O Frabjous Day, When The Bailiffs Call On New Labour

Labour cash crisis could bankrupt party leaders:

“The party’s constitution is like a five-a-side football club, or the local cricket club. The big difference is that the most club officials and managers could expect to have to fork out is an unpaid bill for hiring the pitch. In Labour’s case, it’s tens of millions of pounds.”

New Labour, like the country who followed its lead, has financed its dreams on the never-never and now it’s deep, deep in the hole and the executive are personally liable. Unsurprisingly it doesn’t look like the unions will stump up, not after the way they’ve been treated and no matter how many new hollow agreements Labour offer.

There’s a bloody good reason why the party’s constitution makes the executive severally and jointly liable for debts – so that executive members would consider their potential personal loss and not get into debt, because it would be on their own heads. So who did New Labour’s golden girls and boys, most of whom have yet to hold down a proper job and have, most likely, never even had to balance the household books, expect to make up the repayments when they took the debt on? I swear that New Labour’s authoritarian incompetents have been thinking their party expenditure’s been paid by the taxpaying mugs all this time, just like their own exorbitant personal expenses.

Er, no. They are personally liable for the debt they and their party have run up and that could mean the application of their own draconian laws against them.

That means that means if they don’t pay, the creditor can take pretty much all they own in satisfaction of the debt and associated charges – and do it with menaces. I hope that each member of Labour’s excutive, starting with Gordon Brown, each get a bailiff’s visit from their very own government-licensed thugs. Like this politically conveniently-timed raid on peace protestors just before the Iraq invasion:

Bailiffs evict peace protesters

Peace protestors who occupied a derelict building in the centre of Bristol for 12 hours have been evicted by bailiffs.

The bailiffs smashed their way into the building near the Council House, which had been occupied since 0700 GMT on Friday by an unknown number of people from anti-war and housing action groups.

They said the money being spent on the war could be spent instead on housing in the city.

The eviction happened on the eve of the anti-war march in London, which will be attended by protesters travelling in 66 coaches from Bristol.

Or perhaps they’d prefer a visit like this, to someone having problems paying their council tax -which has doubled since Labour came to power:

…in the first instance they turned up and tricked my husband into letting them in,he knew he shouldnt,but they made him believe letting them in was his only option,you know how they like to scare and bully people!,anyway,he let them in,they did a very vqague walking possesion,agreed payments of £30 a week(which we couldnt afford,but as i said,hubby felt intimidated),anyway,this was to be paid by cheque because they dont accept helpful payment methods such as standing order.
We kept the payments up to date,but thought instead of sending a cheque every week,we would send one for the whole month in advance,so payments were all up to date,just easier than weekly cheques.
Then a different bailiff to the first one,turns up on our doorstep asking for my hubby,so i ask whs calling,he says im mr ****** from chandlers,im here to take possesion of goods to the value of £1879,for outstanding ct.
So i explain to him that the latest cheque has just been cashed,he says yes it has,im not here to dispute that your account is up to date,as it is in perfectly good order,unfortunately,you agreed to pay in weekly instalments,and you’ve been paying monthly,so you’ve defaulted on the agreement,and if you cant pay by tomorrow at 6am,i will come back with the police!!,we tell him theres no way we can find that kind of money(if we had money like that,we’d have been able to pay the ct in the first place!!),so he says hes prepared to accept £958 tomorrow and reinstate the agreement for the rest,then my hubby made a flippant comment about him being generous,so the bailiff gets his head firmly wedged up his backside and says fine,i’ll be back tomorrow,i want the full amount,so i go after the idiot and persuade him to take the £958,he then says to call him when i have the money.

After alot of panicking(where the hell am i supposed to find nearly a grand by the morning??),i get in touch with my brother in law,who does debt management,and ask if he can help,after alot of shouting and crying to the council,who told me it was tough luck,its in the hands of the bailiffs and theres nothing they can do about it cos im not on benefits(ha,if i was on benefits,i wouldnt have to pay the bloody council tax!!),i got him to speak to them for me,he managed to get the council to agree that the bailiff should never have turned up here and we didnt have to pay him the money,and if he came back i was to tell him to bugger off!.

Anyhow,mr ****** turns up at 10 am,and i tell him to go away,the council say he has no business being here,and he replies that,yes,the council have called him off,all there is to pay today is £180,which are there charges,so my bil who is on the phone tells him to sod off we dont owe him anything,he cant charge us for a visit he shouldnt have made in the first place,so he hangs the phone up on my bil and proceeds to take a clamp out of his van to clamp my car,so i pay him the £180 cos im on my way to work,he reinstates the old agreement,but to monthly payments,and off he goes.
So,my bil has put in a complaint with chandlers and north somerset council,the bailiff is denying threatening to clamp my car(my neighbour saw him,clamp in hand!!),and when i last checked the account,chandlers had added £1300 worth of charges!,we have paid over £600 off the bill and its higher now than when it started,the council have had £109 paid to them,and chandlers are laughing all the way to the bank!!!!!.

I can’t see any more just desert than that for those who cheered on New Labour’s authoritarian incompetence and their war crimes, and who in doing so have enabled another decade of Tory rule to come.

I want to see each and every one of them, jointly or severally, humiliated and stripped of everything they own, left on the street to sink or swim according to the vagaries of their own housing policies and forced to survive on the pittance they call the Job Seekers’ Allowance, just like the millions of others they have written off as the underclass. Let their children eat turkey twizzlers alone in a B&B while Mum or Dad begs for a crisis loan at the DWP.

It would be a start.

The Saudi connection?

Last year Channel 4 broadcasted a documentary showing that several British mosques employed radical preachers condemning democracy and integration and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers. This lead immediatedly to a police investigation, not of the preachers involved, but of Channel 4 itself for supposedly inciting racial hatred. Last week this came to a head, after a libel procedure Channel 4 had launched against the West Midland Police and Crown Prosecution Service went to court, and the court found in favour of Channel 4. Long before that verdict the police had given up prosecution, yet did not withdraw their accusations. Odd behaviour and it has reportedly cost them a six figure settlement.

So what caused this strange behaviour? Might it just be the Saudi connection established in the documentary:

He captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs – and predict a coming jihad. “An army of Muslims will arise,” announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must “dismantle” British democracy – they must “live like a state within a state” until they are “strong enough to take over.”

The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.

The British government after all has shown a willingness to drop investigations in a major corruption scandal because the Saudis told them to, so harassing the makers of a documentary unfavourable to Saudi Arabia is not beyond the realm of possibilities…


Hattip: Aaronovitch watch.

It’s Not So Brilliant Here Either

The US may treat European visitors like vermin (see previous post) but we’re hardly spotless in our attitude towards immigrants, as events in Naples show:

Residents of the former communist stronghold on the northern outskirts of Naples have been raising hell about the camp since Saturday, when a woman claimed a Gypsy girl had entered her flat and tried to steal her baby.

The first Molotov cocktails descended on the improvised huts and cabins on Tuesday evening, after which the 800-odd inhabitants began moving out of the area in groups. On Wednesday the fire-raisers, said to belong to the Camorra, the Neapolitan equivalent of the Mafia, burnt the camp in earnest, watched by applauding local people and unchallenged by the police. When firefighters showed up to douse the blaze, local people taunted and whistled at them. The last Roma moved out under police protection.

Only then did local politicians shed a few crocodile tears: Antonio Bassolino, governor of the Campania region, declaring: “We must stop with the greatest determination these disturbing episodes against the Roma.” Rosa Russo Iervolino, the Mayor of Naples, chimed in: “It is unthinkable that anyone could imagine that I could justify reprisals against the Roma.”
More…

I don’t know enough about the state of Italian politics to say that we’re seeing a surge of modern Mussolini-ism with the reaccession of Berlusconi to the presidency – but it doesn’t half look like it. Crimes committed by Romanians are a hot political issue in Italy:

Since Romania’s accession to the EU this year, the authorities say that over 1,000 Romanian immigrants have arrived in Italy each month.

Since June last year 76 murders have been committed by Romanians.

The mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, says that 75% of arrests for murder, rape and robbery in his city this year can be attributed to Romanians.

Mr Prodi believes Italy is not alone in facing this new wave of crime and he has called on Europe’s home office ministers to meet and find a solution.

The Romanian prime minister has responded by sending police liaison officers to major Italian cities to help.

Of course this is Naples and there’s more to this particular outbreak of violence than just politically organised hatred; Naples is well-known to be a stew of corruption, crime and poverty and the local mafia don’t like rivals. Times are getting harder too, for the worried poor and worried-about-getting-poorer middle classes – where Berlusconi sees his support – who are looking for scapegoats for their troubles. The Roma fit the bill, as has been depressingly usual throughout their peripatetic, outcast history in Europe.

As is also depressingly usual in European history concerted government and police action intended to pander to the political base is fostering a culture of tacit approval for mob violence.

Police in Italy have arrested hundreds of suspected illegal immigrants in raids across the country.

Expulsion orders were issued for several dozen of those detained. More than 100 Italians were also arrested.

One raid was on a makeshift camp housing Roma (Gypsies), on the edge of Rome. Italian concern about immigrant crime has tended to focus on the Roma.The police crackdown was part of a week-long operation in Rome, Naples and northern Italy.

It is an apparent sign of the change of policy promised by the new right-wing government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

.

(Except it isn’t new policy, it was his predecessors’ policy too.)

What is important to remember is that this isn’t a case of plucky litle Italy repelling invading criminal gangs from Fortress Europe’s borders: after all, Romanians are our fellow EU citizens, with theoretically equal status to all other EU citizens, including the right to reside in other EU countries. If other EU member countries were to follow Italy’s example, in light of the spread of the mafia EU-wide we’d be expelling Italian criminals from the capitals of Europe by the planeload and Berlusconi would be complaining about ethnic cleansing – which is essentially what this is, but because it’s Roma, it’s OK.

But the first act of ethnic cleansing in the new Italy passed off with little fuss. Flora Martinelli, the woman who reported the alleged kidnap attempt on her baby, said: “I’m very sorry for what’s happening, I didn’t want it to come to this. But the Gypsies had to go.”

Wasn’t that the refrain of the Good Germans, and the Hutus too?

A License To Break The Law

If there is any one thing that lays bare the rottenness of the British political system for all to see it’s the news that following the court’s excorating decision on the Saudi Arms for Oil and bribery deal yesterday, the Tories are to support Labour in giving the Attorney General powers to shut down politically sensitive criminal investigations just by citing ‘national security’.

As with the attempt to censor coroners’ courts in the matter of soldiers’ deaths by inadequate equipment in Afghanistan, not only do they want to cover up their own past lawbreaking they want to print themselves a license to break the law in the future.

We cannot question or protest, it because it is secret. Why is it secret? Because it’s secret. Shut up, it’s national security.

But national security has little to do with this nor do the jobs of arms industry workers, though the profits of the arms companies is certainly a consideration. What’s really at stake is the personal security of the great and the good in parliament, the cabinet, the civil service, diplomacy and finance, who have committed crimes not just of political expediency but greed, trading others’ human rights for their own personal aggrandisement in order to mainstain the arms and oil industries and their longterm collusion with a vicious theocratic dynasty that tortures and beheads its own people (and sometimes ours, too)to maintain its power.

The Al-Yamamah deal and the corruption around it well precedes the current administration – Thatcher set it in motion – but New Labour joined in with enthusiasm once they had a taste of Saudi largesse themselves. New Labour’s starry eyed petty-bourgeois, tempted by riches and power, were easily persuaded that to reveal and prosecute in the Al-Yamamah deal could bring down the entire edifice of British government – and worse prominent politicians of both parties could go to jail. That there’s a revolving door between government and the the arms and oil industries has been a standing political joke for decades. .

Few hands are clean in any party and then of course, if the SFO pursues Al-Yamamah, then it must pursue Bush the CIA and the US government, since the deal was handled through Bush family vehicle Riggs Bank. the US justice department is considering a investigation, but if it’s shut down here, then what will there be to investigate?

For the sake of saving their own skins and Bush’s both parties are handing a future government and Prime Minister – and who knows what or who that’ll be in ten years, given the current fashion for repression – the power to commit whatever crimes they like under cover of protecting us. They mustn’t be allowed to get away with it.

First They Came For The ‘Malingerers’…

Who’s David Freud, and why’s he getting such an easy ride from the media?

Freud a connected City banker and former journalist who made his name in PFI deals and massive privatisation schemes and was therefore of course the perfect choice to conduct the review of welfare policy which resulted in yesterday’s budget announcement that sick people will be forced into to work, fit or not, by the imposition of even harsher medical tests.

Incapacity benefit is a benefit paid for by national insurance contributions from working people and payable to working people off sick, and the current regime is already one of the harshest in Europe:

For the first 28 weeks of absence from work due to illness or injury, an employed person is entitled to just 72.55 a week. This is called ‘Statutory Sick Pay’ and it is paid by the employer. Self-employed people can claim the Lower Rate Short Term Incapacity Benefit, currently 61.35 a week, plus 37.90 for an adult dependant.

For weeks 29 to 52, for both employees and the self-employed, the Higher Rate Short Term Incapacity Benefit is 72.55 a week for the claimant and 37.90 for an adult dependant.

After 52 weeks, a single adult is eligible for as little as 81.35 a week in State Incapacity Benefits (4,230.20 a year). If that same adult had a spouse, they may receive just 130 a week (6,760 a year). Additional benefit depending on age also applies – 17.10 for under 35s, 8.55 for those aged 35 to 44.

Furthermore, Incapacity Benefit is taxable after the first 6 months of claiming.

But then you can’t sell off a social security system and bureaucracy that actually pays out money, can you? Where’s the profit in that?

The second element of his report is the proposal that responsibility for such support and training programmes should be handed over to 11 large contractors, each of whom would have total responsibility for one region. They would be given the contracts to look after claimants for up to three years and would be paid according to results, with a ‘successful’ long-term outcome being that the claimant stops claiming for up to three years. In other words, they would share in the benefits ‘saved’.

This would be a recipe for coercion of claimants, as well as creating untold opportunities for fraud as the corporations seek to provide training and support for claimants with their sister companies. This bonanza for the employment services companies comes despite Freud?s admission that there was no conclusive evidence that the private sector outperforms the public sector on current programmes.

Let’s face it. Darling and Brown have nothing else left to sell to cover the great gaping hole in the public accounts.

The bloated rich got away virtually unscathed in the budget, as did corporations; a sop of a rise in universal child benefit was thrown to the vast, struggling, indifferentiated middles (the poor won’t get it, it’ll be deducted from their benefit, so that’s all right) and the chancellor also chickened out on green taxes for fear of the wrath of the airline and transport industry. but the least able to fight back, well, screw them.

There is no black hole in the public accounts, apparently, there is no looming recession – no, it’s all the fault of those lazy workshy sick people – just look at them leeching off the state to the tune of 50-odd quid a week. Each! There’s your hole in the public accounts!

Why, they should be out there picking leeks in Lincolnshire in the rain for a fiver an hour less four fifty in deductions – what’s a little diabetes or kidney disease or arthritis? Nelson commanded a ship with his arm blown off. Bunch of frauds says Freud:

Fewer than a third of the 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit are legitimate claimants, a government welfare adviser has said.

David Freud, an investment banker, said up to 185,000 claimants work illegally while on the benefit.

He told the Daily Telegraph it was “ludicrous” medical checks were carried out by a claimant’s own GP.

What? Their own doctors said they’re too sick too work? Then they must be lying. Or there must be something wrong with the tests. Stands to reason. But no, David Freud doesn’t even know the system he’s criticising. ICB medicals are carried out by BAMS, the privatised medical service.

State Incapacity Benefit can be claimed for an initial 28 weeks on the basis of assessments provided by the individual’s doctor.

After 28 weeks, individuals must complete a lengthy questionnaire and be assessed on their ability to carry out any occupation – not just the role carried out before they became ill. Fifteen different functional areas are examined covering physical, mental and sensory abilities. Each functional area is assessed and State Incapacity Benefit only continues when the total impairment is sufficiently significant across the full range of areas.

Whatever – the government can’t be spending all this money on unproductive sick people, not when there’s a war to fund. (Funny how Iraq didn’t get mentioned in the budget..).

You’d think the media would notice and investigate the background to these draconian changes; remember when Thatcher stopped the free school milk? Then it was all “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk-snatcher”. But unelected crony David Freud does something much, much worse and yet the British media consistently say nothing that’s not laudatory about the very rich man who wants to drive the already poor into deeper poverty.

Why?

It could be because British journalists have swallowed the myth of New Labour meritocracy, largely because it justifies their own privileged positions as deserved, seeing those who are poor, or sick or otherwise disadvantaged as being there through their own fault, the converse of which is that the rich, like Freud, are rich because they are such superior being).

I’m pretty sure there’s a generous helping of that, yes, but I think mostly he’s getting an easy ride because of his name and his connections. No-one wants to offend a Freud, it’d be career death to any budding journo.

Freud is related by birth and marriage to a family that’s embedded in the cultural and public life of the country, not least in the media and journalism.

Other notable members of the Freud family in the media include such luminaries of spin as Edward Bernays, the father of public relations. Cousin Matthew of Freud Communications, PR agency for Live8 and the G8, is married to Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert and a media mogul in her own right.

The backing that Live 8 has won from media mogul Rupert Murdoch is just one indication that a massive business machine has been set in motion. Murdoch?s British tabloid the Sun gave the event enthusiastic support, although it is not a paper noted for its interest in Africa or liberal causes. It is, however, a key supporter of Blair.

The Murdoch and Live 8 connections are close. Elisabeth Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch?s daughter, is married to Matthew Freud, one of the organisers. Freud runs a leading public relations company that is, according to the Financial Times, one of the most influential in the UK. It has the largest media and entertainment client list in the country, with clients including famous actors and major companies such as AOL?of which more later. He and his wife also have connections to the Blair government. They sit on various government committees, and his company, Freud Communications, has organised events for both the government and the Labour Party.

And of course the man himself is a former FT journalist. How very nicely circular.

Should any future scholar want a case study of how Labour turned into a party of patronage and moral corruption they could do worse than study the history of the younger sprigs of the Freud family during the Blair years.

The rise and rise of the Freuds and the abolition of Clause IV are all of a same piece, as is the victimisation of disabled people by someone who’d probably spend more on feng-shuiing their conservatory than 6 months incapacity benefit pays someone with cancer. Yes, very socialist.

When – and they will be if there’s any justice in the world – Labour politicians are called to account for the ruin of the country, they’ll probably claim that they were deliberately subverted from within and it was all a capitalist plot.

But no. It’s no plot against them, it’s by them –New Labour know and have always known exactly what they’re doing. Eventually corporations are to have complete control over people’s livelihoods and the conditions of their existence. David Freud and his colleagues in the media/Westminsterl/City nexus are right in the vanguard of the process.

The experts and academics present were the theorists and ideologues of welfare to work. What linked many of them together, including Aylward, was their association with the giant US income protection company UnumProvident, represented at the conference by John LoCascio. The goal was the transformation of the welfare system. The cultural meaning of illness would be redefined; growing numbers of claimants would be declared capable of work and ?motivated? into jobs. A new work ethic would transform IB recipients into entrepreneurs helping themselves out of poverty and into self-reliance. Five years later these goals would take a tangible form in New Labour?s 2006 Welfare Reform Bill.

Incidentally Unum Provident is already delivering incapacity benefit medicals for the government while selling policies by emphasising the lack of state benefits. No conflict of interest there, then.

I wonder if (and if so, how many) Unum Provident shares Brown, Darling, Freud et al have in their private portfolios?