The world’s media is currently preparing to bring us the news that Nelson Mandela has died. Obituaries have been long written, as Mandela has been in ill health for some time.

Those obituaries will undoubtedly acknowledge him as the man who almost single handedly ended Apartheid, a man who despite being held captive for 27 years, always remained dignified and courageous. never answered racism with racism.

 The inevitability of death has been faced it seems with same grace, courage and dignity. South Africa has been holding a vigil for their first ever black president for weeks, thinking his death was imminent, yet incredibly he is still hanging on with the determination he lived his life by.

Many world leaders have already paid tributes to the man, some of whom previously described as a terrorist.. He was to be fair, the co-founder of a militant group in 1961 which led to a bombing campaign against the government, ultimately leading to him being jailed for life for attempting to over throw the government and sabotage.

Retrospectively, however, it is hard to imagine the hardship and oppression, which he and his fellow black South Africans endured. It is not difficult to understand the anger that led him down that path. One could argue that in today’s world he would not have needed to do what he did. He is famously quoted as saying during his trial, at which he faced the death penalty ““I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

After being jailed he never faltered in his fight for equality. Indeed his beliefs were so robust it is said he turned down conditional offers of freedom several times, before finally being released in February 1990.

Four years later he was inaugurated as South Africa’s first democratically elected President. He stepped down after one term, aged 81. He was and will continue to be after his passing, an inspirational figure. 

Reading about his early political activity and the accusations of terrorism reminded me of the fight against racism in our country today.

The EDL have been marching through major cities, organizing mass demonstrations which have led to accusations of them being racist, violent bullies. The very kind of people Mandela might have considered the enemy.

The leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson strenuously denies these allegations against him despite previous convictions for violent behavior. His “members” were pictured wearing balaclavas and acting in a very menacing and threatening way following the atrocious murder of soldier Lee Rigby in London. Robinson also claims that pictures and even videos of members making offensive gestures have been doctored.  He said recently in an interview with BBC journalist Andrew Neil that the EDL had no membership yet their official website bosts that it has 35,908 members.

The website also carries a mission statement that does stress that is a human rights organization set up in response to the actions of a very small minority of Muslim extremists. It also acknowledges that many Muslims are the victims and that not all Muslims are bad. They appear to be trying very hard to be taken seriously by the media while attacking people in cities up and down the country both verbally and physically. They recently tried to march through Sheffield twice, on both occasions being massively outnumbered and out shouted. The message from the people of Sheffield is the same message as the rest the country. The EDL are not wanted, not welcome and will not win support through intimidation.

Mr Robunson was arrested today while attempting a “walk of honour”, before being released on bail. While being bungled into the police vehicle he said “You couldn't make this up. The whole world is watching. All we want to do is complete our sponsored walk. Is this freedom in 2013?

The worry for me is that Mr Robinson and his disciples will become martyrs and win support from freedom of speech and human rights champions. If we are not careful when expelling him from the debate we may actually give his cause credibility.

The EDL says it is not racist yet almost every line of its mission statement is anti-Muslim.

They claim to want freedom of speech while publically criticizing the Quran.

The EDL are hypocrites, hooligans and racists. Hopefully, they will in the future be shown as that and condemned. History will say Nelson Mandela was everything that Tommy Robinson is not.

                                                                          

Pensioner’s – you’ve never had it so good..

There has been a lot of talk recently about whether or not old age pensioners should be exempt from the cuts. Labour has said that if they win the next election, they will have to look at benefits paid to pensioners such as heating allowance.

For years political parties have been afraid to touch benefits given to the elderly as they are the bulk of the electorate. More pensioners vote in elections than any other age group.

It is right that in these times of austerity, when benefits are been slashed for the unemployed and even tax credits to the poorly paid are under threat, that wealthy rich people should not be exempt.

Obviously no one wants to see elderly people alone and already living in poverty squeezed further but many people entitle to old age pension now are the most comfortable generation ever. Many benefitted from good private and employer pensions, earning more in retirement than thousands do in work today. Many will have been lucky enough to purchase their homes at prices so low the values will have increased tenfold in many cases. I know of people who bought council homes in Sheffield for as little as £6000 which are now worth over £100,000

Taking all these things into account it is evident that there will be elderly couples who are mortgage free, taking home £350 plus per week in pensions and in many cases, still holding a part time job. Why should they also be given free bus passes, heating allowances and free TV licence?  Once upon a time the argument was that these people had fought wars and earned the right to a little privilege in their old age. Not so many these days.

On the other side of the coin there will be people “retiring” who have not worked for twenty years. Is it then fair to punish the people who worked to buy their homes and pay into private pensions so that we can afford to pay people who have squandered their wages or contributed little in the first place? The incentive to save in private pensions would be damaged and people may think they are better off having no provisions to look after themselves in old age,

Of course this is wrong. That is why the only fare way to decide who gets help is means testing.

I don’t want to see vulnerable little old ladies with no money forced to into further poverty. For many a free bus pass is the only way to get out of the house, the other passengers and people in town will sadly for many old people be the only other people they see. For those people that bus pass is absolutely vital.

However, there will be people of the same age receiving a free bus pass, who have a Mercedes Benz parked in the double garage. The same people may have a holiday home in the south of France and live there 6 months a year while claiming heating allowance. The problem is the obvious lack of consistency, both in lifestyles and incomes. There are such wildly differing circumstances that a universal –everyone gets benefit is ludicrous.

There are millions of people of working age that already claiming tax credits or unemployment benefits. There are many old people claiming pension credits meaning that HMRC already holds information about the vast majority of people in this country. I don’t understand why means testing would be so expensive if HMRC already has the data.

There is also an argument I have heard that some elderly people are too pride to claim if they had to apply for it. TOUGH! They obviously don’t need it that badly then.  

We simply cannot afford not to means test pensioners along with everyone. There will be readers who will say undoubtedly that it is more complicated than I have implied and that pensioners have earned the right to luxuries but in a country that is supposed to be financial leader, it incomprehensible that millionaires living abroad are given the same benefits as vulnerable, penniless old people struggling alone in poverty. It’s simply not fair.

multi-millionaire O A P Paul McCartney

 

                  Homes for life or just until you’re successful?

An independent report published today, claims that the average young couple with children, will need to save for a deposit for 12 years. The report goes on to say that a childless couple living in Yorkshire will need to save for almost five years to get a deposit on a house, where the average property is £87,599.

With unemployment levels still high and banks remaining reluctant to lend, getting a mortgage if you do manage to raise the deposit is no easy task. The government’s Help to buy scheme, where only a 5% deposit is needed would mean a couple with children in London would have to save for an estimated 20years according to Shelter.

With that in mind, many are left paying over inflated rents to private landlords for often poor accommodation while sitting on council housing waiting lists.  It is a fact acknowledged by all political parties that there is a shortage of 1 and 2 bedroom properties. Councils and housing associations are desperately short of suitable properties. While consecutive governments have continued to sell off council houses and failed to build replacements, there simply are not enough properties left to meet the demand of an ever growing population.

While most agree investment in building more properties is needed, some claim that the answer is to evict those families who can afford to pay rent freeing up homes for the very poorest and unemployed.

There are several obvious flaws in this argument.

Even if there was a cap, where any one earning over £25,000 per annum for example would lead to people being afraid to succeed, knowing that a promotion at work might result in having to move the kids from their current school and into a less comfortable property. It would create disincentives.

 At present, council tenancies are for life. This means that couple are able to build up their family while striving to improve their lives knowing that they are laying down roots that they have a roof over their heads. The alternative is simply a generation of nomads.

 Families wanting to live in a nice house will spend money to make council houses nice for their family, if they know they are staying as long as they need the home. If tenancies were reviewed or there a chance that if you are lucky enough to get a job then you will be forced to move, the likelihood is that tenants will not spend their money improving the home.

Others suggest that certain professions should be banned from council homes, such as union leaders and members of parliament. Again, this would only serve as a disincentive to working class people to aim for the better jobs. Aspirations would be crushed while the working class would be unrepresented in the top jobs, even more than they are already.

Aspirations and incentives aside, if the only people allowed to live on council estates were the poor or unemployed, then those estates would become ghettoised workless lifeless crime ridden no go areas. The cost of which would be massive. The cost of crime and the fact that no one would be paying full rent and in many cases no rent, would put greater burdens on local authorities no ease them.

Investment is needed urgently to build houses, and the occupants need to be from all walks of society. There should be a sliding scale of rents and taxes that reflects the tenant’s ability to pay. This way, local authorities will get money they need to provide services that they cannot afford at the moment due to crippling cuts to budgets.  I would like to see my local councillor or trade unionist living next door to the unemployed or low paid manual workers living next door to journalists and teachers. That is the way to set an example and breed aspirations. That is the way to lift the quality of council estates.

Obviously, there needs to be strict criteria on allocation of these properties. There needs to be proper consideration to the most needy getting them. There is even an argument that there should be a minimum waiting time to stop giving immigrants who have just arrived, priority over families with a history in the area.

   There is to some extent still a degree of snobbery from critics of council estates. The middle classes look down their noses at the people living on them, thinking they are full of work shy chavs. If hard working men and women who have bettered themselves lived on these estates the stigma would start to erode and maybe decent people might once again be proud to stay on the estates. There used to be a phrase that an Englishman’s home is his castle, if we are not careful an Englishman’s home will be just a dream…

council flats-just a dream for some?

 

                    SKINT:

I have been asked several times this week, for my opinion on the TV show, Skint. Initially, I of course jumped to the defence of working class people on council estates, stating that programmes such as this play into the hands of the ignorant viewer, while encouraging middle class journalists for newspapers like the Daily Mail to accuse everyone living on these estates of being scum. This was my natural stance before even seeing the show. Sadly, my knee jerk reaction was accurate and the opinion of most people who watched thinks that the participants are scum.

They may well be right. I caught the last five minutes of an episode quite accidently and had to agree, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. I suspect however, that that is the point. Set on the Westcliff estate in Scunthorpe, the programme focuses on about twelve families from the 2000 families which live there. Presumably, they auditioned or at the very least chose these families for their shock value. The programme sets out to do nothing to help families stuck in poverty, just sensationalise and stigmatise. There will, no doubt be many families living on the very same estate, who have jobs, morals and a sense of how to conduct one’s self in public. These are not the qualities the TV executives were looking for to pull in the viewers. Programmes such as this purposely choose people who are likely to shock, people who are vulnerable and preferably unaccustomed to having a TV crew follow them; people who will play up for the cameras and are happy to sell their souls for 15 minutes of fame. If you tell a bunch of uneducated, desperate people that they are going to be the stars of a TV show if the show off a little bit, the results will inevitably, be a car crash.

That said, these are of course, real people. There are real people who do not want a job. There are real people who swear too much and too loudly. There are real people who go out during the day wearing pyjamas and a dressing gown. There are real people on real council estates who behave appallingly. They are not the norm. As much the Mail would love us all to believe that council estates up and down the country are littered with families like these, scrounging off the hard working tax payer, taking drugs and having too many kids (probably out of wedlock), the fact is that the majority of people on the majority of estates are not like that. Someone said to me, “obviously, you will say they’re the minority”… They are the minority. They in no way represent me or many of the people I know and have known all my life who live on council estates. That however, does not make it OK.

It isn’t enough to glamourize this lifestyle for a TV show, these people need help. I heard people say their benefits should be stopped. I have heard people say they should be forced to get a job – if there are no jobs where they live they should move. I have heard people say that they should be given vouchers and no money.

I fail to see how any of these solutions would help the desperados being accused or those supposedly paying the bill for them. In many cases, taking away the little money they have would force even more into crime and drugs. It would push many into depression and mental illness and physical hardship. There is no one size fits all solution to this problem because different people will respond differently to different incentives. While some may well say oh well I’ve had a good run – now I’ll get a job, others would be absolutely incapable of getting a job without expert help. There will be people who have never had a job, whose parent have never had a job. There will be some whose Grandparents never had a job. It would be foolish to think that simply saying to those people that benefits will be stopped, would push them into employment.

There needs to be investment in areas of significant poverty and unemployment. There needs to be agencies to guide these people, educate and train these people. There should also be initiatives and incentives to businesses to invest in these areas. One big employer on an estate like that could turn the lives of thousands of people around but why would a business want to employ people like those on Skint?

Demonising, punishing and stigmatising will not improve the lives of these people nor will it make them want to improve. It will alienate them even further. The unemployed, uneducated and uncouth are represented by no one. There are few or no journalists from similar backgrounds and fewer still politicians. Although working class has become a dirty phrase, working class is no longer the lowest class. A new lesser class has been created by the media, running wild on our streets like stray dogs, causing mayhem and offence to the public at large.

Newspapers and TV producers are supposed to report the news not make it. There is a growing trend of finding the lowest possible level of acceptable behaviour and catapulting it to fame on our screens and in our tabloids. STOP! Stop putting these people on TV. Why not make a programme about helping these people to train to be able to access the jobs market or a programme about how the fortunes of a poor family have been turned around by interventions and encourage others to do likewise. The reason is that programmes like that do not attract the same audience or the same sensational gossip and outrage. The very poorest in society are being exploited and encouraged to be morally bankrupt by TV producers for sake of good telly.