Benefit claimants and top-rate taxpayers

Posted on by symonhill

 A glance at the front pages of this morning’s papers gives a brief snapshot of the grotesque reality of ConDem Britain. The Daily Mail and Daily Express lead with vicious and misleading attacks on disabled benefit claimants, while the Daily Telegraph reports on Boris Johnson’s call for very wealthy people to pay less tax.

 Welcome to the UK under David Cameron, where the poorest are blamed for the nation’s problems while the richest are portrayed as victims.

The gleeful headline on the Daily Express is “Sick benefits: 75% are faking”. The Mail uses the same figures to make a similar claim. To say that these figures are “out of context” would be polite. They are deliberately deceitful.

They appear to refer to disabled people who are assessed for Employment Support Allowance. It takes a fair bit of concentrated reading through the Express article to realise that they have combined figures for those assessed fit for work with those who don’t complete their applications.

Given the bureaucratic hurdles that the assessment process involves, it is no surprise that some give up before they have completed it, particularly if they are applying because of a mental health problem or learning disability.

The Express back up their position with quotes from David Cameron, junior minister Steve Webb (who was regarded as on the left of the Liberal Democrats before he became responsible for slashing benefits) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a right-wing lobby group whose main purpose seems to be to object to taxes being spent on anyone poorer than their own members. In a feeble attempt at balance, a brief critical quote from the TUC’s Brendan Barber is thrown in right at the end.

Conveniently, the article makes no reference to the number of claimants who successfully appeal against their assessment. Around 40% of appeals are upheld. This is amazing. It reveals the unreliability of the assessments in which the Mail and Express place so much faith.

The assessments are carried out by Atos, a private company awarded a multi-million pound contract to assess ability to work – and with a clear mandate to get people off benefits, unhampered by such considerations as reality. Atos have found people with terminal cancer to be fit for work. As mental health charities such as Rethink and Mind have pointed out, they also seem particularly unable to grasp the complexities of mental health problems.

Neither Atos nor their friends in the right-wing press take account of the reality that many disabled people would love to work but are prevented to do so by inaccessible workplaces, prejudiced employers and social structures that marginalise them. Disability is caused by society’s attitudes to people with certain impairments, not by the impairments themselves.

But companies will not have their fitness as employers determined by Atos in twenty-minute assessments by unqualified individuals with a biased mandate.

As the government and their friends in the press launch this vicious assault on disabled people, the Daily Telegraph reports that Boris Johnson has repeated his call to scrap the top rate of income tax. It is 50p in the pound and only about 1% of the population are rich enough to pay it. This income tax; when it comes to VAT, everyone pays the same, from a homeless person to a billionaire.

As Church Action on Poverty have pointed out, richer people spend a lower percentage of their income on tax. The poorest fifth of the UK spend about 14% of their income on VAT, while for the richest fifth the figure is only 7%.

The Tories and their allies tell us that cuts are necessary to address the deficit, but it’s hard to take them seriously when some of them are them are keen to offer yet more concessions to those whose wealth would allow them to contribute the most to tackling the economic situation.

In this warped response to economic problems, those with the least have to pay the most.

Murdoch: It’s not about the pie

Posted on by symonhill

As the MPs’ questioning of the Murdochs came to an end this afternoon, there was a clear reminder that some politicians’ have not overcome their fear of Rupert Murdoch.

Louise Mensch (formerly Louise Bagshawe) threw the Murdochs a lifeline by suggesting that hacking was common at British tabloid newspapers. She admittedly threw in some soundbites about Rupert Murdoch resigning, before telling him she admired his “immense courage” for carrying on with the hearing after being hit by some sort of custard pie by a member of the public now identified as the activist Jonnie Marbles.

I suspect that News International’s victims may feel that being hit by a custard pie is a relatively minor problem compared to the trauma that some of them have been through.

The danger is that the headlines will now focus on Murdoch being “attacked”, rather than on his appalling answers to the politicians’ questions.

On BBC2, Andrew Neil said soon after the incident that Wendi Murdoch (Rupert’s wife) will be seen as the “hero of the hour” for pushing the pie back into the protester’s face and shouting “I got him!”. Some of those who stood up to Murdoch in the past – in the days when both Labour and Tory leaders were still bowing to his wishes – showed rather more courage than that demonstrated by heroic resistance to an individual with a pie.

Neil also suggested that it could have been something “worse” than a custard pie and questions will be asked about security. But it’s precisely because of security that it could only have been a custard pie.

Rupert Murdoch, undoubtedly one of the most powerful people in the world, was threatened this afternoon not by the aggressive physical attack that this pie-throwing will be presented as, but by being questioned persistently in public in a way that must be a novelty for him.

Not all the MPs were as challenging as they might have been, but some did brilliantly. Under questioning from Tom Watson in particular, Murdoch made clear how he sees his power. He consistently denied knowing anything, in some cases claiming not even to know the names of key people. He appeared to laugh when Watson suggested that he should know what was being discussed about his papers in the British Parliament.

Murdoch basically implied that he is too important to keep track of lawbreaking in one of his British papers. At this moment when he might have been accepting responsibility at last, he only made clear once again the contempt in which he holds Parliament and the public.

This is about power and accountability. It’s not about custard pies.

Pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia

Posted on by symonhill

Just over two weeks ago, I finished walking from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I kept a daily blog during the walk, but posted it on a site specifically about my pilgrimage, rather than here.

My blog during the walk, as well as my thougths afterwards, can be read at http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

Having (mostly) recovered from the walk, I’ll now be blogging here more regularly again.

Walk of repentance for homophobia

Posted on by symonhill

I am about to undertake a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I will walk 160 miles from Birmingham to London, between 16 June and 1 July.

There’s relatively little about my walk on this site, but a lot more – including details of events along the way – at the dedicated sit for the pilgrimage, http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

That site will include a daily blog for the duration of the pilgrimage. I hope you’ll follow my progress there, and I’ll be blogging here again once the walk is over.

You can also keep up to date on the walk by “liking” it on Facebook. See http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Walk-of-repentance-for-homophobia/172048302829171.

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please feel free to email me at symonhill@gmail.com.

I will never own a house. And I am not doomed.

Posted on by symonhill

The media this morning (31 May) are very excited about a survey showing that nearly two-thirds of people aged 20 to 45 in the UK expect never to own their own home. Most of the coverage did not even mention that the survey also revealed that nearly a quarter don’t want to.

The Today programme gave the issue a prominent position on BBC Radio 4. Several daily newspapers reported it as a piece of alarming news. Even the relatively progressive ‘i’ newspaper (sister paper of the Independent), had a front page headline declaring “Generation doomed to rent for a lifetime”.

I am 34 and will never own a house. But I am not “doomed”. I am happy to rent. Happy not to have endless meetings about mortgages with banks and financial advisors. Happy not to have pay out whenever something goes wrong with the electricity or plumbing. Happy not to get on the “property ladder”, beloved of those who look forward to buying a house only so that they can sell it and buy another one.

The surprising thing about the survey is that nearly a quarter of people questioned did not say they wanted to own their own home. This is despite all the newspaper front pages about house prices, the TV programmes about buying homes and the constant barrage of messages presenting home ownership as an essential part of being an adult. Not only is ownership held up as the marker of success, but talk of the “property ladder” fuels the notion that the purpose of possessions is only to acquire more possessions.

The recent economic crisis has taught many people that we cannot rely on a fantasy of endless resources and that we need a radical overhaul of the economic system. Bankers, ministers and much of the media don’t seem to have noticed that anything has changed.

Bishop welcomes walk of repentance for homophobia

Posted on by symonhill

I’m delighted to report that the former Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, has expressed his support for my pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia. He said that the church needs to repent in relation to gay and lesbian people.

My pilgrimage involes a walk between Birmingham and London from 16 June to 1 July. I will be giving talks at churches along the way.

In an email that I received on Monday, Richard Harries said:

“It is very good that you are undertaking this pilgrimage of repentance. I very much hope it will have a wide influence. Repentance in the original Greek word means changing one’s mind, and rethinking one’s whole outlook in the light of God’s saving presence in Christ. That is what the church needs to do today in relation to gay and lesbian people.”

It is great to have Richard Harries’ support. I wish more church leaders would be prepared to take this sort of stance.

I have also been overwhelmed and deeply moved by the many messages of support I have received from a wide range of individuals and groups who have heard about my plans. They include a man whose Christian parents won’t accept homosexuality, a gay Methodist minister who used to be homophobic, a straight Muslim and a bisexual teenager. I thank God for the courage these people have given me as the date of my pilgrimage approaches.

For more information on my pilgrimage, please visit http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

Pilgrimage plans published

Posted on by symonhill

It is now less than four weeks before I begin walking from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I’m delighted with the support and encouargement I’ve received and I’m very pleased to report that details of events during the walk have now been published.

Please click here to read about the events.  

As you’ll see, there will be three city centre events. These will be in Birmingham on the evening before I start walking (Wednesday 15 June), in Oxford around half-way (Sunday 26 June) and in London on the evening I arrive (Friday 1 July), which will be the day before Pride.  

I am still discussing events with churches in other locations, and details will be available shortly. In addition, a few churches and other groups have kindly invited me to meet them more informally or join them in worship.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact me at symonhill@gmail.com.

To read more about the pilgrimage, please visit http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

Christianity and homophobia in Britain today

Posted on by symonhill

Many thanks to Camden LGBT Forum, who invited me to speak at their event entitled ‘The Globalisation of Homophobia’ on 17 May  – the International Day Against Homophobia.

I spoke about homophobia in Britain today and its relationship with Christianity.  The text of my talk can be found by clicking here.

Privatising higher education

Posted on by symonhill

Last week, the universities minister David Willets rushed to deny suggestions that the government would allow elite universities to sell off super-expensive extra places to wealthy students. But the furore led to another proposal receiving very little attention – the suggestion that private companies and charities should be allowed to fund their own university places.

Both proposals appeared as suggested ways of providing an extra number of places in higher education, by adding places that would not be funded by the state. The shortage of places has arisen because of the government’s cuts and the hike in fees.

The National Union of Students, the University and College Union, the Student Christian Movement and students’ unions across the UK rightly condemned the plans. In the face of this outrage, Willets quickly backed down and said that he had no plans to allow the rich to buy extra space.

I’m delighted that the backlash against the proposal was so great. But to me, the other plan is even more alarming. Funding university places by charity seems to be taking us back to an age when working class people could receive formal education only because of philanthropy and not as a right. Allowing private companies to fund places would be likely to give them undue influence over the curriculum and other matters.

If you doubt this, have a look at the influence that corporations have already gained when they have become involved in higher education funding.

The multinational arms company BAE Systems provides funding for a number of courses, particularly in engineering. As a result, BAE representatives sit on a number of course committees. Undergraduate engineers at Loughborough University are offered bursaries by BAE – as long as they work for BAE during their industry year. Tom Taylor, who graduated from Loughborough in 2007, says that “elements of the course were tailored to BAE’s requirements”.

Allowing corporations to fund extra university places would dramatically increase this tendency. I can imagine oil companies offering places on courses in environmental science. This would help them to greenwash over the realities of their business as well as to have considerably more influence over those studying the issues.

This government is undermining the fabric of higher education in the UK. We must not allow them to privatise university courses under cover of solving the problems that they have themselves created.

Taking the ‘No to AV’ campaign to its logical conclusion

Posted on by symonhill

The main arguments used by the ‘No to AV’ campaign are, if taken to their logical conclusion, arguments against democracy. Every one of their leading arguments could be used an argument against holding elections at all.

Firstly, they focus on the cost of AV. Their claim that it would cost £250m has now been thoroughly discredited, although it still appears on their website (the figure includes the cost of the referendum itself, as well as the price of electronic counting machines that no-one is calling for). But just as important is the reality that there is a cost to democracy. The No campaign may as well argue that we could save money by abolishing elections altogether.

Secondly, the No campaigners argue that AV is too “complex”. This insult to the intelligence of British voters (who are quite capable of ranking candidates in order of preference) has been undermined by the reminder that the Tory Party does not use first-past-the-post for electing its own leader. The Tories seem to be saying that they’re clever enough for complexity – but we’re not. They may as well argue that democracy is too complex for the public to grasp and we would be better off trusting an hereditary class to rule us instead.

Thirdly, they suggest that there would be lots of coalitions under AV leading to “politicians’ fixes”. Both academic studies and the experience of Australia have called this claim into question. But even if it were true, the argument ignores the reality that a single-party government without a mandate from the majority of the population is itself a fix. The argument comes down to stability. It is argued that coalitions are unstable. By the same token, it could be argued that public opinion is unstable. Dictatorship would be so much more orderly.

Fourthly, a number of No campaigners keep repeating their claim that AV would help “extremist” parties to get elected. They have yet to explain why the BNP are campaigning for a No vote or why they think so many people would give their second preferences to the far-right . But the way to defeat racists and homophobes is to campaign against racism and homophobia, not to manipulate electoral systems. The No campaign are saying that under AV, the wrong people would win. By this logic, all elections should be abolished in case the wrong people are elected.

The No campaign’s arguments are based on a failure to trust people to make their own decisions and to govern themselves. The same arrogance and contempt for the public inspired the nineteenth century opposition to votes for women and working class men.

In contrast, to vote Yes for AV is to vote for an improvement that marks a step in the right direction, taking us closer towards the day when people really are trusted to govern themselves.

That’s why I’m voting Yes.