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?

Nu Labour: Unemployed? Let’s make you homeless as well

Here’s the latest brainwave from the thickies that form Brown’s cabinet. If you’re unemployed, on the dole and living in a council house and want to keep it, you’d better find a job:

Up to a million people in social housing, including those on council estates, should be expected to actively seek work as a condition of their tenancy, the new housing minister, Caroline Flint, proposes today.

In her first interview since becoming housing minister, Flint told the Guardian that unemployed tenants should also undertake skills audits.

The pockets of joblessness that exist in council house areas would also be tackled by opening up more jobcentres, some run by the private sector, on the estates themselves.

In one telling paragraph, Flint revealed that “she was surprised by figures showing that more than half of those of working age living in social housing are without paid work – twice the national average”. Until then, she had always thought most unemployed people had second homes in Devon or Cornwall.

Which might explain why she thinks it’s a good idea to make the unemployed homeless as well, because obviously that dramatically enhances your chances on the job market. Employers trust you so much more if you put “no fixed abode” on your cover lettre. And your children will certainly benefit from all that fresh air!

But perhaps Flint can be forgiven for this idiocity; after all she’s the latest in a long line of Nu Labour career politicians and hence cannot be expected to know how the real world works.

UPDATE: what a surprise: Downing Street “distances itself” from Flint’s brainwave.

In Blogo Veritas

Funny how it’s the most off-the-cuff remarks that can sometimes be the most revealing.

I just took a quick look at BBC politics correspondent Nick Robinson’s blog, where he said something about the data loss scandal that sheds a light on his own bourgeois concerns:

UPDATE, 12:30 PM: It is indeed, as I mentioned above, data loss on a huge scale. I understand that the data of over a million people has been lost by HMRC. It relates, I’m told, to benefit claimants, and not the income tax system or tax credits

Shorter Robinson: “That’s all right then, it’s just scroungers. No worries, we middle-class journos people aren’t affected.”

Hah. He was soon disabused of that notion.

But it raises an interesting point: there are clear class differences in the treatment of the victims of financial and data scandals.

Compare the treatment given to Northern Rock shareholders: Northern Rock was promised a virtually uinlmited amount of taxpayers’ money to keep it afloat (and with it thousands of nmiddle class savers and mortgagees) to the lack of assistance given to the Farepack Christmas Club savers when that company was made insolvent and thousands of poor people lost all their meagre Christmas savings.

Compare it also to the murky scandal of the failed money transfer business in which thousands of British Asians lost enormous amounts of money that they trustingly wired home to their families in the subcontinent and which never arrived. Millions are still misssing.

(Yes there is a difference in scale and in subject matter: but all of these scandals were enabled by sloppy information management.)

The poor people who make up the majority of the victims of the latter two affairs, unlike the Northern Rock savers, had no Treasury protection: they’ll be lucky to get 5 pence in the pound of their money back, if anything at all. Not for them the unlimited guarantee given by Chancellor Alistair Darling to keep the likes of Nick Robinson and his fellow Pooters cosily confortable in countless suburbian villas countrywide.

No, they’re poor, they don’t matter. Ditto with the treasury data scandal – when it’s only claimants affected, it’s an irrelevance.

The attitude displayed by Robinson is incredibly common amongst the media and a commentariat as well as government – as long as something bad happens only to poor people, it doesn’t really happen.

But as with that well-known aphorism about a liberal being a conservative who’s been arrested, something as big as this latest Treasury scandal, which affects 7 million families of all income levels from rich to poor, might make the complacent middlle classes wake up, get off their well-fed rumps and finally get shut of this pisspoor excuse for a government.

Maybe if the Nick Robinsons of this world are forced to personally deal with the sloppily built, managed and policed edifice of data collection and electronic transfer that the government and the banks, in unholy alliance with accountants, PFI consultants and IT companies (sucking up taxpayers’ money in sweetheart deals all the way), have constructed, like poor people have to every day, they’ll wake up.

Maybe it’ll take something as serious as this to make the complacent media bourgeoisie realise that they are as vulnerable to government and financial data mishandling, fraud, incompetence and theft as anyone else, rich or poor, no matter how secure their Heals’ sofas and 4 by 4’s in the drive make them feel.

Maybe monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Thought For The Day

Sometimes it’s no pleasure

BBC, Nov 5:” A wave of foreclosures and evictions is about to sweep the United States in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage lending crisis. “

to have predicted correctly.

Me, Sept 7. “A slow tsunami of debt, misery and homelessness is about to roll over the United States, and consequently the rest of us, if the financial markets do not stabilise soon. It’s already on it’s way and picking up speed.”

Evita North and South

Peronist President-elect of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner‘s election might be said to presage the almost inevitable (she has Murdoch money) anointment of Hillary Clinton to succeed her husband in office, in what seems to be becoming rather a trend amongst a certain class of well-off and well-connected women. Mind you, there’s not a lot of sisterhood on display despite the superficial similarities; Kirchner is not happy to be compared to Clinton:

“Hillary (Rodham Clinton) was able to position herself nationally because her husband was president. She didn’t have a political career beforehand and that isn’t my case,” Fernández de Kirchner said in an interview with CNN en Español, referring to her 30-year career in Argentine politics.

That doesn’t bode well for future US/Argentine relations, does it?

But less flippantly, how did Argentina get to the political point where Peronism is once again in fashion? What happened to the people’s movements born out of the 2001 economic collapse? Bring yourself up to basic speed on the politics of the greater American continent and the contnuing malign influence of US foreign policy with John Pilger’s documentary, The War On Democracy. It’s now up on YouTube in ten parts here: if you have an acccount, load them all into ‘playlist’ and play back to back. Here’s part one to start you off:

Award-winning documentary maker John Pilger suggests that, far from bringing democracy to the world as it claims, the US is doing its best to stifle its progress. Talking exclusively to American government officials, including agents who reveal for the first time on film how the CIA ran its war in Latin America in the 80s, Pilger argues that true popular democracy is more likely to be found among the poorest in Latin America, whose movements are often
ignored in the West.

She may be female but Kirchner is no Michelle Bachelet. I’ll have no truck with the brand of feminsim that says any woman elected is better than none – a woman can govern just as badly and undemocratically as any man and that goes for Hillary Clinton as well as Kirchner. The Democrats and the Peronists both purport to be the champions of the poor, the little guys, the blue-collar and the dispossessed, but both actually work to advance neoliberal economic policy and corporate profit. It’s no coincidence that like the Peronistas both Clintons have adopted the Third Wayas their defining political stance, along with Tony Blair.

Kirchner may have more elected political experience than Clinton but just like Clinton there’s no denying she’s used her husband’s reflected popularity to boost her own quest for presidential power. Both are so firmly wedded to the notion of a corporate state they married it. That’s dedication to a cause, the cause of Evita Peronism.

By the time Nestor Kirchner announced he was stepping down to let his wife run, observers said she had fuller lips, tighter skin and a more lustrous auburn mane, prompting speculation about surgery and hair extensions.

It remains an open question whether this was a personal decision to offset the effects of age, a political strategy to court votes in an aesthetic-obsessed era, or both.

Newspapers gleefully reported that on foreign trips she brought large trunks of clothes and fashion helpers, and changed her outfit up to four times a day. Critics said the makeover was an effort to evoke the magic of Eva Peron, the icon who died in 1952 aged just 33.

Just like Evita, Kirchner’s clothes, shoes, handbags and hair are the stuff of gossip magazines and like Clinton she’s alleged to not be a stranger to Botox. It’s described as vanity but it’s something more insidious. It’s all about the image. masking state corporatism with an attractive, warm and fuzzy media-friendly facade. Don’t look at the policies, look at the hair!

To my mind Clinton’s at the very least a quasi-Evita Peronist. Trading on reflected glory? Check. Image management? Check. Cult of personality? Third Way-ist? Check. Corporately funded? Check. Hawkish on the military and defence? Soft on neofascism and torture? Check…

If the ascendance of Kirchner and Clinton tells women anything at all, it’s that we can only succeed to high office a] by marrying advantageously b] putting a softer, feminine face on the perpetuation of a political and economic system which keeps other women down and c] pandering to the corporate media’s trivialisation of politics. This is no big step foward for women.

This is how The Times described the Argentinian election – ‘Fatty’ v the new Evita in all-girl fight for Argentina” Murdoch himself may be bankrolling a woman for US president but that says it all about what the global press really thinks of women in presidential politics, doesn’t it?

The election of a woman in Argentina and the potential election of another in the US is not a sudden blossoming of equality, it’s the corporate status quo donning a velvet Prada glove over the hand holding the cattleprod.

Because to get back to my original point, that US and Argentinian politics are beginning to echo one another, the ironic thing about all this is that while the US (as Pilger shows) has been meddling in Argentinian politics for years in the cause of corporate world hegemony it’s rebounded and now both countries’ politics seem to be converging. Both have a politicised military, a greedy plutocracy, entrenched and growing social inequality and a fatal taste for the firm smack of authoritarian government. They’re more alike than they’d admit.

The US now has also a falling currency and an economy that’s could nosedive and has the potential to cause untold social disorder and chaos, just as Argentina did six years ago. What’s Hillary’s plan for that, if any? Will we see disposessed Americans selling their all on the streets like the residents of Buenos Aires had to? Americans north and south may find they have much more in common than they think.

Oh well, never mind. Let’s look on the bright side – at least their potential misery‘ll be misery with a kinder, gentler, less wrinkled face.