After discussion on twitter with our local MP, Jo Swinson, an exasperated Yorkshire mum, Lisa Ansell, has sent a letter to her via our blog.
Dear Ms.Swinson,
We were having a conversation on twitter about the treatment of single parents by the Coalition government- and the only answer you had to my questions was that ''fathers should pay child support''.
As a single parent with one child I am now very worried. I have gone through every possibility, and your government have removed the ability to have work meet my basic living costs, unless I am earning way over the national average.
I don't know whether you are aware of what children are. They are people. Once they are born, you are responsible for them 24 hours per day. The hours you spend away from them have to be paid for, and in order to work you need arrange care for them. The average cost of this care where I live, is £110 per week. In Scotland it is nearer to £170 per week.
These are the outgoings I would have as a full time social - they are modest. I will not include food-as you really don’t need to know my eating habits.
Rent £500 per month
Childcare £5-600 per month
Electricity - £50
Gas £60
Council Tax - £80
Water Rates - £ 15
Internet £15
Travel to work £100
Student loan £80
£1500 per month.
Under the Labour government, my income including tax credits, housing benefit and a salary as a 30 hour a week qualified social worker- was £1600 per month. This was after I opted out of my pension.
As you can see this were not easy numbers. £100 per month for food, clothes for an adult and a child, and any other expenses, repairs that arose through day to day life.
Now, I wasn't complaining. Life is tough. At least with the state help I was grateful for, I could work. If you examine your housing benefit figures- you will find that single parents are over represented in housing benefit claims. They continue to work for quite a long time, even though there is little material gain. Working for its own sake is the reason most single parents with young children work, there is little financial gain to be made. If you do not do this, you become quite unattractive to employers. Gaps in employment, out of date skills- mean you earn much less when you do work.
Childcare is an expense that lone parents have to pay out in order to work. I bring this to your attention as it is a fact which is missing from Centre for Social Justice research, your social policy is based on.
Low salaries are generally expected by lone parents, because they have to balance work with responsibility for a child who exists 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. This is clearly evidenced pretty much everywhere.... There is a concentration of mothers in the bottom two tiers of the public sector- mainly because it is low paid but usually manageable around caring responsibilities.
When your government came in- you capped housing benefit to a third of the local average rents. This one move in itself removed the link between working and being able to pay basic living costs for many women. Ironic that the thing which allows women to work, was described by your government as a 'benefit trap'.
Yesterdays spending review placed further caps on council tax benefit, you have reduced the amount payable for childcare through tax credits, you are raising rail fares and bus fares, and increasing VAT. On my income level, as a social worker, I would be unable to continue to work.
In order to live on that salary, I had to spend a great deal of time on the phone to utility providers, given I couldn't afford to pay all of them EVERY month AND feed myself and my daughter. Living at a constant deficit is a very time consuming exercise. It is quite stressful, and takes a great deal of being nice to people, begging people, and generally playing a plate spinning game with your basic living costs. There is a great deal of research which shows that mothers act as ‘shock absorbers’ of poverty- I might suggest starting your reading with the evidence collected by your own government departments. If you can’t find any of the vast amount of evidence of this- I suggest going to an organization like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or any of our Universities. There is no absence of evidence of this.
(links- www.wbg.org.uk/documents/WBGWomensandchildrenspoverty.pdf
www.cpag.org.uk/info/Povertyarticles/Poverty121/links.htm
www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/Opinon1-Espey.pdf
The link that was created between working and being able to pay my bills has now been completely broken. I now have no way of working and feeding my child. So has the link between being able to survive when you can’t work, or find work.
In order to earn enough money to have £100 per week disposable income to spend on food, clothes, or the repairs of the things that have broken and stayed broken- I would have to earn £22800 net per annum.
By which time my tax credits would be stopped because I earned more than £25k gross, and I would be sunk way back under that income level.
If I managed to get to the holy grail of £44k a year, I would be considered one of the richest women in the country and have my child benefit withdrawn.
If unemployed, my income would be £127 per week. Housing benefit which would only ever have covered £400 of my £500 rent, was reduced substantially in the June Budget- when the level at which it was calculated dropped to the bottom third of market rents. I would have already had to find this £100 per month out of that level of income- that has now increased by another £60.
If am unemployed for more than 12 months, and my daughter turns 5, I will be turned onto Jobseekers allowance- and if I have not found employment after 12 months, housing benefit would be further reduced by 10%.
Social Housing rents are to be brought up to market rents, so there is no chance that I would be able to get a council house with a more affordable rent.
I do have options.
Options:
a) get a job which pays far above the national average. In order to do that, I would have to move to an area where rents were much much higher. The town I live in is about to experience a massive spike in unemployment as we are heavily dependent on the public sector. I would have to retrain, presumably to graduate level- but I lucked out and used my first degree to become a social worker so more education is not an option open to me.
b) get married. Absence of available candidates is a bit of an issue there. Am 32, with a child, and quite frankly my experience of marriage is not overly positive. I had never considered I would have to fuck my way out of poverty.
c) have more children. Increase the level of state support I can receive.
d) (Which is my current preferred option) Set up a company which can employ me, and many others in family friendly work. This is the option I have taken, but as banks are not lending, my credit rating has been severely impacted by two years of living at a deficit- chances of success are not high- although I am meeting possible investors next week.
If this fails I am back to a)-c).
From your tweet I understand that government policy is that I should be getting support from an ex partner.
I appreciate that my ex should support his child. Like many men he, he is a good father. Out of a social worker's salary, he keeps a house fit for his daughter, is fully involved in her care- and buys her clothes. He doesn't have the capability to financially support me, even if he wanted to.
He is also facing unemployment as a result of the cuts your government is making to Childrens Services. Massive cuts.
I have always considered myself lucky that my ex is a good dad. Many of my friends have had to take restraining orders out to deal with theirs, or have been completely abandoned. I think it would be fair to call them deadbeat, and imply they have not met their responsibilities- I am concerned about the effect on my ex of finding out that he is also considered a deadbeat dad. I am concerned that their financial survival is dependent on the men they had the courage to leave. Some of them, very dangerous.
I appreciate this is a rambling letter- but I have a few specific questions for you:
Which social policy research suggests that women benefit from having their financial survival be solely dependent on a man, regardless of circumstances? Have you consulted with Domestic Violence charities about the implications of this?
What economic benefit is there to deliberately removing the ability of lone parents to remain in the labour market? Are these benefits long term, or short term? Are they benefits for the economy? Social benefits?
As the rhetoric used to justify these policies is about ‘scroungers’ and ‘deadbeat’ dads- could you qualify what a scrounger actually is? How long does a woman have to work for nothing to escape being described as such?
Have you read any research about the effects of poverty- what are the social benefits of ensuring that a woman has no way of supporting herself and her child by working?
What effect does ensuring that a woman has no ability to work to support her family have on gender equality?
One additional piece of social policy brought in- is the ‘fairness’ premium. Apparently because my daughter is only likely to hear 600 words a day, the state needs to ensure she has access to someone who will raise her aspirations- and in order for that to happen she needs to go to childcare outside the home.
Can I ask why you are deliberately placing so many women into abject poverty, and then introducing ‘fairness’ measures on the premise that they are inadequate parents? (’Children from poor homes hear 616 words spoken an hour, on average, compared to 2,153 words an hour in richer homes. By the age of three, that amounts to a cumulative gap of 30 million words.’’- Nick Clegg- 15th October 2010).
I would appreciate answers to these questions. I hope you don’t mind it being an open letter on a website in your constituency. I assumed that some of your constituents were women. Mothers- and that some of them might are single. They might want answers too.
Kind Regards
Lisa Ansell
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
The poor will pay... SSP on today's disasterous Budget...
Friday, 14 May 2010
Gleichschaltung - an update
Update on THIS ARTICLE - please read -
The Scottish Situation
I am concerned that the Con/Dem coalition are using the Scottish experience - ie. the 66% requirement of members supporting dissolution - out of context.
One Tory commentator on BBC News 24 this morning has stated that this 66% was brought in by the "Labour Party" last year. This, first of all, does not ring true, as any documentation I have managed to find seems to go back at least until 2001 and if it was only introduced last year, it would have been the SNP Government who would have done so.
This use of the Scottish requirement for 66% seems to be the only defence the ConDem coalition are using that will ensure continuance of a Tory minority Government if the Liberals walk away from any agreement. I feel any misinformation should be countered - and I feel it is imperative that MSP's explain the thinking behind 66% in Scotland. (It has to be remembered the Scottish Government elections are STV and have a term of only four years - so the ground is quite different from the 5 year term first past the post system in Westminster).
This is at the very least, an attack on the integrity of our Devolved Parliament.
If the 66% was debated and discussed cross party - and it was cross party agreement that had it implimented, then it differs greatly from this proposal of 55% by the Tories and Lib Dems in Westminster.
In effect this 55% will mean that regardless of the coalition, and regardless of a plethora of no-confidence motions the Tories will remain in power for five years and ensure the Scottish budget is decided by a tiny minority only representative of 15 % of the Scottish voting public.
I have not yet been able to find the debates/discussions that led to this figure of 66%.
I will update as I find more information on the Scottish situation.
The Scottish Situation
I am concerned that the Con/Dem coalition are using the Scottish experience - ie. the 66% requirement of members supporting dissolution - out of context.
One Tory commentator on BBC News 24 this morning has stated that this 66% was brought in by the "Labour Party" last year. This, first of all, does not ring true, as any documentation I have managed to find seems to go back at least until 2001 and if it was only introduced last year, it would have been the SNP Government who would have done so.
This use of the Scottish requirement for 66% seems to be the only defence the ConDem coalition are using that will ensure continuance of a Tory minority Government if the Liberals walk away from any agreement. I feel any misinformation should be countered - and I feel it is imperative that MSP's explain the thinking behind 66% in Scotland. (It has to be remembered the Scottish Government elections are STV and have a term of only four years - so the ground is quite different from the 5 year term first past the post system in Westminster).
This is at the very least, an attack on the integrity of our Devolved Parliament.
If the 66% was debated and discussed cross party - and it was cross party agreement that had it implimented, then it differs greatly from this proposal of 55% by the Tories and Lib Dems in Westminster.
In effect this 55% will mean that regardless of the coalition, and regardless of a plethora of no-confidence motions the Tories will remain in power for five years and ensure the Scottish budget is decided by a tiny minority only representative of 15 % of the Scottish voting public.
I have not yet been able to find the debates/discussions that led to this figure of 66%.
I will update as I find more information on the Scottish situation.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Gleichschaltung
Dave and Nick came skipping down the garden path hand in hand, heralding the dawn of a “New Politics.” The fawning press -both the BBC and Sky- spoke about the beautiful weather and the birdsong as the two men kind of half mapped out what form this new government would take.
Everyone seemed to agree – this was a wonderful thing for the country and we would all benefit from the steely hand of the Tories being stayed by the “lefty” liberals.
After the coalition was voted on by the Parliamentary Lib Dems in the early hours of Tuesday morning, Jo Swinson broke her tweeting silence and said -
• astonished that Tories agreed to fairer tax, extra early years funding for poorer children & political reform while Labour didn't … and looking forward to seeing so much of what @libdems campaigned for in this election implemented in govt
SSP Campsie (@sspcampsie) immediately tweeted to her - @joswinson astonished you lot let the tories in. Incredible. You've been had at our expense.
Her reply: 1. Lab bottled out of agreement 2. good LD policies on fairness included plus much more fairness agenda than minority Tory govt
Campsie SSP: we'll see. You've played your part, Jo,a patsy again.U got two terms.But that's it.Haven't met 1 happy Bearsden neighbour tonite
Her reply: we will see - do look at the coalition agreement when published tomorrow and compare to LD manifesto though
Campsie SSP have looked at this agreement, and all is not what it seems. This article is only SOME of the reservations we have about the agreement - there are many more, not least how our young people will be treated after they leave school, but we have to start somewhere -
Let’s start with the fairer tax, for example.
The original Lib Dem policy was for a “Tax Switch” – which meant this £10k allowance would be paid for by the ultra rich in a progressive policy which would have taken £17bn. The Lib Dems have dropped other progressive measures they had in their manifesto that would have paid for this gift to the middle class – like their mansion tax and the higher rate of pension relief – and instead this gift to the middle-high earners will be paid for through the cuts the cabinet now know of, but are not telling us about.
The claims – and unquestioning repetition by the BBC etc that this is tax relief for the poor is completely untrue. Three million poor households will not get an extra penny as they are too poor to pay income tax. That includes pensioners (the ConDem coalition are selling this as £100 to pensioners when it is £100 to the richest 40% of pensioners and nothing to the other 60%)
This £17 billion tax giveaway means that £1bn goes to the lower incomes that pay income tax- the majority – while £16bn goes to the higher income bracket. 70% of the benefit goes to the top earners in our society!
So the LibDem promises and nods to an equitable society are actually undermined by this Tory wet dream. Those near the top of the income spectrum would get on average four times as much as the poorest. (see http://short.to/2fr1j for more detailed breakdown of this regressive tax give-away, plus graph and links to stats etc).
Briefly – other measures that are ominous…
The agreement states;
“a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes.”
This has terrible implications for Scotland. Scotland is a nation that was robbed of its manufacturing base during the Thatcher/Major years. It has not recovered that during the New Labour Parliaments – and is hugely dependent on the public sector for work. Already, Scotland is suffering more job losses than England because of this. This agreement will step up those job losses (which will have to be explained by the Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander – the Tories hadn’t the brass neck to take the post of explaining their Scottish economy wrecking policies – the patsies had to do that one).
Another interesting point about the proposed £6bn cuts this year – a sentence in the agreement says,
“Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates.”
What that means is that those companies who did not pay their business rates – some in the hope that there would be a Tory Government, will now no longer have to pay that. I bet a lot of those people who with-held their Poll-tax payment and who were pursued for the decades since, would love such a tax amnesty. This is barefaced tax avoidance – and it has been ok-ed by the ConDem government. A taste of tax avoidance measures for the rich to come?
It is also noteworthy that Vince Cable -a luke-warm supporter of the Tory-LibDem deal and tough on 'the City' - entered the Govt to find there had been a "misunderstanding" about his position in Cabinet. He had understood he was to be in charge of regulation of the banking and financial services sector but finds that George Gideon Osborne (who has a 2:1 Degree in history – has been able to hide what A levels/ other qualifications allow him to be in charge of our economy beyond the fact he is Son-in Law of Lord David Howell, Baron Howell of Guildford – and the fact he is heir to a billion pound fortune) will be doing all that stuff while Cable takes care of other "business."
Ominously, the Tories have been consolidating their power. They have castrated any kind of dissent in Government by roping the Liberal Democrats into an agreement that means they have to abstain rather than vote against any Tory madness. The incredible thing about this is that in the agreement, not only do they curtail dissent by ensuring the Libs don’t vote against them, but this sentence –
“legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”
So what, you may ask? Well, at present, the Govt can be curtailed – recalled – brought down by a simple majority of 51%.
A breakdown of this has been done by http://northernheckler.wordpress.com
“That means that this parliament (not a future one – THIS one) will be able to be brought down by a vote of no confidence – but only if 55% of the MPs vote to do that. Note that this is not 55% of those who vote, but 55% of all MPs. And not just a simple majority of 51% – but 55% – OK not much difference I hear you say, and it introduces a little more stability by discouraging interminable series of confidence votes designed to sabotage the Government of the day.
But how much is 55% – Well it’s 357.5 seats – so as it needs to be more than 55% it would need to be 358 – no half seats. So that would need (typically) : All 258 Labour votes; all 57 Lib Dem Votes; & all 28 of the “other” votes – totalling 343 – so it would also need a further 15 Conservative votes. Actually not quite true – it would also need a further 5 votes – because Sinn Fein would be likely not to vote at all – not to mention anyone who was ill or otherwise engaged on the day of the vote.
So the Conservative Party, with help from the Liberal Democrat party are planning to enact binding legislation - enacted with a simple majority of those MP’s who turn up to vote – which would ensure that the Conservative Party remained in office for the next 5 years in all circumstances save that when at least 20 of their own number decided to vote against. So actually they could sell the Lib Dems down the river without a second thought – they wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it.
The Conservatives lets remember hold just 306 of the 650 seats – a mere 47% – which they gained with 36.1% of the popular vote, on a turn out of 65.1% – this represents just 23.5% of the total electorate.
This is the kind of immunity from accountability that is the hallmark of dictators and despots. It is a manoeuvre of which Adolf Hitler would have been proud – effectively preventing opposition to the ruling party.”
This is the reality of the New Politics and political reform. The much vaunted PR? It is kicked into the long grass. The system that the Tories are allowing a referendum on – AV – is not much better than we have – and not close to the STV system that has given Scotland stable and representative Government since the formation of the Scottish Parliament. Whether AV is accepted or not by the UK public, it means that any real electoral reform will not happen for at least a generation.
As I said, Jo, you, again, have been used as a patsy.
The word Germans have for the consolidation of the Nazi Party is gleichschaltung.
Everyone seemed to agree – this was a wonderful thing for the country and we would all benefit from the steely hand of the Tories being stayed by the “lefty” liberals.
After the coalition was voted on by the Parliamentary Lib Dems in the early hours of Tuesday morning, Jo Swinson broke her tweeting silence and said -
• astonished that Tories agreed to fairer tax, extra early years funding for poorer children & political reform while Labour didn't … and looking forward to seeing so much of what @libdems campaigned for in this election implemented in govt
SSP Campsie (@sspcampsie) immediately tweeted to her - @joswinson astonished you lot let the tories in. Incredible. You've been had at our expense.
Her reply: 1. Lab bottled out of agreement 2. good LD policies on fairness included plus much more fairness agenda than minority Tory govt
Campsie SSP: we'll see. You've played your part, Jo,a patsy again.U got two terms.But that's it.Haven't met 1 happy Bearsden neighbour tonite
Her reply: we will see - do look at the coalition agreement when published tomorrow and compare to LD manifesto though
Campsie SSP have looked at this agreement, and all is not what it seems. This article is only SOME of the reservations we have about the agreement - there are many more, not least how our young people will be treated after they leave school, but we have to start somewhere -
Let’s start with the fairer tax, for example.
The original Lib Dem policy was for a “Tax Switch” – which meant this £10k allowance would be paid for by the ultra rich in a progressive policy which would have taken £17bn. The Lib Dems have dropped other progressive measures they had in their manifesto that would have paid for this gift to the middle class – like their mansion tax and the higher rate of pension relief – and instead this gift to the middle-high earners will be paid for through the cuts the cabinet now know of, but are not telling us about.
The claims – and unquestioning repetition by the BBC etc that this is tax relief for the poor is completely untrue. Three million poor households will not get an extra penny as they are too poor to pay income tax. That includes pensioners (the ConDem coalition are selling this as £100 to pensioners when it is £100 to the richest 40% of pensioners and nothing to the other 60%)
This £17 billion tax giveaway means that £1bn goes to the lower incomes that pay income tax- the majority – while £16bn goes to the higher income bracket. 70% of the benefit goes to the top earners in our society!
So the LibDem promises and nods to an equitable society are actually undermined by this Tory wet dream. Those near the top of the income spectrum would get on average four times as much as the poorest. (see http://short.to/2fr1j for more detailed breakdown of this regressive tax give-away, plus graph and links to stats etc).
Briefly – other measures that are ominous…
The agreement states;
“a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes.”
This has terrible implications for Scotland. Scotland is a nation that was robbed of its manufacturing base during the Thatcher/Major years. It has not recovered that during the New Labour Parliaments – and is hugely dependent on the public sector for work. Already, Scotland is suffering more job losses than England because of this. This agreement will step up those job losses (which will have to be explained by the Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander – the Tories hadn’t the brass neck to take the post of explaining their Scottish economy wrecking policies – the patsies had to do that one).
Another interesting point about the proposed £6bn cuts this year – a sentence in the agreement says,
“Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates.”
What that means is that those companies who did not pay their business rates – some in the hope that there would be a Tory Government, will now no longer have to pay that. I bet a lot of those people who with-held their Poll-tax payment and who were pursued for the decades since, would love such a tax amnesty. This is barefaced tax avoidance – and it has been ok-ed by the ConDem government. A taste of tax avoidance measures for the rich to come?
It is also noteworthy that Vince Cable -a luke-warm supporter of the Tory-LibDem deal and tough on 'the City' - entered the Govt to find there had been a "misunderstanding" about his position in Cabinet. He had understood he was to be in charge of regulation of the banking and financial services sector but finds that George Gideon Osborne (who has a 2:1 Degree in history – has been able to hide what A levels/ other qualifications allow him to be in charge of our economy beyond the fact he is Son-in Law of Lord David Howell, Baron Howell of Guildford – and the fact he is heir to a billion pound fortune) will be doing all that stuff while Cable takes care of other "business."
Ominously, the Tories have been consolidating their power. They have castrated any kind of dissent in Government by roping the Liberal Democrats into an agreement that means they have to abstain rather than vote against any Tory madness. The incredible thing about this is that in the agreement, not only do they curtail dissent by ensuring the Libs don’t vote against them, but this sentence –
“legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”
So what, you may ask? Well, at present, the Govt can be curtailed – recalled – brought down by a simple majority of 51%.
A breakdown of this has been done by http://northernheckler.wordpress.com
“That means that this parliament (not a future one – THIS one) will be able to be brought down by a vote of no confidence – but only if 55% of the MPs vote to do that. Note that this is not 55% of those who vote, but 55% of all MPs. And not just a simple majority of 51% – but 55% – OK not much difference I hear you say, and it introduces a little more stability by discouraging interminable series of confidence votes designed to sabotage the Government of the day.
But how much is 55% – Well it’s 357.5 seats – so as it needs to be more than 55% it would need to be 358 – no half seats. So that would need (typically) : All 258 Labour votes; all 57 Lib Dem Votes; & all 28 of the “other” votes – totalling 343 – so it would also need a further 15 Conservative votes. Actually not quite true – it would also need a further 5 votes – because Sinn Fein would be likely not to vote at all – not to mention anyone who was ill or otherwise engaged on the day of the vote.
So the Conservative Party, with help from the Liberal Democrat party are planning to enact binding legislation - enacted with a simple majority of those MP’s who turn up to vote – which would ensure that the Conservative Party remained in office for the next 5 years in all circumstances save that when at least 20 of their own number decided to vote against. So actually they could sell the Lib Dems down the river without a second thought – they wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it.
The Conservatives lets remember hold just 306 of the 650 seats – a mere 47% – which they gained with 36.1% of the popular vote, on a turn out of 65.1% – this represents just 23.5% of the total electorate.
This is the kind of immunity from accountability that is the hallmark of dictators and despots. It is a manoeuvre of which Adolf Hitler would have been proud – effectively preventing opposition to the ruling party.”
This is the reality of the New Politics and political reform. The much vaunted PR? It is kicked into the long grass. The system that the Tories are allowing a referendum on – AV – is not much better than we have – and not close to the STV system that has given Scotland stable and representative Government since the formation of the Scottish Parliament. Whether AV is accepted or not by the UK public, it means that any real electoral reform will not happen for at least a generation.
As I said, Jo, you, again, have been used as a patsy.
The word Germans have for the consolidation of the Nazi Party is gleichschaltung.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)