Official: It’s “Perfectly Legitimate” to Discriminate Against Benefits Claimants

An individual private business will make commercial decisions. If they actually decide they don’t want to have somebody on housing benefit in the future, that’s a perfectly legitimate thing for them to do.

Kris Hopkins MP (Con)

Kris Hopkins, Minister for Housing, gave an interview to the BBC’s Panorama programme last night in which he defended the blanket bans on, and evictions of, tenants claiming Housing Benefit (HB) by private landlords. Under the Coalition’s cuts to the benefit, payments are capped and now go into tenants’ bank accounts rather than directly to the landlords.  Unsurprisingly, this has led to some tenants falling behind on their rent, which has led to the exclusion of all HB claimants from much of the private rented sector.

Who’d claim Housing Benefit these days? Between crude caps that exclude you from half of the country; heartless property barons arbitrarily making you homeless; and ministers endorsing your treatment as a second class citizen, you’d only ask for state help if you absolutely had to. (Err, wait a second…)

It’s inevitable that landlords will only rent to people who can afford the property. That is “legitimate”, and it is up to government to expand the social housing sector to ensure that the poor are adequately housed. However, the exclusion of anybody who receives Housing Benefit from a property is not a valid business practice. Although those on HB are, by definition, poor, the majority are perfectly capable of setting aside the money for rent. Even when seriously hard-up, most tenants will prioritise rent above all other expenses up to food. That’s because keeping a roof over one’s head is much more important than keeping bailiffs from taking the sofa.

I must say, Coalition policy about HB reveals a lot about their attitude. The cuts to the benefit were not about hitting the “scroungers” to support “hardworking families”, whatever the Tory rhetoric was. The majority of HB claimants are in work. No, this is an old-fashioned campaign to attack the poor, regardless of their employment status.

Whilst it is not impossible for a family on HB to find a home to rent, it is becoming more difficult. Look online at a rentals website, or in the property section of a local paper (if you’ve still got one) and many adverts will say “Sorry no DHSS”. This is infuriating on two counts. Not only is there the social exclusion of benefits claimants, often the working poor, but there is the term. If the landlords were that “sorry” they wouldn’t impose that particular condition. Much the same principle applied when the “no Blacks, no Irish” caveats were ubiquitous before the 1960s. (Also, the DHSS, or Department for Health and Social Security, which used to pay out HB, hasn’t existed since 1988. I know it’s a petty complaint, but I think people should get their facts straight.)

Anyway, a number of those receiving HB are pensioners or disabled. Is the Minister for Housing seriously supporting discrimination against those who, for perfectly “legitimate” reasons, do not earn their own income?

I don’t like to think the worst of people, but there’s little to suggest Hopkins is concerned by the injustices he has helped to create. If he was, these “no DHSS” polices would be banned.

Hands Off Our Charities

Just when you think that the Coalition’s attitude and policies on welfare cannot get any worse, they manage to surprise you with something even more horrible.

Now some parts of the Government are attacking charities.

In the past week, we learned that a “senior aide” to (Work and Pensions Secretary) Ian Duncan Smith threatened the head of Trussell Trust that his charity could be “shut down” for its supposed political opposition to the Government. Trussell Trust runs most of Britain’s foodbanks, whichhave now sprung up in almost every town in the country.

This comes hot on the heels of a successful call by a Tory MP, Connor Burns, for the Charity Commission to investigate Oxfam for a poster warning about the “perfect storm” of economic conditions and benefit cuts and the consequential surge in poverty in the UK. Burns said that Oxfam was guilty of partisan campaigning. Oxfam countered that discussing poverty “should not be a party political issue”.

It is disappointing that the Conservative Party, having done much to demolish the invaluable Welfare State in the past four years, now appears to be turning on the organisations which fill in the gaps left by their policy programme. If the foodbanks weren’t there, we’d be faced with a growth in crime as desperate families sought to feed their children. Or worse, we’d be faced with a surge in homelessness or even starvation. So it’s fortunate that there are no serious moves by the government to impede the work of foodbanks. However, the hostility towards them has been amply demonstrated in the past, with ministers refusing to accept EU aid for foodbanks.

My understanding of the classical right-wing view of the welfare system is that it should be run by charities, funded by donations rather than taxation. To that end, many Tories have worked well with charities. Whatever you think of the idea, at least they are consistent in their approach. Unfortunately, their representatives in the Government seem to be hostile towards both the state and charities.

Courtesy of “Downtowngal” under Creative Commons license

If it is alleged partisanship by the charity sector that annoys the Coalition, their anger is unjustified. Oxfam would campaign against poverty-inflicting measures if it was a Labour government imposing them. The same applies for a UKIP or Monster Raving Loony government, for that matter. All that these charities have pointed out is that poverty is on the rise, and certain decisions by the Government have contributed to it. Yes, it’s political. Charities are political; their very existence says that there is a need the rest of society is not fulfilling. However, it is not party political.

Do Conservative MPs want to intimidate charities into keeping quiet about the hardship that is befalling so many people? Even if they can, that won’t blinker the public. The signs are everywhere, visible to all without the need for campaigns, studies or statistics. For example, I’ve noticed that there are many more homeless people on the streets.  It is now rare to go a day without coming across somebody lying on the pavement in a pile of dirty blankets, totally cut off from the rest of society. I don’t know if this is a widespread phenomenon, but authorities have responded with cuts to emergency housing services; studs on the ground to deter rough sleepers; the removal of streetside benches; and the infamous Bedroom Tax to price people out of social housing. And homelessness is just one symptom of a sick society which is neglecting its people.

The public will notice increased rough sleeping; the opening of a local foodbank; and the anecdotes about people living in crumbling flats. They don’t need it pointed out to them. So proponents of the ‘austerity agenda’ shouldn’t worry about the public learning of the new social problems Britain is imposing on itself. They should focus on ensuring that the public don’t care. It can be done: remember how easy it was to turn the welfare system into a toxic issue? And that is what the rest of us must guard against.

Welcome to the World of Trillionaires

Credit Suisse has predicted that, by the 2070s, there will be around 11 trillionaires (as measured in US dollars) in the world. They claim that the first trillionaires have already been born. $1,000,000,000,000 is a difficult figure to comprehend, but it’s equivalent the entire Australian economy, or $140 for every man, woman and child on the planet. The interest alone on such a fortune would generate Bill Gates’ total wealth every year.

This prediction follows a report from Oxfam which estimates the personal wealth of the world’s 85 richest individuals equates to that of the poorest half of the world’s population. There is absolutely nothing that these billionaires need that is more important than meeting the needs of the masses who live in extreme poverty. And yet we are set to allow a club of 11-or-so individuals to control about 5% of the global economy between them. They will make John D. Rockefeller, the oil magnate whose $350,000,000,000 fortune (which was 1.5% of the US economy) made him the richest man ever to live, look like a small time multimillionaire.

It’s true that the hyper-rich have varied approaches to their vast wealth and power. Some, such as Bill Gates, have decided to use it for social good- though in Gates’ case, not before going through a phase of intense egotism and selfishness. Gates has said that his children inherit very little of his fortune: most will go to charitable causes. Yet other billionaires and trillionaires will be more selfish, opting instead to pass on their fortunes to descendants to create dynasties with vast assets, the huge power that comes with them and a total lack of understanding of the real world.

There are adverse implications for democracy and the global economy if the community decides to allow trillionaires to become a real, rather than a theoretical phenomenon. We’re deluding ourselves if we imagine trillionaires will not influence the political elite. If one has the wealth of a medium-sized economy, few politicians or businesspeople will dare to oppose you. Meanwhile, its us who will work to support these huge fortunes whilst extreme poverty persists.

Does that sound fair to you?

McDonalds Fears Public Wrath

If you talk to people in the anti-globalisation and environmentalist movements, you will find no corporate villain so comprehensively encapsulates all that they are opposed to than McDonalds, the plastic burger giant. Its tentacles reach into almost every nation on the planet, and there is one characteristic that is consistent to McDonalds’ behaviour wherever it operates: it exploits our environment, its producers, its workers and its customers. But you are no doubt familiar with the list of moral transgressions committed by capitalistic monolith that causes so much damage for the sake of selling artery-clogging and tasteless junk food to consumers from Chicago to Delhi to Moscow to Guantanamo Bay. This post is about what McDonalds, a massive employer, thinks social change means for its future.

In an annual report filed to a US regulator, McDonalds highlighted an interesting threat to its business model:

[The trend is]

toward higher wages and social expenses in both mature and developing markets, which may intensify with increasing public focus on matters of income inequality

.

The fact is, there is a quiet revolution taking place in public opinion. Where multinationals could once ride roughshod over their employees and national governments, attracting criticism only from marginalised groups, the public is now growing less and less tolerant. The US division of McDonalds has been rocked by strikes from its non-unionised workforce as, branch by branch, workers grow tired of poor health coverage, unionbusting and rock-bottom wages. A few years ago, McDonalds would have closed down a branch at the first sign of worker unionisation (Because its fine for shareholders to organise to create profitable businesses, but ordinary people should not have such a right). However, McDonalds is about to be on the losing side of history and it knows it.

Given the perpetual shortage of jobs that exists today, the likes of McDonalds have moved from being the place for teenagers to earn a little spending money to being the providers of careers. With that transition comes the responsibility to pay a Living Wage at the very minimum. Furthermore, McDonalds has to make itself a more fulfilling and empowering place to work. That will require a transformation of the business model that catapulted the business to international prominence (and notoriety), but that should not be beyond an organisation that considers itself a radical innovator. McDonalds could seize this opportunity to be at the forefront of social change, not be dragged along behind it. But I think McDonalds identifying the trend is one thing; having the courage and vision to respond to it is quite another.

How Will IDS Tackle Child Poverty?

Later this week, the Work and Pensions secretary and the Schools minister will outline their the Government’s programme it will use to meet its own target to eliminate child poverty by 2020. Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) has been associated with some of the worst spending cuts imposed by the Coalition, so will be keen to demonstrate his more caring side in the universally popular cause of helping impoverished children.

Yet he has been accused of political manoeuvring following his plan to redefine the “child poverty”. Presently, the figure shows the number of children living in households on less than 60% of median income- admittedly a blunt but effective measure of poverty relative to the entire population. (Incidently, the Living Wage is approximately 60% of median pay, suggesting that the general rule for policymakers is to reduce inequality to the point that everybody is on at least 60% of median income). Yet IDS wants other measures incorporated, such as being part of “stable family” and having access to a good education. It would be ambitious statistical engineering to quantify some of those factors, though I’ve no doubt that IDS has good intentions in proposing it. Nevertheless, they would allow his successors to point out that several contributory factors to child poverty are outside of government control, and therefore shrug off responsibility for existing targets.

Besides, some of the ideas sketched out are ill-defined. What is a “stable family”? Will a child be considered impoverished simply for having separated parents? Or, on the other hand, does a child belonging to a nuclear family have to be more financially deprived than her neighbour from a “broken home” (as the Daily Mail would so open-mindedly term it) to count as living in poverty? Furthermore, any more tampering with statistics by the government will render them untrustworthy. It is interpretive that we have neutral, trusted statistics at the heart of policy debate.

Such is the argument deployed by the Treasury against redefining child poverty. I think there is room for compromise: the Office for National Statistics could be asked to compile figures on material child poverty (the existing definition) and holistic child poverty, along the lines of IDS’ proposals. Government would remain committed to existing material child poverty targets, but could also tackle the holistic figures in time.

After we’ve agreed how we are measuring the problem, we have to turn our attention to devising solutions. I can’t say that the Government line sounds particularly encouraging; referencing the £50 energy bill imposed last month; restrictions on water cost inflation; and food vouchers.

I’m curious as to the last one. The last thing the UK needs is to import the American invention of food stamps. We’re doing a good line in foodbanks already: bit by bit, we’re stripping the poor of dignity and independence. I’ve said before that the universal subsidy of basic foodstuffs would be a fairer way of controlling living costs. It will be interesting to see the scope of the proposed voucher system, given the limited resources available to ministers.

Short of a multibillion investment in food vouchers, there are no measures proposed by the Coalition that will make a significant reduction in child poverty, material or holistic. No wonder Britain is set to have 2,000,000 children still living in poverty by the time it is supposed to be eliminated. That’s because inequality can only be reduced with a combination of skill, determination and resources. I wonder which of these the Coalition is prepared to use.

The World This Week: Buses, Food Stamps and Polls

Opposition-leaning news channel “shut down”

TV Dozhd is to be dropped by the last of Russia’s major satellite broadcasters after it ran a controversial poll that prompted a boycott. The poll, ran two weeks ago, asked Russians if they thought that Leningrad- as it was then known- should have been surrendered to the Nazis to prevent the casualties that occurred during the blockade of the city. Following the public outcry, the anti-Kremlin channel was removed by all major TV services from their listings, despite an apology from the channel. TV Dozhd has said that it will attempt to keep broadcasting over cable and its website, though it admits that a small audience would render it financially unviable.

US cuts food stamps to raise farming subsidies

The US Senate has approved a bill that will fund enhanced subsidies for agriculture at the expense of 850,000 families who will have their food stamp eligibility (formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme- SNAP) cut. This follows a $5 billion cut to the value of SNAP payments in November. Both Republicans and Democrats argue that the bill will reduce fraud by both SNAP claimants and farmers by altering the eligibility criteria for federal assistance. However, some 32 senators from left and right rebelled against party leaders, dissatisfied with either the reduction in support for poor Americans or a further rise in massive farm payments.

Cambodia reintroduces buses

Residents of Phnom Penh are benefiting from a one month trial of air-conditioned public buses in an attempt by authorities at reducing traffic in the capital. The city, which has as many motorcycles as people, says that it hopes to expand its 1,500 riel (23p) per ride bus service, provided that they can create sufficient demand for it. A previous attempt at introducing buses failed in 2001 due to a lack of passengers, though issues of congestion have become much more chronic in the intervening years. The current trial is being funded by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, according to the Guardian newspaper.

Turkey introduces tight Internet restrictions

Turkey’s parliament has approved legislation branded as a “threat to democracy” by opposition leaders. The legislation does bear alarming similarity to plans previously drawn up by UK authorities, with Internet Service Providers obliged to keep a record of their users Internet activities for two years and the granting of the power to the state telecommunications authority to block any website without court approval. At present, the Turkish government has banned over 40,500 websites, and the rate at which they are blocked is increasing even without the new legislation. Turkish PM Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan has adopted a hardline approach to the Internet after Twitter shaped anti-government protests last year- he called the microblogging website a “menace to society”.

Vision for regenerated Caracas unveiled

A £700 million project for a new university, upgraded bus infrastructure, sports stadia, and a large public park is to be undertaken over the next 5 years in honour of the late socialist President, Hugo Chavez, it has been announced. The project is part of a drive to restore the fortunes of the Venezuelan capital. The fortunes of Caracas have mirrored that of the rest of the country in recent years, with surges in corruption and dilapidation of communities undermining the “Bolivarian” political and economic system that originally raised living standards and quality of life.

Egypt’s military chief to run for Presidency

Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, the general who overthrew Egypt’s elected Muslim Brotherhood government, has said that he will be a candidate in the upcoming Presidential election. Al-Sisi has been running Egypt since the coup last July, and is responsible for the crackdown on independent media and opposition groups of recent months, including the banning of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, it is unclear if this has damaged his standing with the Egyptian people, who ratified his proposed new constitution with 98% of votes out of a 36% referendum turnout. Al-Sisi reportedly said in an interview: “Yes, it has been decided [for me to run] , I have no choice but to meet the demands of the Egyptian people. I will not refuse this request.”

Seven Pounds

In a welcome U-turn, Britain’s Chancellor has said that he would support an increase in the National Minimum Wage to £7.00 an hour, the level it peaked at in real terms before a series of sub-inflationary increases during the double-dip recession. It is understood that George Osborne had last year forbidden his Liberal Democrat colleague, Business Secretary Vince Cable, from directing the Low Pay Commission (which sets recommended levels for the NMW which Parliament always follows) to look at such an increase. Furthermore, Osborne fronted the Coalition initiative to defeat Labour’s legislative amendment that would have done exactly as Osborne wants: restore the NMW to pre-recession levels. Nevertheless, that was then and I’m interested in what will happen now.

The Coalition is aware that the ‘One Nation’ Labour theme of falling incomes and rising living costs poses a political challenge to it: people are angry that the wealthy are enjoying lavish tax cuts (the Conservatives are happy to slash the top Income Tax band to 40%) whilst most of us are having a distinctly hard time. Whatever one thinks of Messrs Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander, they are not political novices. Together with freezes on fuel duty, a lightening of social and environment levies on energy bills and now a possible hike in the NMW, the Government cannot now be accused of ignoring what Ed Miliband has termed the ‘cost of living crisis’.

I believe that Labour can and must go further than the Coalition on low pay. I think that there are three options the Labour leadership have with regard to NMW policy:

1. Match the Coalition’s proposed 11% increase in the National Minimum Wage. Offer tax incentives to employers to pay Living Wage, and examine phasing in a full Living Wage by inflation-busting rises in the Minimum Wage. This is existing Labour policy.
2. Promise to increase the National Minimum Wage by 22%, bringing it to the national Living Wage level of £7.65 an hour . The Coalition’s increase would bring the NMW to within striking distance of providing a liveable income. It would be difficult to argue that an extra £27 pay a week on top of planned rises would bankrupt employers.
3. Increase the NMW to £7.65 an hour but encourage/pressurise employers in London to pay the London Living Wage of £8.80 an hour. Gradually introduce a London rate of the Minimum Wage.

I see no political or economic difficulty with the second option: yes, it is radical in that it makes Britain the first country in the world to guarantee full time workers a liveable  income independent of the state (with the possible exception of Housing Benefit- but housing costs are something that a Labour government should be tackling). But it is a modest rise in what is proposed already. Not modest to the employees. A 9% increase to somebody on such a low income is life changing. But it is modest for one of the world’s largest and most successful economies.

I’ve spent some time talking about Labour, but it would be fantastic to enlist rival political movements in the race to a Living Wage. If I woke up to hear David Cameron on the Today programme announcing legislation hiking the NMW to £9 an hour, I would be pleased, even if was inconvenient for my party. Granted, in such a universe, I would be riding a flying pig to my job as a telegraph proccessor, but you get my point. Osborne’s ‘£7 an hour’ comments should be viewed as a good sign as well as a challenge.

Save The Children… if British Gas Approves

Save the Children is one of the UK’s favourite charities. Why wouldn’t it be? Everybody likes the idea of children in difficult circumstances, of any kind, here or acroad, receiving the help that they need. But another function of charities (or NGOs) is to be effective campaigners for the people or cause they aim to support. Some would say that NGOs’ role as advocates is equally as important as the direct help that they can provide with their limited resources. So the news that Save The Children has self-censored criticism of the Big 6 energy cartel for fear of jeopardising corporate donations is deeply saddening.

Leaked internal emails show that Save The Children’s corporate donations department scrambled to block press releases from the charity’s policy office warning of the grim implications of energy price rises on child poverty. The following email was sent between Save The Children staff last winter:

Hi both, I have just spoken to EDF about the planned media coverage around energy,affordability.

They expressed some concerns that just one story will provoke a huge attack on them and that this won’t go down with their senior execs who are making decisions about their charity partners. They really want to work with a positive organisation. It looks likely that we are down to the final three for this partnership. I am really conscious that this will need to be handled carefully so as not to jeopardise what could end up being a long-term partnership for Save the Children. Of course – the ideal thing would be that we win the partnership, start working together and create the story off the back of that but I appreciate that doesn’t fit in with your timings.

The “partnership” with EDF had a value of £600,000- just a tiny fraction of Save The Children’s annual income. The NGO’s existing relationship with British Gas is with just one quarter of that. It was once said that evil can only flourish when the good remain silent, and it seems that Save The Children will sell its silence at a very low rate. Meanwhile, families up and down the country slide into fuel poverty as the profits of the energy cartel grow and grow and grow. Is it really worth keeping out of the fight for the sake of a crumb- less than 0.05%- of the cartel’s profits?

But this is not the only case of Save The Children selling its soul to ruthless companies. It’s work with the likes of GlaxoSmithKline, the epitome of heartless Big Pharma, allows Save The Children to distribute some life saving medication to children, which is of course fantastic. However, how vocal is Save The Children about the deaths of the same children’s parents for want of drugs that Big Pharma will only sell at huge profit margins?

Somehow, I think that Save The Children needs to reevaluate what it’s for and who it exists to serve. Why not abandon the pretence of being a charity altogether, and become a glorified public relations firm?

New York Chooses A Dash of Liberalism

The US has had its first spate of elections since the Presidential vote in 2012. The governorships of New Jersey and Virginia were contested, as was the Mayoralty of New York City. There were no great surprises: the moderate Republican Chris Christie (who is to the GOP what Ken Clarke is to the Conservative Party) was comfortably re-elected in Democratic-leaning NJ, whist the Democrats secured victory in Virginia.

But, as the title suggests, this post is centred on New York, where Bill de Blasio (D) defeated Joe Lhota (R) with a majority of about 45%- that’s right: de Blasio has won an astounding 72% of the vote. What makes this even more surprising to an outsider is that de Blasio is about as leftwing as it is possible to be in American politics, described as an old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberal. Although genuine liberals are all too often out of fashion in the Democratic Party, it seems that de Blasio’s positions on issues such as the eye-watering inequality that exists in his city (and a police force that’s slightly too trigger happy with its anti-terror powers) have struck a chord with New Yorkers.

In my country, New York is seen as a city of glamour, towering apartment blocks, busy and often aggressive people, and a bustling metropolis where millionaire bankers and the downtrodden working class live and work in startling proximity. In many ways, NYC is simply a reflection of London twenty years or so into the future.

(By the way, the original York is infinitely better than both its namesake and London: it’s a leafy, people-shaped city in which there is a calmer approach to life.)

So when de Blasio talked of “two cities”, communities of rich and poor who share the same physical space but live entirely lives, he has identified an awful trend which is fracturing our societies as they have never been divided in the modern age. It’s the sort of ‘soft segregation’ that will make harmonious democracy impossible if we allow it to grow and reinforce itself unchecked.

Of course, there are severe limitations to the powers of the Mayor of New York, and the progressive tax rises de Blasio has pledged will need the approval of New York state in Albany. Even then, the “two cities” cannot be bridged by fairer taxes and homebuilding alone: no, the national and international corridors of power will have to be stormed to tackle inequality. But we have to start somewhere, and where better than the Mayor’s office?

Socialism In One Borough?

Ken Livingstone’s business card (Photo credit: Mex Beady Eyes)

Local government is considered by many in the UK to be a joke. Services provided by ‘the council’ are generally understaffed and under-resourced. Local democracy is non-existent, given that the one-in-three people who do vote do so not on local issues, but national ones. The consquence is that 95% of councillors can do almost whatever they like without affecting their electability. But most importantly, councils only control about one quarter of their revenues: most of what they spend is paid for and regulated by Whitehall. It is therefore unsurprising that we seldom hear of councils being the launchpad of radical change, even though this happens more often than you’d think.

In the past thirty years, various policies such as local currencies; universal free school meals; the living wage; nuclear-free zones; council house building and more have been dreamt up and put into practice by councils of various political hues. On the whole, these have been good ideas, but in the age of Militant it meant a handful of councils running into terrible financial problems and being subject to government intervention. While the Labour Party routed out the destructive and politically toxic Militant tendency (and the pendulum swung a little too far the other way, towards bland centrisim) the Thatcher government dismantled the Greater London Authority, fearful that Ken Livingstone’s socialist programme was proving far too popular amongst Londoners.

Nevertheless, is the time not right for councils to use a little spark of radicalism and creativity to counterbalance the Coalition’s austerity agenda? Call it what you like, Municipal Socialism, high spending, local democracy, there is a school of thought which suggests that local government has tremendous power in its hands if it uses it wisely. For example, Tower Hamlets borough council has restored its own version of the Education Maintenance Allowance after the Coalition scrapped it; abolished fees for social care even as the national Labour Party rowed back from its plan for a National Care Service; and has now scrapped translation services, instructing the borough’s large immigrant community to take up its free English language classes if they want to access services.

I’m confident that if Tower Hamlets can do all this despite draconian spending cuts, people will begin asking why it is that their council can’t as well. Remember that Ken Livingstone established a London register of same-sex relationships which led to the creation of civil partnership in just a few years, and same-sex marriage just a few years after that. Southwark council introduced free school meals for all primary school children in 2011, and the Conservative government is rolling out the policy nationally next year.

So whatever administration you have in your Town Hall, ask what your Labour, Independent, Green or nationalist councillors are doing to make their community better. If you are not satisfied that your town is being adequately defended against the tidal wave of cuts and reforms that threaten to divide and weaken us, then it’s down to you to “be the change”. Don’t be dissuaded by talk of what is supposedly impossible: we can make things better if we put some elbow grease into it.

Related articles

• Lambeth could be first borough to ban booze after midnight (antonellapilato.wordpress.com)
• My Home Town Crawley: Crawley Council Full Public Meeting, 7.30pm Wednesday, 23rd Oct. BEDROOM TAX! (streetdemocracy.wordpress.com)
• Tower Hamlets fairness commission reports (theguardian.com)
• Oldham Labour Group Friday Briefing (01/11/13) (oldhamlabourgroup.wordpress.com)