Notes On The Spirit Level - why more equal societies always fare better

Last summer I read The Spirit Level and took notes from it. I can highly recommend it. There are a lot of graphs and so probably not best for bedtime reading. That's why I decided to write a blog about some of the highlights.  At the end of the book the authors have added a chapter to answer their critics.

The writers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett outline extensive research in their book to show that more equal societies always do better than unequal ones.  Not only do smaller income differences help the poor, they also help everyone in society.

They looked at all the wealthiest societies and found that it isn't so much inequalities between different societies that do so much harm as inequalities within societies.

Both Japan and Sweden do well on equality. ‘Sweden does it through redistributive taxes and benefits and a large welfare state. As a proportion of national income, public social expenditure in Japan is, in contrast to Sweden, among the lowest of the developed countries. Japan gets its high degree of equality of market incomes, of earnings before taxes and benefits.' 

Thus:

‘Greater equality can be gained either by using taxes and benefits to redistribute very unequal incomes or by greater equality in gross incomes before taxes and benefits, which leaves less need for redistribution.’

Wilkinson and Pickett, looked at a variety of measures such as: the number of teenage pregnancies, health factors including mental health, friendship and trust,  violence and the consequences of crime eg the prevalence of prisons etc.

Obesity is an interesting one. ‘…In poorer societies both obesity and heart disease are more common among the rich, but as societies get richer they tend to reverse that social distribution and become more common among the poor.’

They found that ‘Friendship and involvement in social life are highly protective of good health, while low social status or…more inequality, are harmful.’  They found that social status and friendship represent the two opposite ways in which human beings can come together. On the one hand, social status stratification is ‘fundamentally ordering based on power and coercion, on privileged access to resources, regardless of others’ needs’.  Friendship on the other hand is ‘about reciprocity, mutuality, sharing, social obligations, co-operation and recognition of each other’s need’.

‘Less hierarchical societies are less male-dominated…and the position of women is better. Similarly the quality of social relations in more equal societies is less hostile. People trust each other more and community life is stronger, there is less violence and punishment is less harsh.’

Wilkinson and Pickett found that ‘dominance strategies are almost certainly pre-human in origin. They would not have been appropriate to life in the predominantly egalitarian socities of Stone Age human hunters and gatherers’ and that 'the current highly unequal societies are exceptional. For over 90% of our existence as human beings we lived...in highly egalitarian societies…modern inequality arose and spread with the development of agriculture’.

‘Hunter-gatherer societies maintained equality through food sharing and reciprocal gift exchange and counter-dominance strategies’ 

'Dominance hierarchies are about self-advancement and status competition. Individuals have to be self-reliant and other people are encountered mainly as rivals for food and mates. At the other extreme is mutual interdependence and co-operation…sense of self-worth comes… from the contribution made to the wellbeing of others.’  Ring any bells?  This government's whole Welfare strategy is based on the survival of the fittest.

The authors compare eg Cuba and the States: Cuba, despite its much lower income levels, has life expectancy and infant mortality rate almost identical to those in the United States.

Closer to home, egalitarian policies were implemented by Britain during the Second World War. ‘To gain public co-operation in the war effort, the burden had to be seen to be fairly shared.’ 
 

 The economist Herman Daly first proposed 'the steady-state economy'.

The authors claim that ‘It would be a mistake to think that a steady-state economy would mean stagnation and lack of change. Parodoxically the transition to a sustainable steady-state economy would create huge demands of innovation and change.’ 

It’s often suggested that invention and innovation go with inequality however evidence shows that more equal societies tend to be more creative. More patents are granted per head in more equal societies.  ‘Whether this is because talent goes undeveloped or wasted in more unequal societies, or whether hierarchy breeds conformity is anyone’s guess.’  

'Working hours vary in relation to inequality.  More unequal countries tend to have longer working hours and also differences in working hours changed in line with changes in inequality over several decades…people in more unequal countries do the equivalent of 2 or 3 months’ extra work a year.’  

The authors also show that ‘inequality weakens community life…the weakening of community life and the growth of consumerism are related.’ 

‘…more equal countries tend to pay a higher proportion of their national income in foreign aid…more unequal societies also seem to be more belligerent internationally.  Inequality is related to worse scores on the Global Peace Index which combines measure of militarization with measures of domestic and international conflict, and measures of security, human rights and stability.’  

‘Politics was once seen as a way of improving people’s social and emotional wellbeing by changing their economic circumstances. But over the last few decades the bigger picture has been lost.’ 

In Britain & US, inequality increases peaked in the early 1990s and have changed little since then. ‘In both countries inequality remains at levels almost unprecedented since records began…' Indeed income differences are now ‘not far short of 40% greater than they were in the mid-1970s’.

 

Widening of income differences occurred particularly during 1980s and early 1990s in Britain and the USA. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, analyses reasons for rising inequality in the USA…one of the main features was runaway income at the top eg CEOs. Krugman argues that  rising inequality was driven by “changes in institutions, norms and political power”. He emphasises 'the weakening of trade unions, the abandonment of productivity sharing agreements, the influence of the political right, and government changes in taxes and benefits. He could also have added the failure to maintain adequate minimum wage legislation.'

'In USA inequalities rose to a peak just before the Great Crash of 1929, then narrowed so dramatically in the late 1930s and early 40s that the period is sometimes referred to as the ‘Great Compression’. Income differences then remained narrower until the late 1970s or mid 1980s. Then they started to widen rapidly again until just before the recent financial crash where they reached levels of inequality not seen since just before the 1929 crash.'

‘If “market forces” were the real drivers of inequality, it is unlikely that the post-war settlement would have remained intact for 3 or 4 decades…the ending of that consensus was very clearly related to a rightward shift in political opinion. The triumph of the new right extolling the benefits of the free market and the dominance of monetarist economics were enshrined in the political leadership of Reagan in the USA and Thatcher in Britain. Communism had ceased to be a realistic threat and many governments privatised what had been state owner public utilities’

'In Japan there is often a much closer relationship between management and unions…the Japanese Federation of Employers Association found that 15% of the directors of large companies were former trade union officials. In the countries of the European Union the earnings of some 70% of employees are covered by collective agreements, compared to 15% in US. At 35% the UK is among the lowest in the EU.'

‘If you fail to avoid high inequality, you will need more prisons and police, have higher rates of mental illness, drug abuse and every other level of problem…if keeping taxes and benefits down leads to wider income differences, the need to deal with the ensuing social ills may force you to raise public expenditure to cope’. It is perhaps telling that since 1980, in the US, public expenditure on prisons increased six times as fast as education.

In Britain over the last 20 years polls have shown that around 80% of the population has thought that income differences are too big (rarely dipping below 75%) even though most people underestimate how big income differences actually are. 

'It is in institutions where we are employed that we are most explicitly placed in a rank-ordered hierarchy, superior and inferiors, bosses and subordinates.'

'In 2007 chief executives and the largest US companies received well over 500 times the pay of their average employee and these differences were getting bigger. In many of the top companies, the chief executive is paid more each day than the average worker is in a year.’ 

'Denationalization of major industries and the privatization of large numbers of friendly societies, mutuals, building societies, provident societies and credit unions, which had been controlled by their members, may have made a substantial contribution to widening income differences.'

Here is a sobering thought: ‘Numerous corporations are now bigger than many nation states....Other estimates suggest that half the world’s largest economies are multinationals, and that General Motors is bigger than Denmark, that Daimler Chrysler is bigger than Poland; Royal Dutch/Shell bigger than Venezuala, and Sony bigger than Pakistan…these productive assets remain effectively in the hands of a very few, very rich people..’

‘Democratic employee-ownership not only avoids concentrating power in the hands of the state but evaluations suggest it has major economic and social advantages over organizations owned and controlled by outside investors in whose interests they act.’

Studies of how work affects health show that …'people seem to thrive when they have more control over their work. Having control at work was the most successful single factor explaining threefold differences in death rates between senior and junior civil servants working in the same government offices in Britain..probably to do with a sense of autonomy and not feeling so directly subordinated…there is growing evidence that a sense of unfairness at work is an important risk factor for poor health.'

'Employee-ownership increases equality – it is bottom-up rather than top-down…employees might agree that the CEO of the company could be paid a salary several times as big as their own – maybe three or perhaps even ten times as big as their own. But unlikely that they would say several hundred times as big… such huge differences can only be maintained by denying any measure of economic democracy .'

‘Who, apart from the super-rich would vote for multi-million dollar bonuses for the corporate and financial elite while denying adequate incomes to people who undertake so many essential and sometimes unpleasant tasks – such as caring for the elderly, collecting the trash, or working in emergency services?…Modern inequality exists because democracy is excluded from the economicsphere..’ 

'If Britain became as equal as the four most equal rich countries: Japan, Norway, Sweden and Finland, levels of trust might be expected to be two thirds as high again as they are now, mental illness might be halved, everyone might get an additional year of life, teenage birth rates could fall to one third of what they are now, homicide rates could fall by 75%, everyone could get the equivalent of 7 weeks extra holiday a year and the government could be closing prisons all over the country.'

But this has to take the biscuit:

In a major speech at the end of 2009 David Cameron said ‘The Spirit Level’ showed ‘that among the richest countries it’s the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator…per capita GDP is much less significant for a country’s life expectancy, crime levels, literacy and health than the size of the gap between the richest and poorest in the population…we all know, in our hearts, that as long as there is deep poverty living systematically side by side with great riches we all remain the poorer for it.’ 

So what happened, Dave?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Equality-Better-Everyone/dp/0241954290

www.equalitytrust.org.uk

 

 

Fibromyalgia - Warning DWP Malingering Alert

If you have Fibromyalgia and are due to be assessed for Employment & Support Allowance via the Work Capability Assessment - beware.

Fibromyalgia (along with ME) is one of those conditions that UNUM Provident (parent company of Atos and advisers to the government over Welfare Reform) tried to discredit in the United States so that they didn't have to pay out insurance claims.  The same model is being used over here and if you have any doubt just read the PDF on the matter by following the link further down. It is entitled 'Fibromyalgia - Guidelines For The Disability Analyst'.  I tried to Google other conditions to see if they too were targeted in this way but couldn't find any other conditions that are subject to this derisory treatment. It may be that Fibromyalgia was subject to a Freedom of Information Request which is still ongoing.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fibromyalgia_guidelines_for_the

Under Section 9 of the pdf you will find this statement:


9.6.1 Malingering

"Although apparent inconsistencies between the clinical findings and the claimed degree of disability are an intrinsic feature of these disorders, we must be alert for any areas where such inconsistencies are so unusual or conflicting as to suggest that the claimant is making an intentional attempt to simulate disability in the pursuit of gain.  The use of  “malingering” and other pejorative terms should be avoided but it is possible to describe outstanding contradictions in a way that is fair, overt and yet non-judgemental."

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/130828/response/326965/attach/4/MED%20S2%20CMEP%200035%20Module%2014%20Fibromyalgia%20v%206%20Final.pdf

So there you have it here in black and white.  This is what Disability Analysts think about people with fibromyalgia (consistent with the disability denial that swept the States and resulting in UNUM Provident being sued and banned in many states there).  The DWP knows this but doesn't care.

If you have fibromyalgia you will suffer from some if not all of the following and more:

Widepsread pain, tenderness and sore points
Debilitating Fatigue
Sleep Problems
Irritable Bladder Syndrome
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Dysmenhorrea
Migraines
Anxiety
Depression
Vitamin D Deficiency
Costochondritis
Sjogren's Syndrome
Myofascial Pain
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Tendonitis
Epstein Barr Virus
Body Temperature Problems
Sensitivity to Humidity, Weather Changes, Smells, Noise, Light and Touch

James O'Brien 8 IDS 0

James O’Brien interviews Iain Duncan Smith on LBC 97.3, Wednesday 20^th February 2013.

I am including the highlights (most of the interview) as a result of the Court of Appeal's ruling in the case of Cait Reilly (and the other appellant), though you will miss out on the condescending sneers  and irritation in Iain Duncan Smith’s timbre. You will also miss out on James O’Brien’s perceptiveness and wonderful technique for demolishing the meaningless waffle espoused from the mouth of IDS.

JO: ...You think that they think shelf-stacking is beneath them…

IDS: ..That’s a ridiculous point if you don’t mind me saying so. Because I didn’t say that. What I said was -

JO: I've got the transcript in front of me.

IDS: People who are doing work experience which is us allowing people to continue to earn their Job Seeker’s Allowance…they will learn all sorts of different skills…going into a business and involving yourself in a supermarket stacking shelves is as vital as any other job that you might have to do and particularly as all of us go to shop in supermarkets the point I was making - which is more important in life if your shelves have not got food on them, doesn’t the shelf-stacker have some particularly strong position in society?

JO: Yes, but you were talking about a woman who had no problem with stacking shelves, she merely wanted to be paid for it.

IDS: She was paid for it…what do you think the taxpayer was paying for God’s sake? That’;s what we are paying her to do (shouting down James O’Brien)

JO: I’m glad you’ve said that …(repeats it several times)

IDS: So what, you’d rather -

JO: If you let me, I’ll tell you -

IDS: - that the taxpayer allows her to sit on unemployment not getting work experience?

JO: If you let me I’ll tell you…let me read to you the official Department of Work & Pensions response to a petition to abolish Workfare and I quote from your own department: ‘We do not have Work For Your Benefits or Workfare Schemes in this country.” A further response to a Freedom of Information request for your own department states -

IDS: We don’t have a Workfare Programme.

JO:  “…Benefit is not paid to the claimant as a remuneration for the activity”  so explain to me how she can earn her Job Seekers Allowance in a country where benefit is not paid as a remuneration ?

IDS: Because the Work Experience Programme is one which you can volunteer to do…once you volunteer to do it’s made clear to you

JO: But the Court of Appeal has just found -

IDS: (Getting worked up): Listen, you’ve asked me a question, why don’t you let me answer it?

JO: I am letting you answer it but you’re not answering the question I asked.

IDS: Let me finish OK?  If you just want to make a mess of this that’s fine …

JO: That’s your prerogative, Mr Iain Duncan Smith

IDS: We do not have a Workfare Programme…

JO: Aren’t they forced to do it? The Court of Appeal has just found that they are.

IDS: You don’t understand what the Court of Appeal has just found.

JO: I’m afraid that I do.

IDS: You don’t, with respect.

JO: Why don’t you explain.

IDS: I will, thank you. What the Court of Appeal found was that it was not against their Human Rights to do it which was -

JO: I haven’t mentioned Human Rights.

IDS: That’s what they did – they brought that case on the basis of Human Rights…

JO: I haven’t mentioned Human Rights

IDS: …the Court found that the regulations around this should have been more specific to each individual scheme. We deliberately set them general around all work schemes and they’ve asked us to set them more specifically, we have done that…

JO: I need to clarify this point. You used the word ‘earn’ to describe the payment of Jobseekers Allowance to somebody working for a highly profitable company like Poundland.  That is your phrase. You used it on this programme and you used it on the Andrew -

IDS: That’s because -

JO: You don’t like being interrupted yourself, Mr Duncan Smith.

IDS: OK, fire away.

JO: And then we learn from your own department that benefit is not paid to the claimant as a remuneration for the activity. Those two positions are completely irreconcilable.

IDS: No, they’re not. Listen. They volunteer to do this. Wehave allowed them to continue to receive Jobseekers Allowance for the time they’re doing Work Experience. What she was saying is ‘we’re not paid, we don’t receive any money.’ My answer is you do – the taxpayer is paying you Jobseekers Allowance. We’ve allowed you to do Work Experience and not lose your Jobseekers Allowance.

JO: So it’s remuneration for working

IDS: In the past she would have lost her Jobseekers Allowance.

JO: So the benefit is payment for the work.

IDS: I don’t quite understand what you’re getting concerned about.

JO: If you concentrated on what I’m saying instead of telling me to listen all the time you would. She’s getting paid for doing the work at Poundland with her Jobseekers Allowance.

IDS: It’s Work Experience.

JO: It’s a pay packet.

IDS: It’s Work Experience. She’s benefiting from the Work Experience but then she’ll go on and be more likely to be employed in the future. I think that’s a positive. I think it’s ludicrous to assume this is some kind of negative -

JO: You know that this woman had actually secured voluntary work experience and you also know that to describe as somehow sneering or looking down at shelf-stacking is absurd.

IDS: But she volunteered to go on the Work Experience Programme.

JO: Because she’d been lied to about what it would involve as the Court of Appeal found last week.

IDS: They did not find that she was lied to.

JO: I’m sorry you just said that they needed to clarify exactly what the regulations were.

IDS: The regulations were around the withdrawal of benefit if she failed to comply with what she’d agreed to do. 

JO: Which only works if the benefit is a reward for doing the Work Experience.

IDS: With respect, if you’d read what the judgement was –

JO: I’ve read every word of the judgement, Mr Duncan Smith.

IDS: Then you need to understand it, with respect.

JO: Well with respect to you I do and insulting me doesn’t advance the argument in any way.

IDS: I’m not insulting you. This debate is going nowhere because you’ve made your mind up before you gave this interview.

JO: Au Contraire. This debate is incredibly illuminating.

IDS: Are you saying to me that these kids shouldn’t be doing Work Experience - ?

JO: I’m saying if they’re working they should get paid.  It’s quite straightforward.  You are. Why shouldn’t they be?

IDS: They’re on Jobseekers Allowance. The taxpayer is paying them. They’re getting Work Experience -

JO: So what is the minimum wage for?

IDS: This is Work Experience. They are doing up to two months Work Experience. I don’t quite understand why you think they shouldn’t be doing that, that they should be paid a full wage because the companies aren’t committed to taking them on…many of them do…

JO: Hang on, remind me of the companies that have pulled out of the scheme?

IDS: There are more companies that have joined the scheme than have even pulled out.

JO: I don’t think that’s an answer to my question.

IDS (Starts singing the praises of the schemes and benefits to young kids etc)

JO: It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t sound any more plausible or convincing that the bottom line is you’re using benefits to pay an incredibly cheap workforce to subsidize incredibly profitable companies and passing it off as some sort of assault on a fictional feckless generation.

IDS: I don’t agree with you.

JO: Of course you don’t…1700 people in Nottingham applying for 8 jobs.

IDS: Look, there are more people in work today than at any time on record.

JO: There are more people alive today than any point since records began. What a strange observation!

IDS: OK, this is turning into a bit of a political diatribe on your part…I’ve come on here to talk quite rightly about the fact that even in quite difficult times the British Labour market is doing better than we would have expected, that long-term unemployment is falling, that the reality is that employment is improving and that unemployment is falling as well and I believe that the Programmes we’ve set about this…that Work Experience is critical to that to help young people get the experience of the world of work. We simply won’t agree about that…

JO: I’m terribly sorry, I agree with you entirely. People need an awful lot of help to get back into work as has been proved by the fact that 1700 people are applying for 8 jobs in a coffee shop in Nottingham today, What would you say to the 1692 who failed?

IDS: The reality is that even in that area there are 15,000 vacancies and the reality is that the claimant count in that area is falling.

JO: That’s really what you’d say to them? The reality is -

IDS: Let me finish…what I’d say is actually this.  You have to keep looking for jobs, there are jobs there, it’s not easy, I’m not saying there’s a magic wand around to wave, with the reality that people are looking for those jobs is a positive point to make for young people’s determination to find work, our job is to make sure we make the circumstances right around those companies so they can actually create more work -

JO: Sorry you’ve lost me.

IDS: - Which is what they’re doing

JO: Sorry you’ve lost me.

IDS: Come back to the figures. Overall -

JO: Yeah 1962 people

IDS: - there are 15,000 vacancies in the same area

JO: So it’s a positive

IDS: I don’t quite know what your point is here.

JO: I’m not surprised. You’re not listening to a word I’m saying. To the 1692 people who failed to get one of these jobs in a coffee shop you’d say that’s a positive.

IDS: I didn’t say that at all.

JO: I think you did.

IDS:  But if you want to keep trying to indicate what I say when I said quite clearly, look all of them will be deeply disappointed but the reality is there are jobs, there is work there and people will have to keep on looking for it, this is not easy times. You know, if you were sitting in France or Italy or Spain-

JO: Yes, but we’re not.

IDS: - you’d find these positions much more positive.

JO: OK, so I understand now.  You say to them, be grateful you don’t live in France.

IDS: No, I’m not saying that. I said, the positive figures today are a good indication that the private sector is creating jobs, there are more people in work, there are more jobs, the claimant count is falling, these are positives, I’m not saying they’re brilliant, they’re positive…there are half a million vacancies on a daily basis in the UK -

JO: - For two and half million Job Seekers.

IDS: …more people are entering the work force, more people are being employed and long term unemployed people are being found work and the programmes we’re putting around them including Work Experience which you don’t seem to think much of –

JO: No, I just think people should be paid.

IDS: They are being paid, the tax-payer is paying for them.

JO: Yes, that’s the astonishing element of this whole exchange, isn’t it?

IDS: There’s nothing astonishing about it –

JO: - that you think a benefit is a payment for work done.

IDS: No what I think is, Work Experience gives people a chance to see the world of work, it gives a chance for the company to see them, I think the taxpayer is making an investment in that because for 2 months that gives them now a much better chance of getting into work. I don’t agree with you at all. I think the Work Experience Programme is a huge success –

JO: Apart from the little wobble in the Court of Appeal last week.

IDS: - It is a strong and good programme and I’m very proud of it

JO: What happens finally if your challenge to the Court of Appeal findings last week fails?

IDS: We’ve already said we’ve changed the regulations going forward –

JO: So the thing you’re proud of has been changed.

IDS: No, the programmes themselves are exactly the same.

JO: But the regulations have changed…the programme is exactly the same but the regulations have changed.

IDS: The regulations around the programme they said should be tightened up and we’ve tightened them up.

I think the interview says it all.  To hear it in its entirety go to:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-obriens-explosive-row-with-duncan-smith-67738

My MPs Reply re 1% Cap on Benefits Rise

This was my MPs response regarding my email to her regarding the freezing of benefits rise to one per cent, bearing in mind I have communicated with her on many matters regarding my concerns over welfare reform particularly in relation to people with disabilities:

  Thank you for taking the time to email me with regard to the government’s decision to only increase certain benefits by 1 per cent as part of the Welfare Up-Rating Bill. I realise that there is little I can say that will be of reassurance. The following seeks to explain the reasons for this difficult decision. 

 I do understand that this cap will make life more difficult for many people already on low incomes. However the fact is that since 2007, out of work benefits have increased by 20 per cent, while average earnings have only risen by 10 per cent. In other words over this time period, those on out of work benefits have seen their incomes rise twice as fast as many of those in work. 

 It is important to ensure that our welfare system is seen to be fair but also to make sure that work always pays more. The other measures taken to boost incomes for working families include the biggest ever increase to the personal allowance, help with fuel costs and freezing council tax bills for the third year running. 

 It is estimated that the average working household is £125 better off as a result of announcements made in the Autumn Statement including the uprating decisions. 

 Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. 

To which I have replied:

 Thank you for your letter 25th January in reply to our email expressing our dismay with the benefits cap of 1 %. 

 You state that 'it is important to ensure that our welfare system is seen to be fair but also to make sure that work always pays more.' But it is grossly unfair and people aren't believing that mantra any more.  

Further more you state "the fact is that since 2007, out of work benefits have increased by 20 per cent, while average earnings have only risen by 10 per cent. In other words over this time period, those on out of work benefits have seen their incomes rise twice as fast as many of those in work." It is meaningless talking in percentages when we are talking 20 per cent of £71. I can't express it any better than Michael Meacher did in his blog of 10th January in which he completely demolishes that argument and demonstrates that percentages are meaningless compared to absolute values... (blog copied and pasted for MPs benefit).

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2013/01/the-nasty-party-does-its-dirty-work-on-the-welfare-state/#more-4747

I wish I'd also mentioned that disability benefits were supposed to be protected from this cap.  I also wish I'd asked her to take a one per cent freeze in her salary in the name of fairness - but of course, when it comes to fairness, they are immune, aren't they, MPs? A law unto themselves.

That someone up the road…could be you

When chatting on benefits forums and threads, how many times have you heard people say ‘there’s someone up the road from me claiming all s/he can …s/he’s a money-grabbing skiver and knows how to get all s/he can out of the system’? Or words to that effect. 

It struck me as odd how people always knew ‘somebody up the road’ who was ‘scamming the system’ because of course, they’re really going to pour out their personal health problems to their sworn enemies, aren’t they?  Private and intimate health matters are exactly that – so how come these ‘nosey-parkers’ know so much about someone else’s private and intimate health conditions and what they’re claiming?  

It’s simple.  These are people you presume are your friends, why else would you confide in them?  Maybe they’re your neighbours who you stop and chat with and ask each other how you’re doing.  Maybe you let slip a few personal details because they’re neighbours, aren’t they?  You think they’re interested in your health and how you’re doing but really you have to be on guard against these people because what they’re really doing is gleaning the facts from you.  They’re gathering information from you so they can pass judgement on what little amount of information you’ve volunteered.  Maybe you confided in them about your depression or your fibromyalgia and the fact that you’re getting DLA.  Maybe they’re seeing you on a good day if you’re out and about and they naturally think you’re faking it.  Oh they won’t pass judgment to your face – that would give the game away, surely – no, these are the types who spatter it all over public forums and the like.

So the moral of this blog is – don’t confide your personal details to passing acquaintances or anyone you don’t trust one hundred per cent.  It’s none of their business. They’re not doctors, they don’t know your medical history and why would you tell them?  Even your closest family members and friends may not be privy to this information so don’t give these snoopers ammunition to use it – most likely wrongly – against you. 

ESA WRAG Claimants To Be Mandated On The Work Programme

I have just seen a copy of the memo that the government have produced regarding new and worrying developments for those in the ESA WRAG group.  This was first leaked in The Guardian back in September and I have alerted my MP about it (to no avail - she is a Tory and complicit). But seeing the memo is quite chilling. It is entitled:

Work Programme Provider Live Running Memo

Here are some quotes from it:

"The purpose of this memo is to inform you that an amendment will be made to
Chapter 3c – work experience on a voluntary basis and community benefit work
placement."

"Currently, community benefit work placements are not available to Employment and
Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group (ESA WRAG) participants. It has
now been agreed Work Programme providers will be able to use mandatory work
placements as another measure through which to help ESA WRAG participants
move closer to the labour market."

Decoded this means that because the Work Programme has failed in other respects, ESA WRAG claimants are now going to be used as guinea pigs and bullied. They are worth more to the providers don’t forget – a provider can get £14,000 pounds for every person they get off benefits. 

"Evidence also suggests that work can have a positive impact on the long term health of people with disabilities and health conditions."

Actually, this is only part of the picture. The right sort of work at the right sort of pay is good for some people some of the time. Mandating (bullying) people onto a Work programme is likely to be counterproductive. Let us not forget that for many people the wrong sort of work at the wrong time is actually bad for their health and can be disastrous.

And get this: 

"The opportunity for ESA WRAG participants to take part in mandatory community benefit work placements will be introduced from the 3rd December 2012."

This is confirmation that sick people may be left with just £28 to live on as a result of increased sanctions. When I wrote to my MP she said that sick and disabled people would be protected but those who could work would ‘be made to work’. Note also the creepy language – couched as an ‘opportunity’ followed by the sinister word ‘mandatory’.  So, what - they seriously think sick people are going to say ‘oh thank you for the opportunity to force me onto the Work Programme’?!

The last paragraph almost looks like a disclaimer:

"It is worth noting that there is a greater emphasis throughout guidance is on ensuring
that the activity identified is appropriate for the participants health condition or
disability and being aware of their barriers to work, including  ill health/disability and
any reasonable adjustment requirements when organising an activity with an
employer."

So please – could someone tell me in what situation a sick or disabled person will be forced onto the Work Programme?  If they volunteer that's all well and good but I can’t think of any reason to mandate a sick or disabled person in this way.  It is barbaric.  Simple as.

For a copy of the memo please follow the link below.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-memo-082.pdf

Dear Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell...

I saw your video link where you were talking about the cost of prescriptions that people get for free for conditions such as Hypertension and Type II Diabetes which you say are ‘predominantly to do with lifestyle’. I beg your pardon?  Ah, so people choose to have Diabetes and Hypertension, thanks for telling us, Mr Lee.  I had hypertension at the young of age eighteen and of course that must have been ‘a lifestyle choice’ - silly me.  Can you also tell me why you all bandy these mantras about?  I'm hearing so much about this 'lifestyle choice', it sounds so sweet and innocuous, as if we're choosing between a relaxing life in the sun or perhaps a world cruise.  Make it sound like a choice and you can then get away with blaming the individual for their obesity, addiction, and now – increasingly – other conditions.  Isn't that the real reason behind such a phrase, Mr Lee?  Isn't it just a euphemism for saying it's all your fault? And I heard you describe these debilitating illnesses - Hypertension and Type II Diabetes - and by association the people who suffer from them - as ‘an increasing burden on the National Health Service’. (The 'burden’ word again – the same rhetoric that was used in pre-war Germany, let us remember).  You go on to talk about 'moving the locus of that responsibility for health care from the state to the individual'. What you really mean is making people with these conditions pay for their drugs. By doing that you would, in your words, be ‘attaching a consequence to lifestyle choice’. (You couldn't resist that phrase again, could you?) But you didn't finish it there - you went on to talk about the  ‘differences in generations in their attitude towards arthritic pain’.  You praise the wartime generation – as if somehow they have no need for the NHS and its services.  But you give away your real agenda which is that when the ‘incredibly stoic… wartime generation have passed on…with their attitude towards their lives, their pain, their suffering that appears to be significantly different to their children’ the shit will really hit the fan.  Your real fear is when ‘that huge number’ of  baby-boomer children – that group born between 1945 and 1955 hit their 70s and 80s between 2015 and 2030. ‘Their expectations, their demands upon the system are going to be immense,’ you say.  Excuse me?  Well, I don’t quite fit into that Baby Boomer group, not by your definition at any rate, Mr Lee, but watch out, matey. There are all those of us born in the late 50s, 60s and 70s who expect good health and longevity, and what, pray, is wrong with that?  You seem to be bemoaning the fact that the NHS has been successful in achieving greater longevity and alleviation of pain, rather than celebrating its achievements.  And for your information, Mr Lee, my parents are both of that wartime generation. My late father had Type II Diabetes and was certainly glad of the NHS for his treatments.  My mother too, is of that generation, and certainly she is stoic, but does that mean she shouldn’t be relieved of any pain and suffering?  That she should put up and shut up?  She is actually furious about what is happening to the NHS.  

I find your tone and implications extremely worrying.