Mega Mouthpiece

I was dismayed recently by some of the language used at our Labour Party Branch meeting when talking about people who had voted 'Leave'. These are not uncommon descriptors which are used when referring to those who voted leave but they should be combated. Almost 4/10 Labour Party members voted Leave including myself (my reasons are below this piece) and therefore moving forward effort should be made to extend understanding of arguments on both sides.

I was also concerned by some of the inaccuracies that were reported at the meeting and left unchallenged. I have written this short piece to attempt to combat some of these inaccuracies and explore further what we might glean from the voting patterns revealed so far though admittedly limited polling. I should own up to being no statistician but simply have a critical and inquiring mind.

The North East

Firstly, I wanted to draw our attention to this interesting take on the complexities of the North East. Since Brexit the 'White working class' seems to be a group that we need (to get Labour elected) but also revile (for exercising their democratic right) and voting Leave this explores some of the history of the area too and might offer some insight :

https://mappingimmigrationcontroversy.com/2016/06/29/on-the-misuses-of-sunderland-as-brexit-symbol/

Immigration work and pay

Secondly a common mistake is that immigration has been an unalloyed good for the UK and has had no detrimental effects on anyone and is associated with growth etc. Without doubt it has been widely reported that immigration is associated with an increase in tax receipts. However a Bank of England report showed that a 10% increase in immigration caused a 2% decrease in wages for the very poorest in the crappiest jobs.

Here is the 'full fact' summary: https://fullfact.org/immigration/does-immigration-reduce-wages/

Some people feel that this doesn't matter or '2% isn't very much'. I can assure you that 2% is a great deal especially when run in parallel with 10 years of wage stagnation. Opening up the unskilled job market to the rest of Europe when we have the highest minimum wage across the continent will and did have an impact. One which could and should have been addressed by the EU. The EU aims for a ‘level playing field’. Given that the UK has the most comprehensive workers rights (due to the trade union movement) and minimum wage (due to the Labour movement) a true movement of equality and socialism would be harmonisation of workers rights across Europe (to the highest standard held by a member state) leading to a radical redistribution of resources across the continent.

Immigration impact on voting patterns (complex)

Thirdly, it was said that areas which had low immigration voted to leave where areas with high immigration voted to stay. This is a common claim now and isn't actually true. I think it derives from the idea that London (with very high levels of 'foreign born' immigration) voted to stay in most areas (only 5 out of 28 boroughs voted to Leave).

It’s worth looking at London a little more closely it has a migrant population of almost 40% and levels of integration are high. From 2009-2013 for example roughly 200,000 people a year qualified for UK citizenship through naturalisation (so when someone has resided in the UK for 5 years, is a spouse, a civil partner or a child). So even though these people may be considered 'foreign born' migrants they would have been able to vote in the EU Referendum and influence its outcome (if you're wondering I'm quite happy that this is the case and mention it only to try offer a theory on the results). Across the UK it is estimated that 4 million foreign born migrants are entitled to vote in UK national elections - many of these are from former commonwealth countries but by 2015 it was estimated to include 788,000 members which had come from Poland. Census data suggests that migrant populations are most highly concentrated in London and Outer London. 19 of the top 20 seats with the highest levels of foreign born migrants are in London. 14 of these seats are held by Labour. The British Social Attitudes Survey shows that migrants (perhaps unsurprisingly) have ‘a highly distinct perspective on immigration, reflecting their own experience and interests. Positive views of the economic and cultural impact of migration heavily outweigh negative ones amongst foreign born British residents…(both for) economic effects.. (and) for culture...Positive views of migration persist, though at lower levels, among the children of migrants.’*  Roughly we can suggest that amongst the 3.7 million votes cast in London perhaps 1/3rd perhaps a little more were foreign born migrants. As we also know naturalised migrants in general are ‘good citizens’ and highly motivated to vote.

Also if the assertion above that areas with high migration voted in and low migration voted out were true then we would not be able to explain Scotland which has extremely low levels of immigration (4.3% across the nation) and voted to remain.

Areas with very high immigration such as Boston in Lincolnshire (given it's general geographical size) at 16% and they voted overwhelmingly to leave 75.6%.

I offer these few examples to highlight that the pattern is complex and the issues even more so. Individual's reasons for voting Leave cannot be easily categorised and the results reflect the complicated social undercurrents which have swept across the UK for the past 30 years.

Old people voted out and young people are ‘Brexit Victims’....(rubbish).

Fourthly I think it's time we stopped thinking that only 'old' people voted Leave and young people voted Remain. This is not actually born out by the results from polling that we have so far. From the 35-44 age group 48% were voting Leave. By age 45 this had risen to 56% voting Leave.. Given that - it would seem impossible to blame this on 'old' people. Unless you consider people aged 45 upwards as old? Which you might.

According to Ashcroft's polling only just over 1/3 of 18-24 year olds voted. This relatively small group voted to remain at 73% but there is an assumption that the others who didn't vote would also have voted the same way. This is actually quite a difficult assertion to sustain. I know some statisticians who have begun doing some tricky analysis cross referencing this group with educational attainment, higher education, social class and salary. If those who voted in this group were mainly London based for example this would not be a true reflection of how this group voted nationally (although this would depend on which borough they resided in of course!).

Why did those who were net beneficiaries of EU money vote Leave?

Fifthly we also have to acknowledge that those regions who voted to leave who received net benefits from EU grants show what we have known for a long time that charitable giving to anyone does not necessarily result in gratefulness. It can result in resentment. Getting money is not compensation for the destruction of a nation's industry (Wales, North-east, Cornwall).

Therefore some of our broad assumptions need to be roundly tackled.

Finally

Very finally it's worth noting that substantial numbers of people voted out for reasons of sovereignty, democracy and a desire to distance themselves from a neo-liberal edifice. Or because they did not want to be part of a club that destroys its weaker members (there is more on this below).

Many thanks for reading.

Some further reading for you:

Migration Observatory:

Naturalisation as a British Citizen: Concepts and Treands

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Naturalisation%20as%20a%20British%20Citizen%20-%20Concepts%20and%20Trends_0.pdf

Migrants in the UK: An Overview

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Migrants%20in%20the%20UK-Overview_0.pdf

*Migrant Voters in the 2015 General Election

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/files/publications/Migrant_Voters_2015_paper.pdf

EU Referendum: The results in Maps and Charts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

How immigration changed Boston in Lincolnshire

1) Because of the impact of Austerity on EU nations marked by Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment and the erosion of basic social ‘rights’ such as health care, workers rights, housing and social services. 

Greece 

Public healthcare is now gone except a skeleton service run by volunteers - Greeks are turning up at primary health care terminally ill with uterine, bowel, ovarian and breast cancer - as there is no screening.

Greece’s suicide rate rose by 36% to a 30-year high, following a second round of austerity measures in July 2011. (1)

Slashed preventative health care programmes such as free condoms and needle exchanges seeing a doubling of cases of HIV. (2)

“–– Vicious circle of recession.The continuous drop in GDP, in 2011 surpassing the historical maximum for the entire postwar period, led to a rapid reduction in domestic demand. Lower production led to dismissals and the loss of thousands of jobs, further amplifying recession.

–– Unemployment had already more than doubled within the first three years of austerity and reached 25.4 percent in August 2012. More than half of the population between 15–24 years old is unemployed (57 percent; Eurostat 2012), while thousands of jobs have been lost under conditions of insufficient social protection. Given the continuation of the crisis, the new unemployed become the chronic unemployed.

–– Rapid labor deterioration, as shown by the increase of precarious and uninsured work, insecurity, degrading payments, weakening of labour rights, and deregulation of labour agreements.

–– Strangling of the lower middle class, traditionally consisting of small and medium sized enterprises. A great number of such enterprises (family-owned or not) were unable to survive declining consumption, lack of liquidity, and emergency taxes. More than 65,000 of them closed down in 2010 alone, resulting in a “clearance” of such enterprises and disaffecting the people dependent on them.

–– Migration of younger, highly educated people has risen (“brain drain”), while those studying and living abroad are discouraged to return to Greece, and those who previously would have stayed, are now leaving.

–– Homelessness increased by 25 percent from 2009 to 2011. Along with the pre-crisis and “hidden” immigrant homelessness, a generation of “neohomeless” now exists who include those with medium or higher educational backgrounds who previously belonged to the social middle.

–– Suicides hit record levels, increasing by 25 percent from 2009 to 2010 and by an additional 40 percent from 2010 to 2011.

–– Deterioration of public health evidenced by reduced access to health care services and an increase of 52 percent in HIV infections from 2010 to 2011. Drug prevention centres and psychiatric clinics have closed down due to budget cuts.” (3)

Italy

“The economic recession has increased the level of inequality across Italy. The top 20 per cent of households received nearly 40 per cent of all income, while the poorest 20 per cent receive only eight per cent. Over the past ten years, average net financial wealth has reduced by 40.5 per cent (from €26,000 to €15,600 per family).” (pg1)

“Between 2011 and 2012, relative poverty in Italy increased, particularly among families with one or more children under the age of 18, from 16.2 per cent to 20.1 per cent.11 This data matches the research findings of the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,12 which showed how, in 2012, 15.9 per cent of Italians under the age of 17 were living in relative poverty, with a child poverty rate 4.4 per cent higher than the poverty rate of the general population. According to UNICEF, in 2012, Italy ranked 32nd out of 35 OECD countries in terms of child poverty.” (pg4) (4)

Portugal

Post austerity ⅕ unemployed ⅓ young people and with a large swathe underemployed (this is an improvement it was 1 in 2 young people - imagine the long term impact of no employment)

“The austerity imposed by the Memorandum of Understanding (2011) launched the country into a deep recession that had devastating impacts on some sectors of the economy. The young and precarious workers were particularly affected, with youth unemployment rising to 37.7% (2012 and 2013). More poverty, more unemployed with less benefits, substantial cuts in old age pensions and the national health service in cost contention: Austerity and recession bring growing social problems while reducing public responses to these problems.” (5)

Ireland

“The eight austerity budgets between 2008 and 2014 involved €18.5bn in public-spending cuts and €12bn in tax-raising (revenue) measures. Key public services, in particular health and housing, have been weakened as a result.

Public service staff have been reduced by 10% (37,500). Health spending has been cut by 27% since 2008, resulting in an 81% increase in the number of patients waiting on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments. One-third of all children admitted to hospital suffering with mental-health difficulties have been put in adult wards and the waiting lists for youth mental-health services have increased to 2,818 people.

Funding for local authority housing was cut from €1.3bn, in 2007, to just €83m, in 2013. This meant a loss of 25,000 social-housing units. This is a major contribution to the homelessness crisis, with 1,000 children and 500 families now living in emergency accommodation in Dublin. Because of the decision to prioritise bank recapitalisation and developer debt write-down, homeowner mortgage arrears have escalated.

There are 37,000 homeowners in mortgage arrears of over 720 days, and legal repossession notices were issued to 50,000 homeowners.

The cuts to welfare have had devastating impacts.Affected areas include lone-parent supports, child benefit, youth payments, fuel, back-to-school clothing and footwear, rent supplement, and disability and carers’ allowance.” (6)

Varoufakis on Ireland:

“But how could we have taken that chance? And anyway in hindsight, with our economy having now turned the corner, does it not look like the government, broadly speaking, acted in our best interests?

"But there is a huge debt and there was a lost generation in Ireland", he counters. "There are thousands and thousands of Irish men and women - mostly the younger and smarter ones - who have left your country for good. And they won't come back because there are no decent jobs to come back to."

Aren't there? Does the "model prisoner", as he's called Ireland, not get the benefit of being able to attract the world's big tech firms here precisely because we've shown the wisdom of playing by the rules?

"I think most Irish people know deep down that they've managed to attract the Googles and Facebooks of this world with a beggar-my-neighbour tax policy, which is only successful for boosting GDP and violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law. It also violates the principles of universal fairness which we try to teach our children." “ (7)

and Spain

“As CESR’s rigorous statistical analysis shows, four years of successive cuts in public spending have seriously undermined social services and social protection in the country.  Some 13 million people are now at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Spain - three million more than when the economic crisis first hit. Child poverty rates have escalated, while the gap between rich and poor is widening so fast that Spain is now one of the most unequal countries in Europe.

Over 30 UN member states raised economic and social rights concerns related to austerity measures in Spain. The discriminatory impact of health sector reforms -- particularly Royal Decree Law 16/2012 which excludes almost a million undocumented migrants from accessing healthcare services, save for very exceptional circumstances --  faced a broad chorus of disapproval.  Many voiced specific concern around the exclusion faced by migrants in health care, housing and education.    

States also drew attention to increasing poverty among children, and called on Spain to confront the obstacles facing victims and survivors of gender-based violence. As detailed in CESR’s factsheet, social security allocations for children and families has been cut by 91% since 2008, while the already meager provision to combat gender-based violence has also been reduced significantly.

Spain’s austerity-driven unemployment crisis was also a cause for major concern, with a series of countries calling for stronger measures to fulfil the right to decent work. Long-term unemployment and employment precarity have become chronic features of Spain’s economic landscape, with a quarter of the active population out of work overall and over 50% of young people jobless.” (8)

the treatment of European nations is no EU I want to be a part of.

2) Impact on workers

Because of poor working class workers working at the bottom of the heap. Free movement of workers leaves them totally exposed. The types of work they used to do is going. I've spoken to many of these workers who have explained how their lives have been made worse. Workers from eastern Europe flood here for a better quality of life - minimum wage is double or triple or even quadruple what they could earn in their own country. Our poor workers can't flood east. The middle classes with disposable income can. These factors and others depress wages. A flexible workforce is an abused workforce. Working conditions of the migrant workforce are often poor - high levels of homelessness, poor housing etc. Choice is highly prized only if we have the ability to avail ourselves of it.

3) Austerity combined with immigration on poor communities

The impact on essential services in areas of high immigrant populations class sizes, hospital waiting lists, GP surgeries, housing. The disinvestment into essential services and the pressing need for them in areas of high immigrant populations leaves the poorest in society fundamentally exposed.

4) EU Commission

The fundamental lack of democracy at the heart of the EU the 'appointed commissioners' uhhh no thanks. I couldn't vote for an organisation like that.

5) Big Business?

The 'big business' wants it brigade - I've never known a time in human history where big business hasn't been able to take care of itself thank you very much.

6) TTIP

Finally, TTIP although we'll get it anyway the way that Europe and US has negotiated it in secret with 'secret courts' which are impervious to the public gaze? No way. If it's negotiated by the UK with the US it's more likely we'll be able to see it with Freedom of Information.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25643700

http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/20121130-Risk-Assessment-HIV-in-Greece.pdf

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-greek-economic-crisis-the-social-impacts-of-austerity-debunking-the-myths/5431010

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cs-true-cost-austerity-inequality-italy-120913-en.pdf

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/10722.pdf

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/irelands-austerity-success-is-no-model-for-greece-340662.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/varoufakis-trichets-ultimatum-to-ireland-was-like-an-idle-suicide-threat-34652225.html

What do you know about the Bedroom Tax? 

Scenario 1

Family of 5 in a 3 bedroom house. Mum and Dad (married) 3 children (3,6,11 - healthy boys). Dad on a zero hours contract. Do they pay the bedroom tax? 

Scenario 2

64 year old single woman living in a 5 bedroom house in London - privately rented. Do they pay bedroom tax? Scenario 3

Single mum (marriage broke up) of two children (girl and boy 8 and 6) working part time. Living in Social Housing. Encouraged by social housing landlord to move from 2 bed to a 3 bed house in 2012. Does she pay bedroom tax?

Scenario 4

Single mum living in 2 bed flat allocated by her social housing landlord with child under 5. Does she pay Bedroom tax?

Scenario 5

Single mum living in 2 bed flat rented from a private landlord whilst she was working. Company have made her redundant after 15 years - she's been unable to secure further employment that fits around her child who is under 5. Does she pay Bedroom Tax?

Scenario 6

I attended a speech given by Andy Burnham yesterday morning at the Microsoft Building in the Thames Valley Business Park - given the setting the speech was on economic planning and business - with the odd question on social welfare matters. I didn't get to ask a question as time was very rushed. Afterwards I decided to send Andy my question - unfortunately I don’t seem to be able to find a place to send it - so here it is my question and other comments.  If any of you have any answers to my question they would be gratefully received. 

It should be noted that I am a active member of the Labour Party and undecided regarding the current leadership contest.

@CriminologyUK

Dear Andy

I attended your speech earlier today at Microsoft. I didn't get to ask my question unfortunately but this was it:

‘Hi Andy, I’m Anne. I understand that you’re a working class lad and I’m a working class girl. At one point in my life I thought I would be able to say ‘working class made good’ but as you know social mobility is now non-existent so the ‘made good’ part never got said.  The thing that being working class makes me good at is knowing about stigma, poverty, inequality and debt. I come from one of the poorest and most socially deprived areas of Britain - I remember hiding behind the sofa with my mum when the rent man came round.

In point one of your speech you noted how although there were some considerable economic successes in the last government you felt that the deficit that was run (even though it was the smallest for 20 years) was a mistake - and you know this because Alistair Darling asked you to reduce it. You mentioned that you would aim to run a surplus. For me a government running a surplus is ‘morally reprehensible’. A strong phrase but one I mean firmly. For me money and morals are always tightly intertwined. For a large corporation or a big business or the accounts of a country debt is not a fearful thing. Debt is there to be used in the same way as income - to create wealth. A large business would not feel satisfied in having its money locked up and warehoused. That money should always be working for the good of the company - creating wealth. This also holds true for a state. States have a responsibility to use their assets (including their credit worthiness) to accrue wealth for a nation, and today for it’s neighbours and the globe. This goes to point 5 of your speech. I do not understand why when you would have ‘money in the bank’ you would expect local authorities and the state to borrow money (from banks?) and pay interest on that (whilst the state accrues a surplus) to invest in infrastructure. That would be a net loss for the country. Private finance initiatives were a disaster. They are an iron chain around our necks and any further association with something similar (even watered down) would be disastrous. I think running a surplus and using borrowed money to invest in infrastructure is bad policy - can you tell me why I’m wrong?’

It seems to me that ‘having a surplus’ as per Mr Osborne is a new ‘thing’ - a symbol of ‘control’ over a system which can only be guided by checks and balances which exist nationally and internationally. When people cannot afford to feed themselves and the country has a surplus then a moral vacancy must exist at the heart of our political process.

The country is crying out for a leader - a person who can inhabit a moral, social, political and cultural framework that can show the people a new way. That can pull them out of dichotomous mindsets that set one group against another. It seems to me that currently the Labour Party is too busy responding to the conservative party, to media portrayals etc to be truly original. I am awaiting that moment where I can put my faith in a leader who is a change maker, a person who doesn’t play by the rules but decides what the game is. Hackneyed? Perhaps, but it is what is needed - without it we will spend three terms in the cold.

I currently claim carer’s allowance. I haven’t always done this and I won’t always do this but I consider myself a ‘wealth creator’ as much as anyone in work. I create a wealth of opportunities for my family, my neighbourhood, my community and certainly for my local authority and my nation. Anyone who claims any type of welfare benefit will also be doing the same. I’m fearful that you and your colleagues know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We know (there’s research on this) that stigmatising poor people and using the language of objectification and scapegoating we saw in the last government does not encourage people to achieve it destroys them. Making poor people poorer will not increase the wealth of the nation.

I liked your suggestion regarding a clearing system for apprenticeships and technical and academic education being treated on a par. However, we both know that this has been the aim of governments for decades and has yet to be achieved. Your suggestions for Local Councils building housing from money which has been loaned is also exasperating given it was the Labour Party who insisted LA’s could not borrow which led to them selling housing off cheap to Housing Associations who were explicitly given the opportunity to borrow (don’t get me started on housing). However, as I say I would overlook all past errors if I felt there was a leader who was going to lead - take a stance on the stigmatising language, openly support unions etc, etc..

The thing which so attracted me to your campaign last time but I’ve only heard you mention once this time is that ‘You die in the bed you’re born in’. This is true now more than ever and you know and I know the austerity movement will not remedy this in any way.

With thanks for your time.

Kind regards,

Anne

It seems to be the norm now to say that when an accused (usually) man is found *not guilty* of rape or sexual assault charges that his accusers made 'false allegations'. That they lied. This is not how it works.

A defendant is found 'not guilty' (usually) because the jury has to decide: is their sufficient evidence to reach the burden of proof in criminal law cases which is 'beyond reasonable doubt'? This means - taking all things into consideration does the jury feel that there is no reasonable doubt in their mind that the accused committed the crime they have been accused of.

In other words if there is a doubt in their mind and its reasonable (eg it's what you or I would broadly consider reasonable - we might consider for example the thought in a Jury members mind that the accused had been removed from the incident by Martians unreasonable but we might consider reasonable that the alleged accusor misread the situation) then the jury must find the accused 'not guilty'.

As I'm sure you can see the test in criminal cases is very high indeed. This is because in the British Legal System we feel that it is better for one man who is guilty to go free than an innocent man may end up in prison. I'm sure you can see therefore that it is very difficult to secure rape convictions *ever* because they mostly happen in private - they are what is terrifyingly termed an 'intimate crime'.

That's why convictions are easier to secure when there is a pattern - someone who had committed an offence more than once to different victims who are not known to one another such as the Worboys 'Taxi Driver' case where publication of his picture brought forward more victims (victims who had reported the crime to the police but failed investigations or weak evidence had led to non-prosecution - very common in rape cases).

False Allegations and Civil Remedies

Although complex and difficult to unpick evidence suggests it is very rare for victims to lie about being a victim of crime and given the shame attached to rape or sexual assault victims it is actually more likely that they will not report the offence in the first place as the likelihood of successful prosecution is so rare. However, false allegations clearly do occur at times and when this happens the CPS could bring a case against those making false allegations and under criminal investigation they would also be subject to the above test 'beyond reasonable doubt' and in the absence of other evidence they would in all likelihood be found 'not guilty'. This would be a waste of public funds.

Alternatively, the accused could bring a case against those making false allegations in the civil courts for damages to reputation etc. However, in civil cases the burden of proof (the test as discussed above) is much lower - 'the balance of probabilities'. The test here is not one of guilt or innocence but culpability - how much are you to blame for what you are alleged to have done?

So taking into consideration all that we know about this case do I think (the judge) it is likely that you did what it is said you did? Here the judge decides with all her legal nous and experience at her disposal. In these cases the danger is that the judge may find for the defendant - she may feel that in all likelihood given what they had to loose that they were telling the truth. That is the danger and why those found 'not guilty' of criminal offences tend not to subject themselves to further proceedings and additionally the cost is exorbitant and beyond the reach of normal folk. 

An example of this is the OJ Simpson case - not guilty at criminal court. Culpable and liable for fines at civil court. 

Final points

So again - a 'not guilty' finding in a criminal court case (unless otherwise directed by the judge - 'this case should never have been brought', 'these claims are clearly vexatious' - which hardly ever happens) does not mean victims were lying it means that their evidence was not strong enough to meet a very high test. It would be like you or I trying to jump over an Olympic style high jump. Practically impossible to achieve.  This is why conviction of a rape charge is so low in this country The Independent go into it here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html

And why some feel the burden of proof for rape cases should be lower than 'beyond reasonable doubt' there is precedence for a lower burden of civil liability being use in an action where a criminal sanction can be used - anti-social behaviour cases. However this is unlikely to ever happen in rape cases. 

Why I joined the Labour Party

I was born poor. In the months before I was born due to bad decisions and bad luck my parents and brother and sister were homeless. So in effect properly poor with everything that entails: a fundamental insecurity and precariousness to life. In the ‘Hierarchy of needs’ ladder my family were yet to clamber off the lower rungs. The thing that happens in life when you are poor is both you and your family will be exposed to much more ‘intervention’ by the state than you would experience if you had a job, paid your rent, bought your shopping, fed and clothed yourself etc. The measure of that intervention, the attitude behind it, the way it is perceived socially and politically will have a vast impact on the individual’s life.

If circumstances which are largely beyond your control: an economic downturn, a lack of jobs, spiralling inflation for example, are brutally shoved onto the shoulders of those who are least able to carry that weight – the poor – than a brutalising process of the actual person, their situation and psyche begins.  It is not then just about the everyday poverty of the individual but a dark and terrible structural poverty of society. Being poor was shameful and the internalisation of that shame is a powerful inhibitor to normal life and self-respect.  It remains exactly the wrong way to treat a person. If you wanted a person to be someone who could have a job, participate in the life of a community and neighbours, pay taxes and make good choices, have better health outcomes, less mental illness etc., then subjecting a family to systemic impoverishment of all aspects of life would be the wrong way to do this.

Amusingly politicians talk about a ‘poverty of aspiration’ amongst the poor. I can talk from experience and say that this simply is not true. Aspiration, hope and ambition are what keep you warm at night and the pain of an unfulfilled life keeps you awake. However, we know, firmly and resolutely, that the likelihood of escaping the brutalising poverty being experienced by the poor then and today is practically impossible. As Andy Burnham rightly suggests ‘the bed you’re born into is (pretty much) the bed you’ll die in’. Social mobility is at an all time low. Is this due to a ‘poverty of aspiration’? No – it is simply due to the physical, social and cultural barriers to progression. The attitudes of our politicians act as a signal to the rest of society. A resolutely cruel and brutalising attitude to the poor by them will result in intractable strata of society who cannot escape despite being full of dreams and desires.

And what about me? Did I escape the 70’s and the 80’s unscathed – no not at all. However, I did have a chance. I became educated. I had an opportunity to perceive that as a child my life was directed by largely middle and upper class white men in suits who at various levels, locally, regionally and nationally, held power over my life. Decisions made in meeting rooms and offices, modifications made to policy dripped down into my world and either pulled me up or shoved me down.  Education was a refuge. Did it save me? Did it make up for all that came before? No, it did not but it helped. And the other things that helped are being sold (NHS), taken (Education) and destroyed (Housing).

As we know the things that help the poor help us all and a failure to help the poorest hurts us all.

So why did I join the Labour Party? Well I joined because I see what is happening and I hate it and when I heard Ed’s speech I thought he was acting as a signal to the type of country I long for. 

(38 Degrees will provide relevant salutation)

I realise that the local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) are preparing to  amend their constitutions and I would ask them to do what they can to protect the NHS from the encroaching privatisation of services. 

It should be noted that the planned changes to the NHS orchestrated by this government will lead to it's eventual privatisation. They were conducted in my opinion without openness or frankness and some may suggest with a good degree of dishonesty. The government did not have a mandate for these proposals as they were not included in the election manifestos of either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative Party. 

It is clear that having a National Health Service which is free at the point of delivery is something we have been able to be truly proud of for over 50 years - and it should not be sold off without our say so. 

CCG's at this time will be able to make amendments to their constitution which will protect them and us from the governments plans to divest its people of the right to public health care. I would entreat them to do so and begin the fight back against this ultimate form of theft. 

The NHS belongs to the people. We paid for it through taxation, we own the scalpels, the training, the medical records and the paper trail, the bricks and mortar and the light bulbs. I paid for it, you paid for it and our parents paid for it and we certainly shouldn't let it be sold out from under us. 

In our time of ultimate need we have little to rely on in these turbulent times. We should be able to rely on the NHS. Lets thwart the government in this one aspect and make sure we still can. 

CCG colleagues in City and Hackney have already engaged in this process and believe they have done sufficient to ensure that private health care will be kept out of public provision - I would entreat our CCG to do the same. 

I was extremely angry and distressed at the utter lack of coverage of the debates and passing of the Health and Social Care Bill. Over 1000 amendments were made to this bill which makes major and fundamental changes to the National Health Service, the founding institution of the welfare state. An institution which is held in high regard by the British people and admired by many around the world. However, despite this, despite its extremely high profile and several, runs, events, and demonstrations held in its honour and in fear of its loss it was not mentioned on Newsnight or BBC news. On the 19th and 20th March the BBC remained silent despite a special motion by Lord Owen in an attempt to delay the Bill and have it debated with full transparency. It was full of drama and in the public interest to understand these changes. The media blackout by the BBC was an abject failure of its duty and I would like to understand why you decided to not cover this momentous change in the status of our much loved institution; the National Health Service. 

If you're White you're unlikely to get it.

But if you're poor and white you're likely to get it a bit more. A black young lad is 7-14 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. It goes up and down across the year and across the decades and even across localities. But it's a lot. More than white people. A lot more than white people. Victims of this behaviour call it 'being felt up'. If you're a woman you'll know that 'being felt up' is a humiliating encounter, it's uninvited, it's an invasion of your personal space. It's a criminal offence. 

Intelligence led? Or prejudice led?

It is *not* what euphemistically might be called 'intelligence led policing' it is what it is - racial profiling. Consciously and unconsiously it's about stopping the black fella. Once you're through that, it's about stopping the poor fella. Then the thick fella. Then the mouthy girlfriend. It's policing the highly visible. 

Lowering crime?

It does not lower crime or solve crime or prevent crime. It erodes trust between the police and the community.

Black people and crime/the poor and crime.

So are black people more likely to commit crime? Is racial profiling justified? No it is not. Are poor people more likely to commit crime? No they are not - but they are more likely to be caught because they are 'over policed'. Black people are not more  criminogenic than other sectors of the population. Eg their White counterparts.

Patterns of crime

The criminal behaviour practiced by a TINY minority of our communities does fall in different patterns across age/gender/race lines. As such certain geographic areas, races and ages will attract different levels of policing at different times. However, often these decisions are influenced by the organisation of the police, the political context of the police, the political organisation of law making and those who hold the power. So the decisions about what crime is important and what is not is fundamentally influecned by race and social class. 

Broader Context of Housing Market

Public goods cannot bear the weight of profit. By public goods I am referring to such things that we have come to regard as essential, health, education, housing and social care. Of course in recent years to some degree all of these areas have become subject to that age old bug bear of western democracy – ‘The Market’. Why don’t public goods respond well to the profit principle? Well, because, to have a genuine market you need competition and to have competition you need both winners and losers. Of course it is all fine and dandy to lose out when you’re bidding for a new quilted bed spread on ebay but quite another when you’re bidding for a new home or an operation or a higher education degree. Then it becomes about your existing position and access to resources. That is why it is wrong that since the 1980’s successive governments have felt that it is acceptable and indeed normal to pretend that a housing market can be the engine of an economy.

Despite all our attempts to make it so a house is not a pension, it isn’t a bank, it’s not a savings account for old age, it is not a hospital or an education fund for your children. A house is just a house and if you are relying on it increasing in price then you are indulging in an existence which is based on a fallacy. It may have worked for a while and it has clearly worked for at least a generation but our children and our grandchildren and to some extent this generation will pay for indulging in that fallacy. A brick is a brick. You can paint it, angle it and put it in the right location but at some point someone is going to call your bluff and say ‘That is not money, it’s not healthcare, it’s just a brick. It doesn’t make anything it doesn’t do anything and above keeping me dry its extrinsic value is melting away.’

The crash of 2008 was a partial realisation of this fallacy. Sub-prime mortgages, lending to people who were not ‘prime’ candidates for large debt (lots of people) and lending them more than the property was worth (additional debt for home improvement) and more then it could ‘actually’ be worth (most property) along with the indiscriminate parcelling up and trading of this precarious debt led to a global (ish) wake up call. Without doubt the recovery from this position is going to be slow and excruciating but will perhaps lead eventually to a revaluation of what is important and what we need. An indication of this may be the global (ish) occupy movement. However, this process may be thwarted or delayed by Grant Shapps’ Housing Strategy for England (2011) as it is a direct attempt to shore up the pre 2008 fallacy, for a period of time, and prevent the drastic crash in the housing market which probably needs to take place. The government is seeking to maintain our belief in the housing fallacy because increasingly our belief in it is how we intend to pay for education, health, housing and social care. Prophetic ideological idiocy ensures that we must just keep on believing and hide under the covers.

English Housing Strategy

The main planks of Shapps’ plan are as follows: to increase house buying and building by providing a government backed mortgage indemnity package for all buyers (not just first time buyers as was first reported) and also a buy now pay later land schemes for developers, to increase first time buyers by improving the terms on which social housing tenants can purchase their homes, to change the distribution of housing receipts from social housing (the housing revenue fund used to distribute social housing receipts – money accrued through right to buy – according to need) now receipts will stay in the county in which they were received. A house sold under right to buy will result in a house built (although they may not be of the same type house building will likely be as a result of local need). No additional funds will be available for social house building and tragically the private rented sector will remain unregulated. Government land held by other departments will be released for house building. House building will occur through (mainly) private development but also through social housing receipts. Therefore social housing will only increase through the current responsibility for private developers to build mixed estates a policy of varying success.

Government sponsored sub-prime mortgages

Primarily, Shapps’ plan is about increasing the number of first time buyers and secondly injecting some energy back into the private house building market.  The indemnity scheme proposed by the government seems remarkably similar to the sub-prime mortgages which led to the ‘global’ economic crash in 2008. Those unable to afford mortgages in the current more rigorous market will be able to avail themselves of a 95% mortgage which will be backed by the government:  A guaranteed bank bailout on a possibly poor risk in a harsh market.  There is a lack of any attempt to deal with an overheated housing market through what might be termed rebalancing. This would mirror the government’s strategy to rebalance public sector employment by shrinking it and creating jobs in the private sector. Similarly homes need to be created in the social housing sector and affordable rented sector. However, this would cause unwanted pain to home owners and buy to renters a move which would be singularly unpopular and attract powerful opposition.  

What needs to happen

So this is what I think about Steve Jobs, Apple and the iPhone. After considerable resistance I purchased an Apple iPhone in January 2010. I did this even though I was aware it would not meet my needs. I primarily used my phone as a phone (crazy times) and a camera. I was aware that the camera on the iPhone was poor. However, the desire to have an iLife like everyone else was impossible to bear and so I tied myself into a two year expensive phone contract for a big capacity iPhone.

iPhone love

Within five weeks my love affair with the iPhone had waned. Mainly because it was not a good phone. I had not moved area or changed provider but my crystal clear reception was gone, the iPhone drops calls and has poor audio quality. Most of my conversations now involved such gems as ‘can you hear me?’ ‘Yes I can hear you when you shout ‘can you hear me?’ But not when you say anything of substance’. I realised very quickly that what I had was an iGadget it did lots of things I never knew I needed and probably still do not but it fails to do the basics well. So for two years I’ve lugged it about with me often out of charge and failing to pick up calls. Mine (possibly zapped by a Jobs mind meld) also hangs and crashes another commonish problem.

However, what I found most shocking was how problematic it is to express criticism of Apple products to Apple followers. They cannot be described as consumers because their defence of the brand is so vociferous.  Classically, they follow a pattern of denial (of any problems) and attack (it was my issue as a user). Followers clearly felt I should not have been provided with an iPhone because I a) was not ready and b) was not a follower. No criticism of the product was allowed.

Marx (big beard/big brain) 

These patterns of behaviour remind me of Marx’s commodity fetishism[i] briefly storing value in a product (a thing) that does not exist or is beyond its intrinsic value. In these terms we could leap into the legal realm of intellectual property. However, Apple followers are not really articulating or expressing an admiration or desire to protect the intellectual ‘part’ of the product but something else an inherent ‘belief’ in it. I am an atheist so it’s no wonder that anyone who expresses ‘belief’ for a movement or a praising of a ‘thing’ (commodity fetishism) would immediately send me into a place of deep discomfort. Any form of objectification without reason can lead the human race into unfortunate and tragic circumstances.

Jesus and marketing

So back to that Jesus fella - this is what happened when he went into a temple and found a ‘market’ there. People were buying and selling in the market place ‘buy yer doves here’ ‘lambs for sacrifice’ ‘get rid of your euros ‘ere’ etc.

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves (Mathew 21:12 from the New International Version – The Bible).

But you see Jesus would no longer have to worry about this as Jobs managed the great capitalist marketing switch he took the church out of church and put it in the Market. Jesus didn’t want us in the churches so we (he and the complicit needy masses) made capitalism into a belief system and its developers into gods and its products into icons. That was the true genius of Jobs. He was a marketing guru par excellence. This is why the moral dimension of Apple  - no porn App store for iPhones – works so well it mirrors Christian, patriarchal values of sex and sexuality (a whole PhD could be written on that). It’s so clever! It’s the marketing path to walk – turn your product into a religion and gain followers not consumers.

Meaning

Like other religious icons owning an iPhone means something. And unlike other ‘products’ its image has not been tarnished by its ubiquity. Core followers still love and defend it even though other capitalist products need to maintain exclusivity to create a sense of living a certain life. Jobs marketed a product which was exclusive and ubiquitous.

I can only imagine that as when there is a death of a religious leader his products, sayings, and trappings will become even more spoken of, quoted and desired - for a time.

Social class? Not sure.

Although Apple is the most extreme example of this ‘follower’ status it is also observable with other businesses. I have noticed a similar ‘defence of brand’ in other companies such as Ocado  a middle class defence of everything that is good in the world – politeness, delivery and cleanliness.

The world according to Jinsy

Finally, I leave you with episode 2, Series 1 of ‘This is Jinsy: Cupboard’ which idolatrizes the simple cupboard and makes the cupboard-maker into God. Ring any iPhones???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW6hL26e4SQ