It has been apparent to our advisers over recent months that the DWP appears to be targetting the most vulnerable members of society. We see this on a regular basis with clients who have been sanctioned (i.e. had their benefit suspended). Invariably those who are affected are those who speak little English and are unlikely to fight back. Decisions on sanctions can be challenged (although you need to provide evidence that you were seeking work during the period you were sanctioned for).

The deliberate targetting of the sick and disabled, which has been going for some time now, is a further area in which the DWP is attacking the vulnerable. Disabled people and those who are too sick to work feel, justifiably, that they are being victimised. The Guardian report quotes a DWP spokesperson as saying of the terminally ill: The process of working may even be helpful in giving them a sense of being useful and prolonging their lives. So it seems that Government policy is not only to victimise the weakest members of society but to force them to work until the day they die.

They should hang their heads in shame. So too should anyone who voted for the Condem parties who are targetting the weakest members of society and making them pay for the mistakes of the banking elite whose gambling excesses have precipitated the financial situation the country is in.

It was great to see so many other people coming together to send a clear message to the government. The march started at the Embankment and slowly made its way to Hyde Park. Standing on the pavement watching the marchers go past, before joining the procession, was a moving experience. The banners and signs showed that the government had made enemies of people from all walks of life, from all over the country and the young and old. The unions were out in force but so were many different community groups.

It took almost 4 hours to make it from the Embankment to Hyde Park. It didn’t help that I had a pulled hamstring. Many weren’t able to finish the march because they had to leave to get their coaches. The march was good natured and even the police seemed friendly – perhaps they would have preferred to have been marching rather than protecting the premises of the banks, Top Shop, Vodafone, Boots and the posh hotels. I didn’t see any violence although there were a few broken windows and paint had been thrown at some buildings.

With the police estimating that there were 250,000 marchers you can assume that there were twice that number. The question is, where do we go from here? One well-attended march on its own isn’t going to make the government chance its mind. We have to continue to fight to reverse the planned cuts. The march showed that there is a genuine desire for people to come together to protect their local services. We need to build on the successful march and continue to make it clear to the coalition government that there is an alternative and that it is better to fight the cuts together than on our own.

• 2.5 million out of work (8% of the working age population)
• Highest numbers out of work for 17 years
• The number of unemployed women at the highest level since 1988
• Youth unemployment at unprecedented levels

The response of the government has been very predictable: the figures are “disappointing” and the fault of the previous Labour government. Politicians are known for being economical with the truth and this is a perfect example of that practice. If we were to believe the various pronouncements from ministers the economy is doing well and growing, especially in manufacturing. To those of us working on the ground this certainly doesn’t tie in with the situation we can see. There are few jobs on offer and those that are available tend to be part-time, temporary positions, agency work or a combination of these.

It is all very well for the Government of Millionaires to call these statistics “disappointing,” but each and every one of those out of work is an individual, someone trying to survive on Jobseekers’ Allowance, someone struggling to survive on a day-to-day basis, someone desperate to find a job when there are no vacancies for which they are qualified. Someone who is a real person with real problems, who the government regard as a mere statistic, a ‘disappointment’ and not a real live individual.

The Birmingham claimant (JSA) figures for February 2011 are also available. The top six wards for unemployment are:

1. Washwood Heath                    28.2%
2. Aston                                        27.7%
3. Lozells & East Handsworth   25.3%
4. Nechells                                    25.1%
5. Ladywood                                23.2%
6. Sparkbrook                              22.9%

Unemployment in Birmingham is the second highest of all major cities in the UK, with a claimant rate of 11.6% with only Liverpool higher at 11.9%.

The lack of any real action to boost the economy stands out very clearly. Under the previous government we had Future Jobs Fund which was an effective way of providing young people with paid experience of real work. It was of course immediately cancelled by the Con Dems, who have yet to produce an alternative to tackling unemployment amongst young people.

Sadly these figures will only increase in the short term, with the government following an ideologically driven programme to cut public sector jobs by substantial amounts; on top of these there are likely to be significant numbers of those employed in the voluntary sector (most of whom are funded by local authorities or central government). The outlook for many ordinary people over the next 12 months is extremely bleak as they are forced to pay for the problems of the banking industry which created the economic crisis we are in.

It struck me that the speaker could well have been a snake oil salesman had he been around in the nineteenth century. It was also apparent that many in the audience were not taken in by the charms on offer and could see exactly what is being proposed: activities that are needed by society and currently funded by the state will in future be delivered for free by third sector organisations through the use of volunteers.

The focus on his talk was very much on the fact that the UK’s citizens are now living longer, have greater needs and these needs cannot be met by the government as a result of the vast amounts of money that had been paid to salvage the banking industry. Significantly, there was no consideration that there might be alternative ways of providing state funding to support the weak and vulnerable in society.

What was also interesting was the range of examples quoted as what might be termed ‘the way forward’. We had a rather rosy picture of life before the existence of the welfare state and we were given three examples of organisations that had delivered this idyllic life: building societies, General Booth and the Salvation Army and ‘the village club’. 

In the light of the banking crisis and the collapse of a number of building societies it seemed rather apt to suggest that this model represents ‘the future’. The argument put was extremely simplistic: building societies were established as mutual self help organisations and look where they are now. However, the example quoted related to the very early building societies known as ‘terminating societies’ which were established from the late 18^th century. These operated on a principal of mutual self help, with each member contributing a monthly payment and when sufficient funds were raised a plot of land was purchased and a house built for the member whose name was drawn by lot. The society was ‘terminated’ when every member had a house. It is often suggested that these were working class organisations, but the fact that the most common monthly payments were set at 5 shillings (25p) or 10 shillings (50p) suggests this was unlikely, as these amounts would have been well beyond the reach of most ordinary working men. The ‘terminating’ model went out of fashion very quickly to be replaced by ‘permanent’ societies which generally ran very efficiently until deregulation saw most decide to end their mutual status and become banks. The very banks that have caused the crisis the country is now in.

It seems that what is an offer is a return to 18^th century, or at best 19^th century, principals. A world where the rich were in control and the poor were kept in their place. Significantly the reforming and modernisation of society that began in the late 19^th century came through actions of national and local government. The provision of adequate sewerage systems, of gas and electricity, all of which were essential to the growth of society, came from pioneering local councils, rarely from private individuals or ‘self help’ groups. I would recommend an article on the Broken Barnet site (http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/02/inky-stephens-and-blot-on-big-society.html) for an idea as to what is likely to be the outcome of one of Big Society’s plans: the transfer of assets to ‘the community’.

There is nothing ‘big’ about ‘Big Society’: the term sounds friendly and, perhaps most importantly for the Tory ideologists, it can be used as a counterpart to ‘Big Government’. What we are really talking about here is an abrogation of duties on behalf of government – the Tories are now saying that they have relinquished their duty to support the weak and vulnerable in society. Nor is it a progressive policy – it is a policy which takes the country back more than 100 years to a time when the rich were all powerful and the poor were kept in their place. Perhaps that is what we should expect from a ‘Government of Millionaires’, but it is a policy that must be challenged at every level by those who have a real concern for our society.

Many trade unions were represented with, for obvious reasons, Unison well to the fore. There was plenty of spirit amongst the marchers and support from shoppers, but this has to be seen as only the beginning of the movement to build support for the national rally in London on 26 March. With a few exceptions those marching were people whose jobs are threatened and the campaign now needs to push forward in two areas: firstly by building localised campaigns in the different areas of Birmingham and secondly by involving service users of the various projects that will have their funding axed.

Next event in the Birmingham Against The Cuts calendar is on Tuesday 1 March when there is a protest outside the Council House in Victoria Square to coincide with the Council meeting to set their budget for 2011-12. The protest is due to run from 2pm to 6pm.

(Pictures are by Ian Cuthbert, www.cuthbertdesign.com/)

If we believe the likes of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, the country is at threat from the “sicknote” culture and that most, if not all benefit claimants are “workshy”. Of course, the words ‘sicknote’ and ‘workshy’ are sound bites with a purpose; they are designed to convince the general population that these words describe all benefit claimants. They also help divert attention from the fact that the economy under Osborne’s slash and burn policy is faltering. And, as the Tories admit, there is no Plan B. In a matter of weeks unemployment will rise further, with tens of thousands of public sector workers and a similar number in the voluntary sector being thrown on the dole by the inept policies of a government driven by ideology.

The most obvious point is being missed: the country has an unemployment problem because there are not enough jobs. Why are there not enough jobs? Because the economy is in a mess. What caused the economy to be in a mess? The crisis in the banking sector, which began in the UK with the problems at Northern Rock back in September 2007.

Let us be clear, this is not a world economic crisis – India, China, Australia and Brazil are flourishing. It is a crisis principally of the economies in North America and Western Europe which had become reliant on credit and finance to oil the wheels rather than industrial production. It is a crisis created by the financial sector, not by those who have been thrown out of work by the crisis, or by the fact that the rates of welfare benefits paid supposedly act as a disincentive to people working.

One effect of sound bites such as ‘sicknote’ and ‘workshy’ and the catch phrase “make work pay” (as if work doesn’t pay) is to turn public anger away from the wealthy bankers, who created the economic problems, and blame the unemployed, sick and disabled. “Make work pay” suggests that people are so comfortable on benefits that there is no incentive for them to work. The reality is rather different. The benefits advisers in our centre see many people every day who would love to have a job, we cannot recall a single instance of a client saying that they claim benefits because of the financial rewards, or indeed of a client rejecting a job that has been offered to them because they would be better off on benefits.

The unemployed, sick and disabled are often by the nature of their status isolated within society. Their low income excludes them from many social activities and, of course, they do not experience the social interaction of the workplace, because they have no job. They are an easy target. A caring and compassionate government has a duty to protect its vulnerable citizens, not to kick them when they are down. But there again, this is not a caring and compassionate government. It is a government of millionaires who see the banking industry as their friends and the unemployed as their enemies.

Birmingham Council House 11th March 9.30am to 2.30pm

Those of you following this blog will know that the funding for the Birmingham TUC Centre For The Unemployed and the valuable advice work we do on all fronts from welfare to employment was abruptly cut in January; and with no promise of any continuation thereafter or options in the future.

In response, with our West Mids TUC colleagues, we are organising a conference to raise awareness of our plight, and indeed that of others in the same boat, how it will affect vulnerable people and how we can go forward from here. I call upon trade unionists everywhere to join us and help us through our immediate crisis. So when your union or Branch gets the call – please make every effort to attend the conference and get involved, emotionally and financially.

The event itself will be an historic event – guest keynote speakers include Jack Dromey MP and Heather Wakefield of UNISON. There will be workshops looking at the effect of cuts and the changing regime of benefits; and the geography of poverty. This conference will not just be about raising the profile of our centre, but of the wider issues that all of us face – and how we may tackle them – a must for anyone involved in the Trade Union movement or the voluntary sector.

 25 Years Of Community Tradition And Service Could Be Lost

To give you an insight into where we are at with the centre – The centre management and staff have been working hard to assess what we can do and try and work out how we can go foward from here and survive in the future. The fact is, the Centre, the work the volunteers do, and the jobs of staff are under threat with redundancy notices having already gone out. This is breaking the hearts of the management committee and everyone involved in the Centre as there is a very real threat that after 25 years of a proud tradition serving our community, it will all come to an end. The sheer scale of cuts forced upon Local Govt by the Tory-led Govt and hence the knock on in our sector funding is unprecedented. It is being portrayed by both Govt and media as a ’no alternative’ scenario. This is not true.

Governmentt has options, as do Local Authorities. On a Governmental level, they could do more to rein in tax collection to erase the deficit – like collecting on the the £120 billion worth of tax avoidance/evasion; or challenge corporations to play fair on tax rather than allowing them their offshore tax-havens; of course there are other routes I could ramble on about that make my blood boil on the priorities of Govt and focusing on the needs of vulnerable people rather than letting bankers get off scott free. And what of Local Authorities? Well, working with the voluntary sector rather than against us might be a start. We provide a valuable service to our communities and many charities will go to the wall between now and the summer as the cuts hit home and this will be a major loss to everyone – including David Cameron’s so called ‘big society’. We want some structure to the debate and constructive dialogue on a way forward to get interim and long term funding sorted – and that is the message to national Govt too.

Please Accept The Invite To Come To Our Conference

Ok, that’s my blog, or rather rant over – those of you who know me will know that it is mostly ranting I do, but hopefully within a constructive environment (that’s my view not necessarily yours). Anyway, I hope to see many of you from the West Midlands trade union movement and voluntary sector accept the invitation you will soon be getting to come to our historic conference.

In fraternity,

Steve Brown

Chairperson

BTUCCFTU

Headline news about the decision has focussed almost exclusively on the effects on the local Citizen’s Advice Bureau, which will lose in the region of £0.5 million annual income, but in fact the CAB receives only around half of the total pot of money. Many of the other contracts are held by independent community organisations and the impact on these will be even more devastating.

Indeed, our own centre, Birmingham TUC Centre for the Unemployed in Sparkhill is one of those agencies affected by the decision to end funding of the contracts. Like almost every other agency we have delivered significantly above the contracted target figures throughout the last four years. An independent report commissioned by the Council concluded that the existing set-up “demonstrates excellent value for money.” In very basic terms, for an annual cost of approximately £60,000 the TUC Centre delivers more than £1 million in added income to local residents. At a time when many families are experiencing financial pressures, support such as this should be praised and promoted rather than subject to the treatment agencies have experienced.

There is no enthusiasm from our local councillors, whether they are in opposition with Labour or in the ruling group with the Lib Dems, to end the funding stream, and more importantly leave a 6-month gap when there will be no service available. One of the more bizarre rumours that is circulating about reasons for this gap (and which surely cannot be true) is that if the city were to recommission the same, or a similar, service immediately then they would be liable for the TUPE transfer costs of staff from agencies that are unsuccessful in gaining new contracts.

Services to local citizens which are now no longer funded include:

 Form filling

Responding to requests from both central government and local authority bodies for information

Assistance in making claims for everything from Blue Badge parking permits to Retirement Pension

Assistance in understanding and, where appropriate, challenging decisions on benefit overpayments

Arranging payment plans to enable clients to resolve short-term debt problems

Advocacy at welfare tribunals (Birmingham Tribunal Unit, the main provider of advocacy within the city, will lose over 60% of its funding)

Birmingham has a long tradition of providing legal advice services delivered by independent organisations in local communities. It makes sense. Birmingham is huge, the largest local authority in the UK, and as befits a city that expanded with the arrival of migrant workers from Wales, Ireland, the Caribbean, South Asia and more recently from both Eastern Europe and a range of troubled countries from throughout the world, it is diverse. One size certainly does not fit all in Birmingham.

Such diversity also means that Birmingham’s citizens often have different and greater needs for support to access their legal rights in areas such as welfare benefits, care needs, housing problems. To give just one example: most of the workers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh who came here in the 1960s to boost the labour force of factories such as Lucas and Rover and other large industrial firms within the city, long since gone, are now pensioners. They do not have the levels of literacy to access what is a complex benefits system and need help to fill in basic forms, contact the various government and council offices and to find out what their basic rights are. This is why many rely on the local independent advice centres, which provide support and help to enable them to achieve their legal rights. Without that help many will struggle even more than they do now.

This afternoon (Wednesday) the Labour MP Jack Dromey is to lead a debate at Westminster on the future of the CAB in Birmingham. Let us hope the wider issue of the fate of independent voluntary sector advice services within the city is also raised and a way is found to restore funding without leaving a gap.

One thing is for certain, without its network of independent advice centres Birmingham will be a poorer city in more ways than one.