Philips Lumea” hair-plucker thing for £450 (though I bet that wouldn’t look like 450 quid after a session with my bikini line heh heh heh) and something called Accent Treatment by someone called Dr Frances Prenna Jones for £250, and once again I just thought about kicking a hole in my laptop and racing down to the Guardian to show That Rusbridger exactly what a 40+ unwaxed fanny looks like and then to watch his jaw crash past his own ageing front arse as the whole truth dawned…

The truth is that there is something seriously wrong with a world in which such things as a Signature Facial and a Philips Lumea even exist and with a world where women in particular feel that they must subject themselves to this trash just to stay presentable and to stay relevant – the irony being, of course, that all this crap is designed to divert women and, by diverting them, to shut them up and, by shutting them up, to make them irrelevant . It can be hard to devote your life to fighting for social security, for example, when you’re obsessed with your spreading crows’ feet and the small hairs that grow out of them. I know these things, because I’m over 40 and I used to look young, when I was young, and now I don’t. The thing is – I like being over 40. I’ve got about 1000000000000000000 miles on the clock and you can tell it’s been fun just by counting the rings.

I digress.

To the protest, which was also about societal priorities:

The video below is from this morning’s UK Uncut protest outside the HSBC on Regent Street. They turned the place into a foodbank for a while. Said UK Uncut: “Activists argue that 500,000 people are now dependent on food banks as a direct result of the government’s austerity policies. HSBC is being targeted for its use of tax havens and the action comes the day after the release of the G20 action plan for tackling corporate tax avoidance.”

The hell with it, I thought this morning. I’ll get on the bus. I’ll go. The world’s bloody doomed and Iain Duncan Smith has destroyed social security while the rest of the political class lies around wanking and there is no political opposition to speak of and some people seriously appear to be ignoring all of that in the interests of filling up column inches with dispatches from the Philips Lumea campaign against arse hair, but I’ll go. Because at the very least, these protests do the one thing that a hard-nosed media and political opposition should and would do if we actually had a hard-nosed media and political opposition – they draw a direct line between the over-indulged banking sector and the hardship that so many others are suffering to keep the financial sector and big corporates like Serco and G4S in style.

In today’s case, the protest drew that direct line between the banking sector and the appalling growth of “facilities” like foodbanks. These protests serve as some sort of reminder that the financial sector is responsible for crashing living standards and a recession that the political class has used to justify the slaughter of social security. Standing outside the HSBC with a sign that says as much points the finger of blame back at the right target. If nothing else, that’s a major achievement. At the very least, I feel that history will view it as more of an achievement than a £450 twat wax.

But what would I know.

Here is my video:

Appeal hearing Nash vs the One Barnet privatisation programme

From the Barnet Alliance For Public Services:

Join us for the appeal hearing to keep fighting Barnet Council’s mass-outsourcing programme: Monday and Tuesday 15 and 16 July, 9:30 for 10am start, at the High Court, The Strand.

Please support Maria Nash, who is fighting a legal battle for us all, to stop the undemocratic privatisation of Barnet by Crapita. Your council could be next! And probably will be at this rate.

For more information and to offer your support, see: http://barnetalliance.org/

The Appeal on Monday is listed before The Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Davis and Lady Justice Gloster at 10:30am in court 71.

Background

On 7 May, lawyers acting on behalf of Maria Nash lodged an appeal against the refusal to allow a judicial review of the One Barnet programme. The One Barnet programme is a widely-discredited Barnet council plan to privatise council services. Major contracts have already been handed to Capita. The refusal to allow the judicial review was made on the technical grounds that the request for a judicial review was brought out of time.

The court has issued the appeal and it has been served to Barnet Council’s lawyers, to Capita and to the other parties.

The legal team is confident that the grounds for the appeal are promising. The appeal is based on the substantial endorsement of Judge Underhill of Maria Nash’s argument that Barnet Council had failed to consult residents about a fundamental change to the way Council services are delivered and governed, under the One Barnet outsourcing programme. Maria Nash was granted legal aid for the appeal and she is now waiting for a hearing date from the Court of Appeal.

The legal team will challenge the judge’s ruling on delay, arguing that he has not followed a House of Lords ruling on what is meant by a “final decision”.

Twitter: #BarnetJR

Latest New Statesman article on austerity and cuts

Our latest article is here – part 4 of our series on public sector cuts and the destruction of social security. This week – the fight that ESA claimants have had to put up to get their Atos work capability assessments recorded and the confused advice that the DWP and Esther McVey have put out there about not offering recordings for Personal Independence Payment face to face assessments:

“For a long time now, employment and support allowance claimants have demanded the right to record their face-to-face assessments with outsourcing firm Atos. As well they might. With a recording, people are able to demonstrate beyond doubt what was said at assessment – an important facility, in light of Atos’ much-discussed form in returning fit-for-work decisions and reports that ignore a claimant’s true circumstances and shared details. No wonder the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) recently turned down a FOI request to find out how many people have died while going through the assessment process.”

Read the rest here

Mental health, Falkirk and the diversions of the political class

Here is another update from life on the social security cuts scene and a few thoughts from myself…

This time – mental health.

Below you will read about the sort of shit that continues to go down for people who are fighting cuts and/or having to live them while their union-baron and Labour saviours fanny about with Falkirk…newspapers full of all of that this week and nothing on the sort of story you’ll read below. I can’t stand that shit. I really can’t. Fantastic union members and activists all over are working round the clock to fight privatisation and massive job and service cuts and all we get to see on the news at the moment is shot after shot of Len McCluskley and Ed Miliband playing Biggest Penis. That’s leadership for you in a time of crisis. I really hope something extraordinary results from the Falkirk washout – something, perhaps, like a consensus on the reasons why Labour didn’t repeal Thatcher’s draconian anti-strike legislation during the party’s 13 years in power – a move that would have made it more possible (or less impossible, at least) for the “ordinary people” who everyone is suddenly so terribly concerned about to defend their jobs and salaries from Tory destruction.

Whatever. What would I know. What I do know is that while all that leg-lifting and dickswinging goes on, ordinary people and ordinary families deal with situations like this one I’m about to bitch about. This has all been happening while Falkirk has been happening. The difference is that nobody at that end of things gives a fuck.

Anyway:

I was (life being cute) returning from a meeting with Newcastle mental health service users and workers when I read about the DWP’s latest wheeze: the department had been granted leave to appeal the recent Upper Tribunal decision on its responsibilities to ESA claimants with mental health conditions. You may recall that this action against the DWP was brought by the Mental Health Resistance Network last year. Two claimants represented by the Public Law Project argued that Atos work capability assessments discriminated against people with mental health conditions.

As the Public Law Project’s Ravi Low-Beer told me here, the claimants wanted reasonable adjustments made to work capability assessments and the onus put on DWP to source medical evidence for ESA claimants who had mental health conditions at the start of their ESA claims. Not everyone who has a mental health condition is always in a position to source their material, said Low-Beer: “Conditions fluctuate in seriousness, or [people] cannot easily talk about their disability.” That meant people could be found fit for work without their whole medical histories being taken into account.

The courts agreed – but it seems that is too bloody bad, as usual. The DWP wants the decision overturned: “we disagreed with the Upper Tribunal’s original ruling,” the department told me this week, via an email that I felt like kicking through my laptop, “and are pleased that the Court of Appeal has given us permission to appeal.”

So. Isn’t that fantastic. No matter that the change may improve things even slightly for people who must go through the dreadful work capability “process.” No matter that the change may have improved things as far as the public purse goes – people found eligible for ESA from the start when they should be would not, obviously, need to take their case to wildly oversubscribed, increasingly costly, tribunal appeals. Even some of our biggest rightwing wankers could surely see the attraction of that.

But no. “We believe we have made – and continue to make – significant improvements to the work capability assessment process for people with mental health conditions,” the department blathered.

My answer to that – as it has been for a while now – is “prove it.”

BLOODY

WELL

PROVE

IT

Twats.

—————–

I mean something quite specific by that, too. Because, you know – for the last eight or nine months or so, a group of mental health service users and support workers and I HAVE been trying to make the department prove that it has made improvements to WCAs for people with mental health illnesses.

As I have written elsewhere, me, and campaigners from the voluntary sector consortium group Mental Health Northeast (MHNE) and the Newcastle user-led mental health support group Launchpad have been trying in particular to make the department prove the effectiveness of so-called Atos Mental Function Champions (MFCs). What a caution this exercise has been.

For those who don’t know this hopeless story – MFCs were “introduced” into the ESA work capability assessment process, on a Malcolm Harrington recommendation, to “improve,” somehow, WCAs for people with mental health illnesses. MFCs would, according to Atos, “spread best practice and provide advice and coaching to healthcare professionals at any stage in a case” where an ESA claimant had a mental health illness, learning difficulty or cognitive impairment.

Last year in November, Mark Hoban told parliament that he’d introduced an MFC into every assessment centre in the country. Actually, he hadn’t. The DWP told us that there were 60 MFCs across the country and that they largely worked a phone advice line – to “provide advice and support to Atos assessors, spreading best practice, and building links with appropriate stakeholders in their area,” whatever the hell that meant. Since November last year, our group has tried and tried to find out exactly what that meant – how this MFC role works for people with mental health conditions and indeed if MFCs have “improved” assessments for them, and how anybody could tell.

This hasn’t gone well.

Our group has not been able to find any concrete evidence of performance measurements or reporting for the MFC role at all. Despite repeated requests, the DWP could not produce that information and finally admitted that Atos “did not report back to the DWP on things like that.”

This is extraordinary. The MFC role is an important formal concession that the DWP and Atos have made to the monumental concerns raised about the WCA experiences of people with mental health illnesses – but the DWP wasn’t formally monitoring it. ESA claimants did not see MFCs and were not assessed by them: MFCs were there to advise and support Atos assessors only. It’s all very well saying that MFCs were “a great resource” but how would anyone know that? How would the DWP? How would we? Let’s not forget that coroners and GPs have reported that people are committing suicide or attempting suicide because of their experiences with work capability assessments. I mean to say. Jesus Christ, you know. It doesn’t get much more serious than that.

In April, after months (six) of asking, MHNE and Launchpad managed to secure a meeting with the DWP and Atos in Newcastle. One of the two members of the Atos contingent was, it was said, an MFC. The DWP confirmed at the meeting that it didn’t formally collect data from Atos on MFC performance. Atos said that it kept records of calls to MFCs and logs of questions raised with MFCs by Atos assessors – but that it wasn’t prepared to make any of that information public. Which is entirely useless. What’s the point of this role if nobody can see whether it works or not, or what sort of questions Atos assessors are asking of people in it? How can people with mental health illnesses be reassured that their issues are being understood by their Atos assessor if they have no idea what sort of advice MFCs give, or what sort of questions Atos assessors ask MFCs before, during, or after assessments? How can anyone know what the fuck is happening, except the people who are in charge of the “process” and won’t tell anyone what they’re doing?

Other points of note/concern that came out of that meeting:

* Atos and the DWP were unable to provide any specific information on how MFCs were recruited (which seemed bizarre, given that one of the Atos representatives at the meeting was an MFC)

* MFCs are not required to have formal qualifications in mental health. The minimum requirement is that they have some postgraduate experience in mental health.

* To train for the MFC role, Atos HCPs take a two-day Atos inhouse self-facilitated training course.

Which takes me back to the start of all of this. It is GROSSLY unfair that the DWP would want to overturn a tribunal decision that would make claimants’ lives easier and fairer. Unfortunately, Fair isn’t the point of most policy exercises in this charming day and age. I’ve talked with quite a few people with severe mental health conditions in the last couple of years and Fair isn’t the word that comes to mind when they explain the things they have to deal with. Words like Throwing People Off Social Security At All Costs and Total Dismissal By The Political Class come to mind. I’ve talked with people who are dealing with cuts to support services, homelessness, the closure of their supported living hostels, their councils lying about finding them proper accommodation, community mental health teams being too overwhelmed to help and endless other shit that makes austerity so great. This is not, please, to say that I think people with mental health conditions are pathetic and hopeless and can’t function. It is quite the reverse. It is to say that I keep talking with people who tell me that back in the day – when they had reasonably secure housing, reasonably regular counselling, contact with supportive professionals and a bit of income, life was possible. As those things have gone, life has quickly become less possible.

“The first thing we try and do when someone is in crisis is to try and find them some sort of secure housing,” a northeast welfare rights advisor told me recently as she explained why people with mental health conditions were struggling – with benefit cuts, with preparing themselves and their paperwork for work capability assessments when they’d just been released from hospital and needed places to live and so on. “If you can get people into secure housing, you can start building things from there. They can have an address and they can have that stability.”

I can believe it. Here’s someone who didn’t have that stability – a guy called Pete Gyte*, who I spent several days with in Weymouth last year (I met him at the Soulfood kitchen, which serves free meals for people who are struggling for money). He’d been on and off the streets for some time as he battled the worst of his depression and drug and alcohol addiction.

“I actually went round to the council one morning,” he told me as we sat eating breakfast (DON’T TELL THE GLORIOUS LORD FREUD I GOT A FREE SLICE OF PEANUT BUTTER TOAST THERE PLUS ONE CUP OF TEA BECAUSE HE’LL THINK I WENT FOR THE FUCKIN FREEBIES HA HA HA), “because I was so done in from sleeping on the pier. It was chucking it down with rain – gale-force wind – and I only had 30 minutes’ sleep, because of the fucking generators going on the bastard ferry. I walked into the council and I said “why don’t you just take me to the hospital and give me a lethal injection?””

I’ve been to several work capability assessments now with people who have severe mental health conditions. One man – Stephen – had a long-term schizophrenia diagnoses. That diagnoses wasn’t mentioned in his final report (he challenged that fit-for-work decision and won on appeal. He went from zero points in his initial assessment to an placement in the support group at appeal. That’s how accurate and consistent this Atos rubbish is). “I do have suicidal thoughts and I get really depressed, but I usually manage to talk myself out of it. I tell people that I’m a member of society, but I feel on the fringes of it, as if I’m an outlaw and not in the mainstream. I do hallucinate [especially at night]…I see things like giant squid and things like that…I think I’m being eaten alive…. the drugs, the Sulpiride I take, it’s got quite bad side effects in that my limbs shake every night when I go to bed and keep me up half the night anyway. It has basically gone on since I was 18.”

Needless to say, Stephen’s most “productive” (surely the favourite word of the political class) years were the ones in which he had decent support.

“When I first got out of hospital, when I was 18, I was given a job by my dad, so that he could look after me day to day and see how I was doing.” He also did well at university, when onsite counsellors were regularly in touch, to make sure he was getting through his work okay. He says that support meant that he was able to finish his degree. But then the support fell away, so everything else did. “Since then, I have either worked part time, or gone into full time education, or basically been on training schemes, or been on the welfare state. The labelling [as someone with schizophrenia], stigmatises and discriminates against you in the minds of employers. I’m in my 50s anyway and that’s another thing against me…and what it has meant is huge great holes in my CV which have been covered by little bits of volunteering.”

Right at the moment, I’m speaking with Maggie, who also has a long-term schizophrenia diagnoses. She’s been on incapacity benefit, but has been told that she’ll be moved to ESA and will be called to an Atos face-to-face assessment.

She’s terrified of that assessment and has not had an easy history.  “I was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1997. It’s hard to tell the difference between what’s real or in my head with paranoid schizophrenia. Seeing things that aren’t really there. Hearing voices in your head and things like that. Suspicious of what people are thinking. Not knowing what’s real and what’s not. I first had my breakdown when I was 21. I’m now on daily medication. I was sectioned in 1997.

“I go out shopping, but I don’t really like it. It is hard, going out. If you have schizophrenia, you see the world differently. You are very suspicious of people. So, it’s hard when I go out, but I force myself, because I think if I don’t go out, I’ll feel isolated and I won’t be able to cope with anything and deal with everyday life.”

She’s obviously concerned about the assessment and asked if it was true that people’s benefits could “just be cut off.” I’ve been in email contact with her and her partner again in the last week or so. On and on it goes. I can see where all this is heading. It won’t be long until some political worthy tells us that all anybody with conditions like severe depression or schizophrenia needs is a slap in the face and a few months of homelessness and then they’ll wake up to themselves. Cured. Fixed. It’s a miracle.

ON IT GOES.

But, you know – nobody who has the power to change these things gives a shit. So – let’s just devote some more time and endless column inches to the Len and Ed pissing contest and act like it’s all for the benefit of people in need. Let’s just make that the priority. Let’s pretend that Labour isn’t wedded to social security cuts and privatisation and that senior union officials – three years into these cuts – are suddenly of a mind to fight austerity. Let’s just do some more of that. Because that is really working for me.

Lies, damned lies and Iain Duncan Smith’s “statistics”

Very good idea and work from Disabled People Against Cuts here:

Soon, the Department for Work and Pensions will releasing its Annual Report.

Iain Duncan Smith and his henchministers will no doubt be touring the TV studios to deliver more propaganda about worklessness and the “workshy” and so on. Plenty of this will be made up as usual.

Disabled People Against Cuts has decided to celebrate the release of the DWP Annual Report by releasing a report of their own.

It is a report into how the DWP and DWP Ministers have made claims which are simply untrue. DPAC has selected 35 claims and and found clear evidence that these claims have no basis in the facts.

Highlights (if you can call them that) include IDS claims like:

“On average every week there are half a million new jobs coming through at the job centre.”  A Full Fact investigation came up with a series of figures that suggested the number was substantially lower.

“These figures show that the benefit cap is already a success and actively encouraging people back to work.” In response, Channel 4’s Factcheck said: “In order to know how effective the policy had been, we would need to know the rate at which people on benefits worth more than £26,000 went into work before the letter announcing the changes was sent, and compare it to after the letter was received. But those figures aren’t available. The DWP doesn’t collect them. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, or the Work Foundation, both of which have researched employment, unemployment and benefits, didn’t have them either.”

There are plenty more of these “Iain Duncan Smith facts” – read the full DPAC report here

When you next see Iain Duncan Smith on the TV News, ask yourself – is he lying? or is he simply making it up out of thin air again?

Answer: lying.

The bedroom tax, the northwest and political meltdown

Our latest cuts piece in the New Statesman – this one is a collection of interviews with people I spoke to the week before last about their experiences with the bedroom tax. They’ve been cut loose by politicians, as you might expect. Making sure that people who aren’t very well off are securely housed is not one of austerity’s priorities.

“This tax targets people who know how to fight for improvements and rights as a community – older people like Roach and Jill, who campaigned for better housing and now work in a community centre that runs bedroom tax surgeries and provides hot meals for people who can’t afford them. Many of the people at the largely tenant-led bedroom tax meetings across Merseyside are middle-aged or older. They’ve been in the same homes for many years and have so-called “spare” rooms because their circumstances have changed (often their kids have grown up and left). Because they’ve been around for a while, they have networks in their neighbourhoods, contacts and a lot of experience in seeing off threats. You can see exactly why politicians of all stripes would want to target them with a bedroom tax and break them up.”

Read the rest here.