I believe that there is a growing number of effectively disenfranchised people in the UK. Labour supporters who thought that their party was all about supporting ordinary people. Tories who thought that their party was going to constrain the excesses of non-elected European officials. LibDems who knew their party was not going to raise tuition fees and were going to do something about the obscene behaviour of the banks.
What happens when your political home is demolished but you are still a functioning democrat? Do you:
A. Abstain from voting or
B. Do you go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper or
C. Vote for a party that no longer represents your values?
Those are currently your options, none of which will meet your needs.
I wonder if the time is right for a party of the ignored. NOTA or None Of The Above would be a party that would have a single aim - to give a purpose to those disenfranchised votes. By adding a NOTA candidate to a ballot paper democrats could register their disgust at the way they are taken for granted or ignored.
NOTA would be for serious political thinkers who believe that the growing homogeneity of professional politicians is not only insulting but anti-democratic. NOTA would have only one function. To offer a means of translating disapproval of politicians behaviour into a large, unified voice that would appear as a statistic in the analyses of political parties. The ideal result would be for NOTA to come second in the ballots of constituencies all over the UK.
Why second? Because we are not politicians and do not want to be. We are the people who pay politicians to do a job. That job is to listen to constituents and represent their wishes in Parliament. There needs to be a mechanism where we can register protest. If politicians thought there was a risk they might be fighting a marginal seat perhaps they would be more responsive. The idea is to lodge a protest in a way that will not be ignored as is the case with 'spoiled ballot' statistics.
Many of us have no political allegiance. Many of us do not agree with party political dogfights that masquerade as a considered democratic response to the situation we find ourselves in. I know I feel that this is not the time to pursue party political goals, this is the time when an old Marxist like me must seek common ground with Tories and LibDems and those of no allegiance. The common ground I seek has a label but is difficult to define it is called fairness.
If anyone out there feels there is merit in the idea, let me know.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Are you them or us?
Are we getting value for money from our government? Are the ministers of state performing at a level commensurate with the salary, expenses and pensions we pay them? As their employers we are entitled to ask the questions. As our employees they should be able to make a response that at the very least leads us to believe their performance is adequate. As individuals we have little opportunity to question ministers, instead we delegate that responsibility to our representatives, the MP’s who sit in the House of Commons. If government is not performing to a reasonable standard we are also entitled to question these guardians of the interests of this country’s owners - us.
There will always be arguments as to the correct policy to be followed. When judging government we should lay aside our tribal leanings and concentrate on the central issues. How are our political masters performing? What can be said about their -
Analysis of situations
Definition of situations
Consideration of possible responses and consequences
Formulation of legislation
Their words
Gordon Brown insisted yesterday that he would not put civil liberties at risk despite signalling his determination to match Tony Blair's hardline stance on countering terrorism with a series of controversial new measures.
Speaking at a Labour hustings in Newcastle, he said he was ready to be "tough in the security measures that are necessary to prevent terrorist incidents in this country". But he said he would protect civil liberties. "There has got to be independent judicial oversight. There has got to be proper parliamentary accountability."
The Guardian 4 June 2007
Their deeds
Because Europe controls most of the legislative machinery that governs us our Government has less to do in Westminster. It retains control over issues of defence, security and policing and when it is politically expedient to show ‘decisive leadership and strength of purpose’ it rolls out ragbag statutes that affect our rights and freedoms. But, how well do they do it?
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
This allows police, within an area designated by a senior police officer, to stop and search individuals without the need to show grounds for suspicion or indeed any other cause. In 2008 360,000 people were so treated by just two police forces, the Metropolitan Police and British Transport Police. 1000 searches a day and not one item of terrorist literature or material was seized. Not one person was arrested or cautioned let alone charged. This raises many questions that could be asked by any reasonable, law abiding, responsible and politically inactive citizen with an ounce of logic.
Were these searches random? If so is it not reasonable to suppose that terrorists on active duty will avoid areas that have been ‘designated’ as stop and search areas. That will have the effect of keeping London safe while dispersing terrorism throughout the rest of the country and incidentally increasing the frustration of London’s citizens as they go about their lawful business. Currently between 8000 and 10000 searches are conducted monthly.
Or, were these searches targeted? If so on what basis, is there a stereotypical profile of terrorist behaviour? With absolutely zero per cent success it would appear that, if this is the case, the model being followed is neither accurate or efficient.
Were these ‘trojan’ searches? That is searches conducted under terrorism legislation but intended to elicit information of a non-terrorist nature. One of our basic freedoms is that there can be no police action against us without grounds for suspicion. It is there to prevent the harassment of individuals unpopular with the authorities.
To give an indication of the application of section 44 consider the experience of Matt Wardman, white, 40’s, middle class. Searched along with his female companion after studying a map outside St Pancras station. Why? What Neanderthal logic determines that reading a map on public display in a public place (where people unfamiliar with London are likely to be) is tantamount to planting barrels of gunpowder under the Houses of Parliament. Having never met or spoken to Mr Wardman I cannot say whether his eyes are close together or if he has some other undeniable criminal features linked with the standard profile of a terrorist. I just feel that the police might spend their time and our money a little more profitably trying to reduce the levels of pick-pocketing around our London transportation system.
Section 44 is part of a series of bad legislation. It is bad not because of its stated intent but in the totally feckless way it was designed, drawn up and implemented. Starting with the basics, there is no definition of terrorism ergo no definition of terrorist. Possibly this is because if our Government employed a definition along the lines of “the act of attempting to overthrow a government by employing acts of violence on a country’s citizens” it might have difficulty justifying Iraq. Leaving the police to choose how to implement the act has resulted only in innocent people being targeted, in the circumvention of our civil rights . There is even a back up in section 43 should 44 become too controversial.
The legislation allows for designation of an area as a danger zone on a temporary basis of four weeks. This was one of the safeguards parliament sought for us when the act was being debated. Our MP’s have obviously lost interest now because the ‘temporary’ measure has been renewed in London every four weeks for at least five years with no demur from Westminster.
Of course if you want to protest the reduction of your freedoms make sure you are more than a kilometre away from the houses of parliament otherwise you will fall foul of the Serious and Organised Crime Act. The new offence of demonstrating in an unauthorised place, even peacefully and quietly, will render you liable to a court appearance and a criminal record. If during your arrest you are backhanded by a police officer or pushed in the back so you fall to the ground and you attempt to gather information about that officer’s name and number or try to photograph them for identification purposes you will be commiting another offence under the counter terrorism legislation.
You could try writing letters, ah no, can’t do that - Protection from Harassment Act. If you write more than one letter (carry on a course of conduct) which annoys or upsets your chosen politician (cause distress) then you could be sent down for six months. As a by-the-way, if Government agencies or officials harass someone, the minister has powers under the act to issue a certificate that absolves them of any wrong doing.
How does this make our Government any different to dictatorships around the world? Well our Goverment/Police/Security Services promise they won’t abuse the powers they have or the trust people have in them. Yeah. Right.
If by virtue of our silence we allow these abuses to continue we deserve everything we get. DNA databases, ID cards, car transponders recording journeys, records of all emails sent, websites visited, mobile phone calls recorded, cctv. If you are of the opinion that, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about, consider this. This is the Government that made protest illegal anywhere by anyone unless officially approved. What are you going to do if they declare expression of dissent or communicating with someone who holds ‘subversive’ views illegal. I, for one, do not have faith that they won’t. Can you show me proof that they will?
How do you make a terrorist of a normal, peaceful man or woman?
Remove their rights to peacefully challenge, question or protest the official policies.
Legislation introduced by this Government which, by the way it is implemented, reduces civil rights in the pursuit of a ‘greater good’.
Serious and Organised Crime Act 1997
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Terrorism Act 2000
Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Terrorism Act 2006
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
NB Over 250 acts exist that grant statutory right of entry to your home to a wide variety of officials from government and local authority agencies.
In the same period the gap between rich and poor has grown exponentially. The UK Government turned a blind eye to kidnap and torture by the USA. The UK Government attempted to double the income tax of the poorest citizens of the land. Government ministers receiving remuneration of £141,866 a year fiddled their expenses, MPs did the same. It presided over the deregulation of pension funds resulting in massive losses. It took this country into an illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It failed to exercise due care over the banks and financial services industry. And on, and on, and on.
Government of the people, by people who regard themselves as superior, for the purpose of looking after themselves and their friends.
There will always be arguments as to the correct policy to be followed. When judging government we should lay aside our tribal leanings and concentrate on the central issues. How are our political masters performing? What can be said about their -
Analysis of situations
Definition of situations
Consideration of possible responses and consequences
Formulation of legislation
Their words
Gordon Brown insisted yesterday that he would not put civil liberties at risk despite signalling his determination to match Tony Blair's hardline stance on countering terrorism with a series of controversial new measures.
Speaking at a Labour hustings in Newcastle, he said he was ready to be "tough in the security measures that are necessary to prevent terrorist incidents in this country". But he said he would protect civil liberties. "There has got to be independent judicial oversight. There has got to be proper parliamentary accountability."
The Guardian 4 June 2007
Their deeds
Because Europe controls most of the legislative machinery that governs us our Government has less to do in Westminster. It retains control over issues of defence, security and policing and when it is politically expedient to show ‘decisive leadership and strength of purpose’ it rolls out ragbag statutes that affect our rights and freedoms. But, how well do they do it?
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
This allows police, within an area designated by a senior police officer, to stop and search individuals without the need to show grounds for suspicion or indeed any other cause. In 2008 360,000 people were so treated by just two police forces, the Metropolitan Police and British Transport Police. 1000 searches a day and not one item of terrorist literature or material was seized. Not one person was arrested or cautioned let alone charged. This raises many questions that could be asked by any reasonable, law abiding, responsible and politically inactive citizen with an ounce of logic.
Were these searches random? If so is it not reasonable to suppose that terrorists on active duty will avoid areas that have been ‘designated’ as stop and search areas. That will have the effect of keeping London safe while dispersing terrorism throughout the rest of the country and incidentally increasing the frustration of London’s citizens as they go about their lawful business. Currently between 8000 and 10000 searches are conducted monthly.
Or, were these searches targeted? If so on what basis, is there a stereotypical profile of terrorist behaviour? With absolutely zero per cent success it would appear that, if this is the case, the model being followed is neither accurate or efficient.
Were these ‘trojan’ searches? That is searches conducted under terrorism legislation but intended to elicit information of a non-terrorist nature. One of our basic freedoms is that there can be no police action against us without grounds for suspicion. It is there to prevent the harassment of individuals unpopular with the authorities.
To give an indication of the application of section 44 consider the experience of Matt Wardman, white, 40’s, middle class. Searched along with his female companion after studying a map outside St Pancras station. Why? What Neanderthal logic determines that reading a map on public display in a public place (where people unfamiliar with London are likely to be) is tantamount to planting barrels of gunpowder under the Houses of Parliament. Having never met or spoken to Mr Wardman I cannot say whether his eyes are close together or if he has some other undeniable criminal features linked with the standard profile of a terrorist. I just feel that the police might spend their time and our money a little more profitably trying to reduce the levels of pick-pocketing around our London transportation system.
Section 44 is part of a series of bad legislation. It is bad not because of its stated intent but in the totally feckless way it was designed, drawn up and implemented. Starting with the basics, there is no definition of terrorism ergo no definition of terrorist. Possibly this is because if our Government employed a definition along the lines of “the act of attempting to overthrow a government by employing acts of violence on a country’s citizens” it might have difficulty justifying Iraq. Leaving the police to choose how to implement the act has resulted only in innocent people being targeted, in the circumvention of our civil rights . There is even a back up in section 43 should 44 become too controversial.
The legislation allows for designation of an area as a danger zone on a temporary basis of four weeks. This was one of the safeguards parliament sought for us when the act was being debated. Our MP’s have obviously lost interest now because the ‘temporary’ measure has been renewed in London every four weeks for at least five years with no demur from Westminster.
Of course if you want to protest the reduction of your freedoms make sure you are more than a kilometre away from the houses of parliament otherwise you will fall foul of the Serious and Organised Crime Act. The new offence of demonstrating in an unauthorised place, even peacefully and quietly, will render you liable to a court appearance and a criminal record. If during your arrest you are backhanded by a police officer or pushed in the back so you fall to the ground and you attempt to gather information about that officer’s name and number or try to photograph them for identification purposes you will be commiting another offence under the counter terrorism legislation.
You could try writing letters, ah no, can’t do that - Protection from Harassment Act. If you write more than one letter (carry on a course of conduct) which annoys or upsets your chosen politician (cause distress) then you could be sent down for six months. As a by-the-way, if Government agencies or officials harass someone, the minister has powers under the act to issue a certificate that absolves them of any wrong doing.
How does this make our Government any different to dictatorships around the world? Well our Goverment/Police/Security Services promise they won’t abuse the powers they have or the trust people have in them. Yeah. Right.
If by virtue of our silence we allow these abuses to continue we deserve everything we get. DNA databases, ID cards, car transponders recording journeys, records of all emails sent, websites visited, mobile phone calls recorded, cctv. If you are of the opinion that, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about, consider this. This is the Government that made protest illegal anywhere by anyone unless officially approved. What are you going to do if they declare expression of dissent or communicating with someone who holds ‘subversive’ views illegal. I, for one, do not have faith that they won’t. Can you show me proof that they will?
How do you make a terrorist of a normal, peaceful man or woman?
Remove their rights to peacefully challenge, question or protest the official policies.
Legislation introduced by this Government which, by the way it is implemented, reduces civil rights in the pursuit of a ‘greater good’.
Serious and Organised Crime Act 1997
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Terrorism Act 2000
Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Terrorism Act 2006
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
NB Over 250 acts exist that grant statutory right of entry to your home to a wide variety of officials from government and local authority agencies.
In the same period the gap between rich and poor has grown exponentially. The UK Government turned a blind eye to kidnap and torture by the USA. The UK Government attempted to double the income tax of the poorest citizens of the land. Government ministers receiving remuneration of £141,866 a year fiddled their expenses, MPs did the same. It presided over the deregulation of pension funds resulting in massive losses. It took this country into an illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It failed to exercise due care over the banks and financial services industry. And on, and on, and on.
Government of the people, by people who regard themselves as superior, for the purpose of looking after themselves and their friends.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Corporate Greed
In this blog I’d like to address issues of what I regard as unsafe practises in the Governance of the United Kingdom. I will only speak to that which I know of, it is for readers to decide whether, now or in the future, my experience could become yours. It is a long and complex argument for that I apologise all I ask is that you take the time to consider it once.
According to people I have spoken to (who I presume have read my first post) I am cynical and at the same time naïve. I am too hard on a government doing their best in hard times and yet at the same time woefully forgiving of the unforgiveable. One person said the following, (the citations are theirs):
Our government is a collective of liars
- Iraq/Weapons of mass destruction
Supported by thieves
- The 10p tax debacle
Protected by thugs
- Jean-Charles de Menezes
Funded by fools
- Us
Since I am concerned to ensure that this blog stays within the realms of that which I know and have experience of I would make the following comments. Government has become purely a producer of concepts. It no longer holds the keys to the engines of application, no longer retains sight of the consequences of third and fourth and fifth party delivery of the concepts. In order to keep up the appearance of managing the problems arising in our society it follows populist trends stoked up by newspapers and then asks private sector facilitators to design, introduce and manage practical policies.
The problem is that those same private sector facilitators have vested interests that are not in accord with long held values of the British public. The same names keep cropping up time and again. Any study of information in the public domain shows that individuals working in areas of Government policy development later appear to have close links with the corporate structures. One is tempted to ask what was the detail and timetable in the development of those links?
My blog contains my impressions of how welfare, including health care, at the hands of the state is developing and its links to other issues. I am of course making an assumption that across classes, genders, races and religions the average British citizen (often endearingly referred to as the majority view) is in favour of certain levels of state support like the NHS. The arguments are always about degree and cost and it is a function of Government to make a decision about what we (the people) demand and what we (the taxpayer) can afford. It is a complex business not made easier by fluctuating circumstances. It is therefore necessary for a Government to build its policies on solid foundations like principle, ethics, morals and an undying respect for democracy.
This Government and the Thatcherite version before it have rejected that model in favour of developing a system of political practicality. It is in my view a cynical change that has begun to poison our nation. Politics can be defined as the exercise of power and it follows that politicians are those who desire to exercise it. My question – to what end?
Welfare reform became necessary not because it is too expensive, which it is, but because it did not serve the interests of those who needed it – us. The reforms should have worked toward the long term interest of the majority not as now pandered to the desires and ambitions of the few. I have come to recognise and accept that it is fundamentally self interest that drives us. We are genetically programmed to protect and nurture ourselves and by extension our family. There will be exceptions but these will be a minority. In a natural world, which ours isn’t, we would be born free to do anything we wished in any manner we wished to do it, to anybody or anything. The flip side of this is others would be equally free to do the same, even to us. Democracy and law are developments of learning that our individual long term interests are best served by cooperating, accepting rules that whilst limiting freedom reduce risk. Cooperation has existed at least since our Neanderthal antecedents discovered that hunting in packs kept bellies filled.
Welfare in all its forms is a manifestation of mutual self interest. None of us know when or if we are going to be injured or ill we cannot know if our children will be born damaged in some way. We all know that it might happen and so we prepare and agree a strategy that we hope will protect the majority and that we will be part of that majority.
Over recent years a new philosophy has developed one that has no link to the natural order it is called Neo-conservatism. It is founded upon greed that is portrayed as wealth. It attempts to persuade us that we should measure our self interest in purely financial and material terms but only at a personal level. It dictates that the success of following this philosophy can be measured, predicted and controlled with mathematics and economics. The current wave of welfare reforms is an example of this thinking and it is the first of a legion of changes that will deprive this nation and its people of that which made us what we are. More importantly it will deprive us of what we could be. Those benefitting most from this philosophy will hold no allegiance to anyone save themselves, will recognise no obligation to the common good and they will prepared to see the ruination of the planet as long as their lives are comfortable. They are the minority and we have put them in charge.
You will see that I hold strong views, and if you haven’t so far asked what’s in it for him, what’s his angle? You’ve missed the point. My angle is the same as yours to nurture and protect me and mine. I am damn nigh sixty, I want to live as long as I possibly can. If I live to claim a pension, I’ll be the first of the male lines of my family to do so. With the heart problems listed in my first blog I imagine I could get odds of 10-1 from a bookmaker if I bet on doing so. My concern is for the younger members of my family. They will be faced with challenges of environmental change that on our current course will lead to war and famine. My argument is the solution starts with how we govern ourselves and that we should consider why we acting as we are. We should consider who are the people governing us and what’s their game what’s in it for them? What are the indicators that things are as I say, will head where I predict?
The current welfare reforms are being managed on a day to day basis by Atos Origin, they are linked with an American insurance company called Unum. The contract with Atos is worth £500m plus. The policy Atos follow is one approved by the New Labour Government. It is largely based on the advice of Unum Provident. The Chief Medical Adviser at the time was a man called Mansel Aylward.
"In the US, Unum claims management had been coming under increasing scrutiny. In 2003, the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California announced that as a matter of ordinary practice and custom, it had compelled claimants to either accept less than the amount due under the terms of the policies or resort to litigation. The following year, a multistate review forced Unum to reopen hundreds of thousands of rejected insurance claims. Commissioner John Garamendi described Unum as, "an outlaw company. It is a company that for years has operated in an illegal fashion". Guardian March 2008
Prof Mansel Aylward CB
Position:Director of Unum Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research (CPDR)
Professor Mansel Aylward is also Chair of the Wales Centre for Health which is a new body, established by the Welsh Assembly Government, to lead improvements in the nation’s health. From 1996 to April 2005 he was Chief Medical Adviser, Medical Director and Chief Scientist to the United Kingdom’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). He was also Chief Medical Adviser and Head of Profession at the Veterans' Agency, Ministry of Defence. He was made a Companion of the Bath in the Queen's Birthday Honours List 2002. In 2001 he was appointed as The Royal Society of Medicine's Academic Sub Dean for Wales. Faculty Website University of Cardiff
LoCascio (a Unum director) replied in the negative when Private Eye asked if he was not concerned about the conflict of interest involved in his company's advertising campaign, which sought to gain from benefit cuts that he had helped to institute. However Unum Chairman Ward E. Graffam did acknowledge the 'exciting developments' in Britain. Unum's influence in government was helping to boost the private insurance market: 'The impending changes to the State ill-health benefits system will create unique sales opportunities across the entire disability market and we will be launching a concerted effort to harness the potential in these.'
Call me cynic if you like but welfare problems are a social phenomena not a sales opportunity. Throwing ill and disabled people to the wolves with no regard for the predictable consequences is short sighted, callous and in the longer term counter-productive. Make no mistake you will feel the consequences whether you are ill or able bodied. As a result of these reforms there will be suicides, alcohol and drug abuse, increased criminality a reduction in social cohesion all of which will cost money. Police expenditure and the impact on health services will be massive. In a few years time as the economic consequences of corporate mismanagement bite harder a future Government may be forced to choose, health care or order in the streets. My bet is they will go for order in the streets with the introduction of draconian measures. Atos Origin have expressed an interest in running the ID card scheme, an eye to a potential market as ever, but are welfare reforms just a marketing ploy. A scheme to enable circumstances to become such that the introduction of an ID register is inevitable. Would that effect you? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to lose right?
Read the page on this link
http://www.uk.atosorigin.com/en-uk/services/solutions/managed_operations/atos_infrastructure_solutions/connectivity_security/default.htm
and then consider this:
Ministers have been forced to order an emergency shutdown of a key Government computer system to protect millions of people's private details.
The action was taken after a memory stick was found in a pub car park containing confidential passcodes to the online Government Gateway system, which covers everything from tax returns to parking tickets.
An urgent investigation is now under way into how the stick, belonging to the company which runs the flagship system, came to be lost. Mail Online November 2008
The firm that lost highly sensitive taxpayer records in a pub car park faced fresh criticism last night over its handling of nurses' personal details.
Last weekend the Department for Work and Pensions closed down a key online services system - the Government Gateway - after a memory stick containing confidential documents and passwords was found outside a pub.
It is feared that the data of around 12million people was jeopardised.
The memory stick was lost by an employee of the French firm Atos Origin. Now the same firm has come under fire from a nursing union for putting its members at risk.
Under the Government's policy to get those on incapacity benefits back to work, each claimant must have a medical.
Atos Origin, which gathers information on claimants, has stipulated that nurses carrying out the medicals must include their Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) identification numbers on the case files.
But officials at the Independent Federation of Nursing have found that if the PIN and name of a nurse are typed into an internet search engine, the user is given access to the NMC database of all registered nurses, containing names, addresses and other details. Mail Online November 2008
Atos assures us that a massive effort is always maintained over all issues of security but allowed its employees to wander around with very personal and sensitive data on an unencrypted, unsecured memory stick. They are contracted to a government that allowed 25,000,000 personal records to be lost in the post. Just think of the problems that the information contained in those records could have caused.
This isn’t just an issue about welfare reform or data security it is an issue about Governance. When was the last time a Government minister said we got it wrong? Blair excused himself of culpability in the WMD fiasco because he “genuinely believed” what was contained in the dossier. For a lawyer and Prime Minister that shows a remarkable lack of analytical and management judgement. What is worse is he was probably the most able of those in cabinet.
Wake up Albion, recover your backbone, the responsibility for faulty policies is the Governments. The responsibility for faulty Government is ours. Resist all changes that are sold as “for our own good” ask who benefits and how. Refuse to accept legislation from parliamentarians who fail to uphold the sanctity of parliament. You may very well hold different views to me. It is your right to hold and express them, it is your duty to ensure that they are views considered in the light of evidence and it is your responsibility to ensure that the same rights are available to your sons and daughters and not trampled under the pigs trotters of corporate greed or discarded by lazy politicians. The actions of people described above are not the result of evil intent nor, probably, conspiracy they are the actions of people who have become too greedy and detached from the world of ordinary people. Unless we shout they won’t know we’re here.
According to people I have spoken to (who I presume have read my first post) I am cynical and at the same time naïve. I am too hard on a government doing their best in hard times and yet at the same time woefully forgiving of the unforgiveable. One person said the following, (the citations are theirs):
Our government is a collective of liars
- Iraq/Weapons of mass destruction
Supported by thieves
- The 10p tax debacle
Protected by thugs
- Jean-Charles de Menezes
Funded by fools
- Us
Since I am concerned to ensure that this blog stays within the realms of that which I know and have experience of I would make the following comments. Government has become purely a producer of concepts. It no longer holds the keys to the engines of application, no longer retains sight of the consequences of third and fourth and fifth party delivery of the concepts. In order to keep up the appearance of managing the problems arising in our society it follows populist trends stoked up by newspapers and then asks private sector facilitators to design, introduce and manage practical policies.
The problem is that those same private sector facilitators have vested interests that are not in accord with long held values of the British public. The same names keep cropping up time and again. Any study of information in the public domain shows that individuals working in areas of Government policy development later appear to have close links with the corporate structures. One is tempted to ask what was the detail and timetable in the development of those links?
My blog contains my impressions of how welfare, including health care, at the hands of the state is developing and its links to other issues. I am of course making an assumption that across classes, genders, races and religions the average British citizen (often endearingly referred to as the majority view) is in favour of certain levels of state support like the NHS. The arguments are always about degree and cost and it is a function of Government to make a decision about what we (the people) demand and what we (the taxpayer) can afford. It is a complex business not made easier by fluctuating circumstances. It is therefore necessary for a Government to build its policies on solid foundations like principle, ethics, morals and an undying respect for democracy.
This Government and the Thatcherite version before it have rejected that model in favour of developing a system of political practicality. It is in my view a cynical change that has begun to poison our nation. Politics can be defined as the exercise of power and it follows that politicians are those who desire to exercise it. My question – to what end?
Welfare reform became necessary not because it is too expensive, which it is, but because it did not serve the interests of those who needed it – us. The reforms should have worked toward the long term interest of the majority not as now pandered to the desires and ambitions of the few. I have come to recognise and accept that it is fundamentally self interest that drives us. We are genetically programmed to protect and nurture ourselves and by extension our family. There will be exceptions but these will be a minority. In a natural world, which ours isn’t, we would be born free to do anything we wished in any manner we wished to do it, to anybody or anything. The flip side of this is others would be equally free to do the same, even to us. Democracy and law are developments of learning that our individual long term interests are best served by cooperating, accepting rules that whilst limiting freedom reduce risk. Cooperation has existed at least since our Neanderthal antecedents discovered that hunting in packs kept bellies filled.
Welfare in all its forms is a manifestation of mutual self interest. None of us know when or if we are going to be injured or ill we cannot know if our children will be born damaged in some way. We all know that it might happen and so we prepare and agree a strategy that we hope will protect the majority and that we will be part of that majority.
Over recent years a new philosophy has developed one that has no link to the natural order it is called Neo-conservatism. It is founded upon greed that is portrayed as wealth. It attempts to persuade us that we should measure our self interest in purely financial and material terms but only at a personal level. It dictates that the success of following this philosophy can be measured, predicted and controlled with mathematics and economics. The current wave of welfare reforms is an example of this thinking and it is the first of a legion of changes that will deprive this nation and its people of that which made us what we are. More importantly it will deprive us of what we could be. Those benefitting most from this philosophy will hold no allegiance to anyone save themselves, will recognise no obligation to the common good and they will prepared to see the ruination of the planet as long as their lives are comfortable. They are the minority and we have put them in charge.
You will see that I hold strong views, and if you haven’t so far asked what’s in it for him, what’s his angle? You’ve missed the point. My angle is the same as yours to nurture and protect me and mine. I am damn nigh sixty, I want to live as long as I possibly can. If I live to claim a pension, I’ll be the first of the male lines of my family to do so. With the heart problems listed in my first blog I imagine I could get odds of 10-1 from a bookmaker if I bet on doing so. My concern is for the younger members of my family. They will be faced with challenges of environmental change that on our current course will lead to war and famine. My argument is the solution starts with how we govern ourselves and that we should consider why we acting as we are. We should consider who are the people governing us and what’s their game what’s in it for them? What are the indicators that things are as I say, will head where I predict?
The current welfare reforms are being managed on a day to day basis by Atos Origin, they are linked with an American insurance company called Unum. The contract with Atos is worth £500m plus. The policy Atos follow is one approved by the New Labour Government. It is largely based on the advice of Unum Provident. The Chief Medical Adviser at the time was a man called Mansel Aylward.
"In the US, Unum claims management had been coming under increasing scrutiny. In 2003, the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California announced that as a matter of ordinary practice and custom, it had compelled claimants to either accept less than the amount due under the terms of the policies or resort to litigation. The following year, a multistate review forced Unum to reopen hundreds of thousands of rejected insurance claims. Commissioner John Garamendi described Unum as, "an outlaw company. It is a company that for years has operated in an illegal fashion". Guardian March 2008
Prof Mansel Aylward CB
Position:Director of Unum Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research (CPDR)
Professor Mansel Aylward is also Chair of the Wales Centre for Health which is a new body, established by the Welsh Assembly Government, to lead improvements in the nation’s health. From 1996 to April 2005 he was Chief Medical Adviser, Medical Director and Chief Scientist to the United Kingdom’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). He was also Chief Medical Adviser and Head of Profession at the Veterans' Agency, Ministry of Defence. He was made a Companion of the Bath in the Queen's Birthday Honours List 2002. In 2001 he was appointed as The Royal Society of Medicine's Academic Sub Dean for Wales. Faculty Website University of Cardiff
LoCascio (a Unum director) replied in the negative when Private Eye asked if he was not concerned about the conflict of interest involved in his company's advertising campaign, which sought to gain from benefit cuts that he had helped to institute. However Unum Chairman Ward E. Graffam did acknowledge the 'exciting developments' in Britain. Unum's influence in government was helping to boost the private insurance market: 'The impending changes to the State ill-health benefits system will create unique sales opportunities across the entire disability market and we will be launching a concerted effort to harness the potential in these.'
Call me cynic if you like but welfare problems are a social phenomena not a sales opportunity. Throwing ill and disabled people to the wolves with no regard for the predictable consequences is short sighted, callous and in the longer term counter-productive. Make no mistake you will feel the consequences whether you are ill or able bodied. As a result of these reforms there will be suicides, alcohol and drug abuse, increased criminality a reduction in social cohesion all of which will cost money. Police expenditure and the impact on health services will be massive. In a few years time as the economic consequences of corporate mismanagement bite harder a future Government may be forced to choose, health care or order in the streets. My bet is they will go for order in the streets with the introduction of draconian measures. Atos Origin have expressed an interest in running the ID card scheme, an eye to a potential market as ever, but are welfare reforms just a marketing ploy. A scheme to enable circumstances to become such that the introduction of an ID register is inevitable. Would that effect you? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to lose right?
Read the page on this link
http://www.uk.atosorigin.com/en-uk/services/solutions/managed_operations/atos_infrastructure_solutions/connectivity_security/default.htm
and then consider this:
Ministers have been forced to order an emergency shutdown of a key Government computer system to protect millions of people's private details.
The action was taken after a memory stick was found in a pub car park containing confidential passcodes to the online Government Gateway system, which covers everything from tax returns to parking tickets.
An urgent investigation is now under way into how the stick, belonging to the company which runs the flagship system, came to be lost. Mail Online November 2008
The firm that lost highly sensitive taxpayer records in a pub car park faced fresh criticism last night over its handling of nurses' personal details.
Last weekend the Department for Work and Pensions closed down a key online services system - the Government Gateway - after a memory stick containing confidential documents and passwords was found outside a pub.
It is feared that the data of around 12million people was jeopardised.
The memory stick was lost by an employee of the French firm Atos Origin. Now the same firm has come under fire from a nursing union for putting its members at risk.
Under the Government's policy to get those on incapacity benefits back to work, each claimant must have a medical.
Atos Origin, which gathers information on claimants, has stipulated that nurses carrying out the medicals must include their Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) identification numbers on the case files.
But officials at the Independent Federation of Nursing have found that if the PIN and name of a nurse are typed into an internet search engine, the user is given access to the NMC database of all registered nurses, containing names, addresses and other details. Mail Online November 2008
Atos assures us that a massive effort is always maintained over all issues of security but allowed its employees to wander around with very personal and sensitive data on an unencrypted, unsecured memory stick. They are contracted to a government that allowed 25,000,000 personal records to be lost in the post. Just think of the problems that the information contained in those records could have caused.
This isn’t just an issue about welfare reform or data security it is an issue about Governance. When was the last time a Government minister said we got it wrong? Blair excused himself of culpability in the WMD fiasco because he “genuinely believed” what was contained in the dossier. For a lawyer and Prime Minister that shows a remarkable lack of analytical and management judgement. What is worse is he was probably the most able of those in cabinet.
Wake up Albion, recover your backbone, the responsibility for faulty policies is the Governments. The responsibility for faulty Government is ours. Resist all changes that are sold as “for our own good” ask who benefits and how. Refuse to accept legislation from parliamentarians who fail to uphold the sanctity of parliament. You may very well hold different views to me. It is your right to hold and express them, it is your duty to ensure that they are views considered in the light of evidence and it is your responsibility to ensure that the same rights are available to your sons and daughters and not trampled under the pigs trotters of corporate greed or discarded by lazy politicians. The actions of people described above are not the result of evil intent nor, probably, conspiracy they are the actions of people who have become too greedy and detached from the world of ordinary people. Unless we shout they won’t know we’re here.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Government of the people or for the people?
This blog is named to honour a hero of his day who took on monarch and dictator without fear or favour in support of the rights of ordinary people. In the end it cost him his life. Would that I had the courage of Freeborn John Lilburne. For some this blog will be a rant, in part it is, for others it will be the rantings of a lunatic. To those I say, you are as entitled to your opinion as you allow me to be to mine.
This is a blog about balance and the lack of it. It is my response to what I hold to be a corrupt and failed form of government. By this I do not mean just the many failings of this bunch of ‘New Labour’ neo-con puppets, or its short-sighted Thatcherite forebears. I mean the system the whole shebang where words do not mean what they say, where personal integrity and responsibility are regarded as a weakness. Fairness is once again lost to this land and its people.
Let me state at the outset I regard no person responsible for how they are born. Gender, race and station are beyond our control. What we say is important, how we say it matters a little too, but it is what we do that is paramount. That applies to all individuals in whatever walk of life they find themselves, including Ministers, Doctors, MPs company directors and me. Let me tell you a story to illustrate the point and I will try to make it as honest as I can.
I was born nearly 60 years ago to a very average working class family. Through good fortune and hard work I managed quite well and by 2002 had a 6 bedroom house, a business, a comfortable lifestyle and reasonable prospects for my old age. I had paid my taxes, exercised my democratic right to vote when required and, save for one shameful incident when I drove after drinking two pints on an empty stomach, I had not broken the law. To the best of my knowledge I have never deliberately hurt anyone since childhood. So I think I can claim to be normal, average and therefore what happens to me could happen to you.
By December of 2008 the house is gone, along with the lifestyle, my pension has disappeared into some corporate black hole and my government is doing its utmost to kill me, literally. Why did all this happen? I fell ill that’s why. I ceased to be a cash crop for governments and corporations. I still buy stuff of course but not so much. I still pay tax, not as much in cash terms but orders of magnitude greater than I used to in relative income terms. I have changed columns on the government books from credit to liability. I am not alone.
When I was born it was with a congenitally deformed heart, nobodies fault just one of those things. I didn’t know about it, nobody did, medicine wasn’t as good then. When I started smoking I wasn’t shown disapproval as I would be now, life was different then and everyone will be a child of their own time. By the age of 31 I started getting occasional chest pains, bad ones. My age and the limits of the technology of the time determined a diagnosis of inflamed diaphragm due to too much coffee. It was the wrong diagnosis but not one resulting from negligence or malice. In 2002 I had a heart attack, a huge mother of a heart attack, my world tilted on its axis, fell off its pedestal and rolled in a somewhat bumpy fashion into the gutter. It wasn’t without its funny moments and I may come back to that if anyone’s interested.
We were living in North Wales, the ambulance crew had to travel 10 miles from their base on wet mountain roads it took them nearly half an hour and that’s good going in the mountains. It took best part of an hour to stabilise me so that I could travel and a further 40 minutes to get through the mountains to the hospital. That’s the two hours you have until your heart starts dying used up. A&E was a hoot. Nobody could find a vein, I’ve always been awkward, I was like a dartboard by the time they got a line into me and started treatment. Then I reacted badly to the drugs and my blood pressure fell through the floor, but I survived.
To cut a long but sometimes funny story short I finally ended up with a diagnosis of deformed heart leading to up to four undiagnosed heart attacks plus one diagnosed, ischaemic heart disease and a heart that functions at 80%. Oh yeah, and I got angina, breathlessness, joint and muscle pain and chronic indigestion as a sort of medical buy one get one free special offer. That’s how I became public enemy number one for failing to die when expected.
I have been judged fit for work by a doctor from Atos, a government contractor. He judged me fit on the basis of my drug controlled pulse and blood pressure. He didn’t need my records, or doctors report or those of the cardiologists so he didn't look at them. He didn’t use the million pounds worth of equipment that the hospital used or the 30 years experience of the professor of cardiology who treated me so ably. He didn’t need the reports of 3 previous doctors from the Department of Work and Pensions. All he needed was for me to be able to attend the medical. That’s logical, if I was really ill I wouldn’t have been able to get there would I?
He was doing his patriotic duty, plugging the holes in our government’s finances caused by the quite reasonable gift of billions of pounds to those poor bankers. I guess we only have ourselves to blame, after all, if we hadn’t forced the banks to give us credit we couldn’t afford we wouldn’t be in this position now. We would still have the money to spend on necessities like two wars, MPs pensions and expenses and the like. Of course we still wouldn’t have the money to give our troops an extra two sheets of aluminium foil to cover their cardboard armour but you can’t have everything.
No, all this doctor needed was a nod from the minister. A minister who has indicated that in two years time he will pilot a scheme requiring that anyone unable to find a job or unable to work for a normal employer will have to work for the state in return for government largesse (for the benefit of older readers that’s the workhouse). The minister presides over a cynical system designed to avoid political embarassment or legal actions for negligence. The decisions are produced by a method of splitting responsibility so that nobody can be held accountable. The doctor is not my doctor he is contracted through an agency to give an opinion about my condition at a specific hour on a specific day judged against a set of truncated criteria drawn to non medical specifications. A non-medically qualified manager at DWP can then pronounce on the evidence to hand which is - "the doctor has pronounced you fit". No qualifications of your fitness, no shades of fitness just fit or not fit, black and white.
Ah, I hear, you’re a smoker you brought this on yourself. Yes, guilty M,lud I took up smoking tobacco in my teens. It might just be as a result of one of the 600 chemicals the government allows tobacco manufacturers to put in cigarettes but I was addicted. Undoubtedly it was a contributory factor. Should you, reader, be made to pay for that? My view, held long before I knew I had heart trouble, is that I will conform to any system that applies equally to all, I am prepared to submit to any law that has universal application. So judge me as you like but remember this if you judge me guilty on the logic that I contributed to my own downfall and therefore it is right that I should be punished you must do so across the board. The person knowingly taking up a dangerous sport, climbing, rugby etc. is equally guilty and I have no wish to see the spectacle of refusing benefits to young quadraplegics. You think they won't do that? The government has a record of using legislation designed for one purpose to tackle another unrelated one. But lets leave the ‘anti-terrorist' legislation for another day. Government expenditure on smoking related illness is 1.5 billion an awful lot of money I agree. However, the tax income from tobacco products is 5 – 7 billion so maybe there’s whiff of hypocrisy there.
Fit for work means just that. Fit for any and all work that someone is prepared to offer, refusal on grounds of danger to health is not an option. And just to make sure no-one gets too comfortable on benefit its been reduced by 25%. Its only being done for our own good. Contrast that with the £700,000 bonus paid to the director of Northern Rock on his departure from that wonderfully run company. I don’t suppose I’ll get the chance to ask him about that as we wait in the long queue at the job centre. Maybe I’ll ask one of his ex-employees.
Maybe I should have put aside money to cover me for a rainy day, that would have been the sensible thing to do wouldn’t it? Well strike me blind, I did, wasn’t I clever? No, unfortunately I wasn’t. I believed government when they led me to believe that my savings were safe on their watch (Tory and Labour). When they allowed companies to run their employees pension schemes because corporations had the necessary experience and expertise to do so, I took their word. When the corporations (not the scheme members) were allowed to take contribution holidays because it was safe to do so and improved corporation balance sheets, yep, you got it, I believed them. When regulations changed to allow corporations to invest more of their scheme's funds in their own companies I didn’t complain. The government wouldn’t lie, wouldn’t allow unsafe practises, would they?
I’m going to end this entry here, I don’t know if there are any other democrats out there who agree with me but if so I’m happy to hear from you. If you don’t agree why not write up your own point of view and drop me a line about it. Maybe I’ll find something there that makes me change my mind, I will read it and see.
This is a blog about balance and the lack of it. It is my response to what I hold to be a corrupt and failed form of government. By this I do not mean just the many failings of this bunch of ‘New Labour’ neo-con puppets, or its short-sighted Thatcherite forebears. I mean the system the whole shebang where words do not mean what they say, where personal integrity and responsibility are regarded as a weakness. Fairness is once again lost to this land and its people.
Let me state at the outset I regard no person responsible for how they are born. Gender, race and station are beyond our control. What we say is important, how we say it matters a little too, but it is what we do that is paramount. That applies to all individuals in whatever walk of life they find themselves, including Ministers, Doctors, MPs company directors and me. Let me tell you a story to illustrate the point and I will try to make it as honest as I can.
I was born nearly 60 years ago to a very average working class family. Through good fortune and hard work I managed quite well and by 2002 had a 6 bedroom house, a business, a comfortable lifestyle and reasonable prospects for my old age. I had paid my taxes, exercised my democratic right to vote when required and, save for one shameful incident when I drove after drinking two pints on an empty stomach, I had not broken the law. To the best of my knowledge I have never deliberately hurt anyone since childhood. So I think I can claim to be normal, average and therefore what happens to me could happen to you.
By December of 2008 the house is gone, along with the lifestyle, my pension has disappeared into some corporate black hole and my government is doing its utmost to kill me, literally. Why did all this happen? I fell ill that’s why. I ceased to be a cash crop for governments and corporations. I still buy stuff of course but not so much. I still pay tax, not as much in cash terms but orders of magnitude greater than I used to in relative income terms. I have changed columns on the government books from credit to liability. I am not alone.
When I was born it was with a congenitally deformed heart, nobodies fault just one of those things. I didn’t know about it, nobody did, medicine wasn’t as good then. When I started smoking I wasn’t shown disapproval as I would be now, life was different then and everyone will be a child of their own time. By the age of 31 I started getting occasional chest pains, bad ones. My age and the limits of the technology of the time determined a diagnosis of inflamed diaphragm due to too much coffee. It was the wrong diagnosis but not one resulting from negligence or malice. In 2002 I had a heart attack, a huge mother of a heart attack, my world tilted on its axis, fell off its pedestal and rolled in a somewhat bumpy fashion into the gutter. It wasn’t without its funny moments and I may come back to that if anyone’s interested.
We were living in North Wales, the ambulance crew had to travel 10 miles from their base on wet mountain roads it took them nearly half an hour and that’s good going in the mountains. It took best part of an hour to stabilise me so that I could travel and a further 40 minutes to get through the mountains to the hospital. That’s the two hours you have until your heart starts dying used up. A&E was a hoot. Nobody could find a vein, I’ve always been awkward, I was like a dartboard by the time they got a line into me and started treatment. Then I reacted badly to the drugs and my blood pressure fell through the floor, but I survived.
To cut a long but sometimes funny story short I finally ended up with a diagnosis of deformed heart leading to up to four undiagnosed heart attacks plus one diagnosed, ischaemic heart disease and a heart that functions at 80%. Oh yeah, and I got angina, breathlessness, joint and muscle pain and chronic indigestion as a sort of medical buy one get one free special offer. That’s how I became public enemy number one for failing to die when expected.
I have been judged fit for work by a doctor from Atos, a government contractor. He judged me fit on the basis of my drug controlled pulse and blood pressure. He didn’t need my records, or doctors report or those of the cardiologists so he didn't look at them. He didn’t use the million pounds worth of equipment that the hospital used or the 30 years experience of the professor of cardiology who treated me so ably. He didn’t need the reports of 3 previous doctors from the Department of Work and Pensions. All he needed was for me to be able to attend the medical. That’s logical, if I was really ill I wouldn’t have been able to get there would I?
He was doing his patriotic duty, plugging the holes in our government’s finances caused by the quite reasonable gift of billions of pounds to those poor bankers. I guess we only have ourselves to blame, after all, if we hadn’t forced the banks to give us credit we couldn’t afford we wouldn’t be in this position now. We would still have the money to spend on necessities like two wars, MPs pensions and expenses and the like. Of course we still wouldn’t have the money to give our troops an extra two sheets of aluminium foil to cover their cardboard armour but you can’t have everything.
No, all this doctor needed was a nod from the minister. A minister who has indicated that in two years time he will pilot a scheme requiring that anyone unable to find a job or unable to work for a normal employer will have to work for the state in return for government largesse (for the benefit of older readers that’s the workhouse). The minister presides over a cynical system designed to avoid political embarassment or legal actions for negligence. The decisions are produced by a method of splitting responsibility so that nobody can be held accountable. The doctor is not my doctor he is contracted through an agency to give an opinion about my condition at a specific hour on a specific day judged against a set of truncated criteria drawn to non medical specifications. A non-medically qualified manager at DWP can then pronounce on the evidence to hand which is - "the doctor has pronounced you fit". No qualifications of your fitness, no shades of fitness just fit or not fit, black and white.
Ah, I hear, you’re a smoker you brought this on yourself. Yes, guilty M,lud I took up smoking tobacco in my teens. It might just be as a result of one of the 600 chemicals the government allows tobacco manufacturers to put in cigarettes but I was addicted. Undoubtedly it was a contributory factor. Should you, reader, be made to pay for that? My view, held long before I knew I had heart trouble, is that I will conform to any system that applies equally to all, I am prepared to submit to any law that has universal application. So judge me as you like but remember this if you judge me guilty on the logic that I contributed to my own downfall and therefore it is right that I should be punished you must do so across the board. The person knowingly taking up a dangerous sport, climbing, rugby etc. is equally guilty and I have no wish to see the spectacle of refusing benefits to young quadraplegics. You think they won't do that? The government has a record of using legislation designed for one purpose to tackle another unrelated one. But lets leave the ‘anti-terrorist' legislation for another day. Government expenditure on smoking related illness is 1.5 billion an awful lot of money I agree. However, the tax income from tobacco products is 5 – 7 billion so maybe there’s whiff of hypocrisy there.
Fit for work means just that. Fit for any and all work that someone is prepared to offer, refusal on grounds of danger to health is not an option. And just to make sure no-one gets too comfortable on benefit its been reduced by 25%. Its only being done for our own good. Contrast that with the £700,000 bonus paid to the director of Northern Rock on his departure from that wonderfully run company. I don’t suppose I’ll get the chance to ask him about that as we wait in the long queue at the job centre. Maybe I’ll ask one of his ex-employees.
Maybe I should have put aside money to cover me for a rainy day, that would have been the sensible thing to do wouldn’t it? Well strike me blind, I did, wasn’t I clever? No, unfortunately I wasn’t. I believed government when they led me to believe that my savings were safe on their watch (Tory and Labour). When they allowed companies to run their employees pension schemes because corporations had the necessary experience and expertise to do so, I took their word. When the corporations (not the scheme members) were allowed to take contribution holidays because it was safe to do so and improved corporation balance sheets, yep, you got it, I believed them. When regulations changed to allow corporations to invest more of their scheme's funds in their own companies I didn’t complain. The government wouldn’t lie, wouldn’t allow unsafe practises, would they?
I’m going to end this entry here, I don’t know if there are any other democrats out there who agree with me but if so I’m happy to hear from you. If you don’t agree why not write up your own point of view and drop me a line about it. Maybe I’ll find something there that makes me change my mind, I will read it and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)