My thanks to Russell, without whose timing I may have written about something else…
Apathy: lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern:
Origin: early 17th century: from French apathie, via Latin from Greek apatheia, from apathēs ‘without feeling’, from a- ‘without’ + pathos ‘suffering’
Is apathy the right word for the public’s attitude to politics and the democratic process?
Is there really a lack of interest? Perhaps in the current content spewing from most mainstream mouths but this is not the same as a lack of interest in the issues.
Is there really a lack of enthusiasm? Perhaps for the direction in which said spew wants to take us. Perhaps for some issues: immigration gets some people very heated, for instance, whereas others refuse to see it as an issue worthy of so much time.
Is there really a lack of concern? I should bloody well hope not! Considering…
View original post 1,192 more words
(not satire – it’s the UK energy companies!)
The CEO of Energy UK Angela Knight is in the news today for (again) defending energy companies’ price rises.
Somewhat bizarrely she said energy companies are “more socially responsible than supermarkets” and yet again blamed rising wholesale costs of energy for consumer price rises – an argument which has already been shown to be completely untrue.
As I showed in a previous blogpost, wholesale prices of energy have in fact fallen since 2008, not risen:
So how come the CEO of Energy UK is able to so openly lie to the public without so much as a blink or a twitch never mind a drop of sweat passing over her brow?
Perhaps she’s an expert poker player or has a background in military intelligence as a…
View original post 186 more words
(to go straight to the poster listing areas of law for which legal aid is available, click HERE)
The message that legal aid remains for many areas of law is not being heard. A new poster campaign aims to address the problem.
Legal aid is still available – but it seems that the government is not enthusiastic for the public to get the message.
Since the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act in April, which removed legal aid for huge swathes of advice areas, the take up of legal aid for cases that remain in scope has been much less than the Legal Aid Agency expected.
Hugh Barrett, the agency’s director of commissioning told the Legal Aid Practitioners Group conference that the take up of legal aid was significantly lower than the LAA had expected post-LASPO.
Last month, the Gazettereported that referrals to…
View original post 288 more words
Get tweeting, folks: #whereisIDS and #DWPLateReview
Vox Political has been waiting for this meeting, with almost as much impatience as Jayne and Debbie, but it seems Iain doesn’t want to come out and play! Let’s ask why.
Back in June we had reason to feel positive our petition asking the work and pensions select committee to hold IDS to account for his use of statistics had reached 100,000 and we had been told that the committee wanted to tie it in to the end of year review of the DWP so they had all the facts at their disposal. A date would be forthcoming…
Time dragged on and in June we were told MR Smith had cancelled because the end of year review was still not ready…
Time dragged on…
and once in July again the appointment was cancelled with the promise of something in the autumn…
Time dragged on…
and in September we were told November but…
Time is still dragging on and now on the 31st of October 2013, and we’re told…
View original post 290 more words
Apparently Job Centre staff – these are the people who spend their entire working lives bullying benefit claimants in a bid to make them go away and never come back – are seen as a liability by government ministers because they might help claimants who have been refused benefits like ESA to appeal against the decision!
It might seem unbelievable but the facts behind this juicy revelation are well-established.
So, Job Centre staff, the question is simple: Where’s your self-respect? Are you really willing to behave like animals towards your fellow citizens – people you might have known since school or before, for the sake of a bunch of oblivious toffs who think you’re scum?
The government is changing the rules to make it harder for disabled people to appeal when it takes away their benefits.
And they are clamping down on job centre staff who try to help claimants, in an effort to break an “appeals culture”, according to internal memos seen by Socialist Worker.
People claiming Employment Support Allowance (ESA) can be stripped of it if they are deemed “fit for work” in controversial tests run by companies such as Atos Healthcare, known as Work Capability Assessments (WCA).
WCAs have come in for massive criticism from doctors as well as disability campaigners, and almost 40 percent of people who appeal against a WCA decision are successful.
The high appeal rate has been a huge embarrassment for the government—as it exposes how arbitrary and unfair their assessments are.
But instead of changing the system the government is making it harder to appeal against it.
View original post 249 more words
Harsh words about Brooks, Coulson and Co as the prosecution opens in the phone-hacking trial!
Rebekah Brooks personally approved payment of almost £40,000 to a civil servant in return for information, the phone hacking trial heard today. Mrs Brooks was editing the Sun newspaper when the payments were made to the official, Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting, told the jury.
View original post 836 more words
abuse, appeal, Article 4 (2), benefit, benefits, Cait Reilly, Coalition, compensation, Conservative, Court of Appeal, death, Department, Department for Work and Pensions, die, DWP, european convention, government, health, human rights, Iain Duncan Smith, IDS, Jamieson Wilson, Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, judicial review, Mandatory Work Activity, mental, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Mr Justice Foskett, Pensions, people, politics, Poundland, power, Public Interest Lawyers, repay, retrospective, returned to unit, RTU, rule, rule of law, ruling, sanction, social security, suicide, Supreme Court, taxpayer, Tories, Tory, undermine, unemployment, Vox Political, welfare, work, Work Programme, Workfare
It’s a return to the drawing-board for the man we call ‘Returned To Unit’ after the Supreme Court ruled against Iain Duncan Smith’s Workfare appeal.
The five Supreme Court justices upheld a Court of Appeal decision, made against the government in February.
The case had been brought by Cait Reilly, a geology graduate who, while unemployed but volunteering at a local museum in order to gain experience towards getting a curator’s job, had been ordered by the Department for Work and Pensions to work for her benefits, stacking shelves at Poundland.
It should be remembered that Poundland is perfectly capable of employing its own workers on full wages. At the time, it ran 390 stores nationwide and made £21,500,000 profit in 2010 – enough to employ extra staff at all its branches and still make a good profit.
The amount it was saving by not paying Ms Reilly, coupled with the fiscal multiplier that adds around 60p to every pound she would have earned if she had been an employee, means Poundland could have made a £1,188.48 profit from the work she was doing for the firm at the taxpayers’ expense.
Total profit for all companies using benefit recipients on ‘Mandatory Work Activity’ between June 2011 and July 2012 (878,000 people): £894, 416, 090 – nearly £1 billion.
Loss to the taxpayer: £16,933,000 (not including payments to Work Provider companies).
Together with another claimant, Jamieson Wilson, Ms Reilly brought a judicial review against the scheme, claiming it was a violation of human rights under article 4 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights: “No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour” – and the government lost the case.
Mr Justice Foskett stated: “Her original complaint arose from what she was wrongly told was a compulsory placement on a scheme that (a) impeded her voluntary efforts to maintain and advance her primary career ambition and (b) having embarked upon it, from her perspective, did not offer any worthwhile experience on an alternative career path. It is not difficult to sympathise with her position from that point of view.”
At the time (August 2012), the right-wing media slanted their reports to make it seem that Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson had lost, but this was soon rectified because the government appealed against the ruling, which stated that, if Ms Reilly had been properly informed of the regulations, she would not have been led to believe she was being put into forced labour.
The problem for Mr… Smith was that Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson were not the only ones to have been misled in this way, and the ruling opened up the government to claims for compensation, from thousands of benefit claimants, for millions of pounds that had been taken away from them because they had refused to take part in the ‘work-for-benefits’ schemes. The illegality of the regulations meant the DWP, under Iain Duncan Smith’s supervision, had broken the law more than 228,000 times – RTU is a criminal more than a quarter of a million times over.
In any case, evidence quickly piled up, proving that Workfare doesn’t work. During its first 14 months, only 3.53 per cent of jobseekers who took part in the government’s mandatory work activity programme – of which Workfare is a part – actually found a job for six months or more. They would have had a better chance of finding a job if the work programme had not existed.
This did not prevent the Department for Work and Pensions from appealing against the ruling and, in February, the Court of Appeal responded – by upholding the claim that the scheme was unlawful.
This meant that anyone who was penalised for refusing to take part, or for leaving the scheme once they had started it and realised what it was, could claim back the Jobseekers’ Allowance that had been withdrawn from them for non-compliance. The payout could have been as high as £130 million.
Smith wasn’t going to have any of that! He launched emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of the decision and change the regulations retrospectively, making it impossible for benefit claimants to demand payouts of between £530 and £570 each for decisions made while the illegal rules were in force.
Lawyers and campaigners branded the DWP’s move as “repugnant” and “unbelievably disgusting”, saying it undermined the rule of law. This blog concurs with that assessment. It is an appalling abuse of governmental power.
But the government succeeded in undermining the rule of law after all but a few members of the Labour Party allowed it to pass, having negotiated a few “safeguards” that have proved to be useless in practice.
Fortunately, some people have a little more backbone and Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson took their case to the Supreme Court. It is from this body that today’s – final – judgement has come.
Now comes the nitty-gritty.
After the introduction of the emergency law, the solicitors Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), who represent Reilly and Wilson, lodged a judicial review accusing RTU of conspiring to undermine basic human rights by enacting the retroactive legislation. They say they will continue to pursue that judicial review after their success in the supreme court.
A spokesperson for PIL said: “Following today’s judgment, any… jobseekers can object to sanctions that have been imposed and seek the repayment of their benefits. It is truly staggering that Duncan Smith has found himself in this position even after fast-tracking emergency retrospective legislation through parliament. We intend to work with advice organisations to ensure that, following this ruling, affected individuals have the right information and assistance.”
It seems the firm believes the retrospective part of the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 is no longer valid. That means all 228,000 Workfare victims who were penalised by the DWP will be able to claim their compensation and force the £130 million payout.
Not only that, but it seems reasonable that a legal penalty should be imposed on ‘RTU’ himself. Not only did he enforce the schemes under the illegal regulations, but he also imposed a lengthy and costly legal battle on those who stood up against it, even though it had been found to be wrong in law.
Who knows how much hardship this has caused to people who were already on the breadline before his brutal sanctions were imposed?
How much despair has he caused to people who had no other means of support?
Has anybody died because of this – through health problems, mental health issues leading to suicide, or for other reasons?
It is time for the people who have been most seriously affected by this to get together and start talking to lawyers – Public Interest Lawyers might be a good place to start – about getting restitution from the man who caused this mess.
The taxpayer may well have to foot the bill for the illegal benefit sanctions, and that is only right. They should never have been imposed in the first place and this will only set matters straight.
But the individual minister who caused this should not get away without paying a personal penalty.
Let’s have some accountability in government, Mr… Smith.
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political needs your help!
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy Vox Political books!
The second – Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
As Johnny Void rightly writes, “No government ever changed anything because of a petition. Power needs to be forced to make concessions, not asked nicely. ” But signing this one couldn’t hurt – and would send the right message. So please take a moment to add your name.
A petition posted on the 38 Degrees website late yesterday afternoon and which calls for all benefit sanctions to be scrapped without exceptions has hit almost 2000 signatures already.
The petition – which wasn’t posted by me – uses some of the text from this earlier post discussing the brutal impact of sanctions to benefits which are driving hundreds of thousands of people into destitution. Tens of thousands of sanctions are handed out every month for the slightest breach of Jobcentre diktats. Single parents and most people on out of work sickness and disability benefits also face sanctions and this brutal system to soon to be inflicted on low waged part-time workers and people in precarious self-employment.
A recent report from Citizens Advice warned that sanctions are creating desperate poverty with tragic stories of people going through bins to find food, attempting suicide and becoming ill due to having all…
View original post 113 more words