Notes on Today's Strike

I shall flex my awareness of capitalism thus. So this is just an intellectual exercise to keep my socialist spidey senses keen...

There's a strike on today, in London. I don't know the full details of the dispute because of course the BBC have no interest to inform me. A dispute between ASLEF, the RMT, and some private transport concern within the city. What the BBC does have an interest in, of course, is playing clips of commuters in varying degrees of consternation and disgust.

Note that the BBC doesn't bother to ask the workers why they are striking, nor does it advocate - as it should - that said commuters go visit the picket line and ask the people themselves for the facts. Given how the working class are viewed these days, doing so would only lead to people becoming suspicious of these facts. We are in the post-factual age of course - who needs experts!

These are the issues that I have:

Firstly I mention talking to the workers themselves for a good reason: it is important to foster relations and ease division amongst the working class. This is the biggest weapon we have against the capitalists. They rely on these divisions, so by communicating with other disgruntled people in our class we can find common cause and build solidarity.

Secondly, the BBC is interested in pursuing a rather childish narrative. By talking to each side in the dispute (at different times, I notices, preventing actual dialogue), they can play them against each other. So they first (perhaps tactically) interviewed the boss of the transport provider who said that he was willing to get round the negotiating table. By talking to him before the union representative, they are able to put him on the backfoot. This they did by putting to him the claim that the boss was willing to talk, something that had never previously been the case. The rep then agrees that this is a good idea, but is confronted by the idea of calling off further disputes - if the boss is willing to talk and you are likewise then you have no reason not to call the strikes off.

But this is dangerous: calling off the strikes is a lot easier than creating them, due to our appalling anti-union laws. If the rep agrees to this - and there is no reason hie should do so given that he has only just been confronted with only the merest claim of good faith on the part of the boss - and the boss goes back on his word, then the boss can score a victory. This is because of the amount of hassle and legal nonsense required to get the strike back on. So really, the rep is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: he's damned if he agrees because the power lies with the boss (who would only lie about reneging on a meeting - and who could prove otherwise?), and he's damned if he doesn't, as the public has been conditioned to see this as union intransigence. Back to the bad old days of the socialist lefty labour 1970's (themselves a myth).

Even if they get around the table, there is no guarantee of good faith on the part of the boss, nor that he will use this to just string things along.

However, and more insidiously, this all works in favour of the capitalist class anyway. I mentioned at the start the clips of commentary from angry commuters. Among these alleged horror stories are lurid claims (which may or may not be true) of people losing their jobs because they cannot get to work.

Of course that's awful, but who's really to blame there? No one had to sack the commuter, did they? I mean, surely their employer could see that it wasn't the employees fault and not sack them and instead work on a compromise. It's not as if the unions are striking every day is it, they couldn't even if they wanted to I imagine. So this is a plain sighted admission of the failings of capitalism, couched within what appears a reasonable claim and concern on the part of commuters. The employer would argue they have no choice but to sack, why - because of capitalism! Profit! We need a more reliable employee to maintain that bottom line! So what if you lose your job, house, family, can't feed your kids eh? That's not talked about on the BBC, only these alleged concerns.

However the real capitalist knows that by letting someone go in this way they can further the interests of their class. Sacking people only leads to more division: the commuters versus the striking transport staff. Blame is apportioned incorrectly thanks to a dog whistle blown by the capitalist class as a means to inspire further legislation, and I wasn't about to hang around to hear that rat faced dead eyed shit disturber, Chris Grayling (the transport minister) make this point. Sack the worker, sow division, call for a 'tightening' of strike laws to keep the unions in line.

Magical Thinking

Well that's that for pursuing a diagnosis for Aspergers or anything remotely similar.

I contacted the Patient Advisory Liaison Service (PALS) to try and sort this out after being lied to by the clinician regarding referring me to the ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) people. That never happened and she continues to deny saying she would. Of course I cannot prove this and so the patient-doctor dynamic kicks in: I'm the lowly patient, she's the expert doctor, her reputation versus mine and so who wins?

I could make a complaint, but what would be the point. I might get a nice letter in a few months time saying sorry in a mealy mouthed way, but it doesn't get me any closer to what I need. That being a diagnosis, a formal, written and recorded, recognition of the issues I deal with. Lacking that, dealing with the systems in society, chiefly the DWP, becomes more difficult. Unfortunately the medical profession doesn't seem to care about that.

We have a society fuelled by anxiety and stress that also denies mental health issues as anything other than just laziness or weakness of character. Our society is built on toxic macho stereotypes leaving no room for such problems. Combined with a medical service that is completely ill equipped to deal with these problems, except in extreme (re: suicidal) cases, and the average person is left to cope. This only normalises the levels of stress and anxiety and mental anguish that people have, no matter how debilitating or serious. In short, nobody cares.

All that I am recommended is, once again, the agency (partnered with ATOS, which says it all) called Positive Step. In lieu of a proper holistic service they have become the go-to people the NHS uses when dealing with someone who has mental health issues (of a non-extreme kind). Unfortunately, Positive Step has been dishonest about their provision: all they offer is a specific, short, curriculum of CBT, a therapy with mixed results that doesn't apply to all situations despite what they might say. This is sold to the medical profession on a lie: it is the same service whether it is sold as anxiety relief, self esteem, 'wellbeing therapy'  (whatever that is), talking therapy, mood management, etc. I have had to correct my doctor multiple times that they do not offer a multitude of different services for these different approaches and problems; they simply do one thing and one thing only. It is not a panacea by any means.

It also contributes to the general idea that one is responsible for one's own issues and that, essentially, by thinking positively and cheering up, one can overcome. That is what the CBT they offer amounts to: relax (easier said than done of course) and try and talk yourself out of fear of X (be it spiders, heights, clowns, etc). If your anxiety or mood comes from a legitimate concern: lack of income, lack of a home, society, capitalism, etc, then forget it. Yet, despite the reality of the truth of these external conditions, it is still 'your' fault insofar as you are the only one that can change anything. Perversely this is a tacit admission of the reality even though one cannot change external conditions, not at least by simply wishing them away.

We are victims of systems that, at least, predate our appearance on this earth. I was born, without consent, into a system not of my design or choosing. Yet I am expected to agree to its terms without discussion or compromise. If I struggle or fail to meet or live up to those conditions I alone am held accountable as it is clearly a personal failing. In that respect the purveyors of magical thinking believe that I, the subject, am the agent of change, or at least the author of my own misfortune. Vapid solutions, talking about personal journeys and wish fulfilling magical roadmaps to success, are offered, in exchange for government money of course by the likes of charities who should know better. They do not and cannot have the solution, yet they will not accept the reality and instead simply reinforce it by blaming the victim.

When will this change?

Trump The Election System

Well that just happened.

Representative democracy wins out again: despite Clinton getting the popular vote (by a margin of less than 1%), straw-haired bigoted hate sausage and professional misogynist Donald Trump now has his fat fingers firmly planted (from January) on the big red button. Top of the world ma!

None of which is to say that Hilary the warmonger was a particularly palatable candidate, with her history of corporate appeasement, foreign 'intervention', and US imperialism. However, as with most elections, the difference, though measurable only microscopically, is still measurable. It's a choice between the unpopular and the unthinkable. Or at least it was, until it was made, last week, by the disenfranchised of America. They, angry white men who feel that, as the dominant power group in society, their loss, at the hands of the capitalist elite, is greater than anyone else's loss - and how dare those other groups (like the blacks, or the women, or the gays, etc) - even try and compare!

The real winner in this election will be capital, because whatever happens that's what controls America. Even if that capital is now in the vaults of Chinese banks. Trump is nothing if not a capitalist. He thinks himself the ultimate dealmaker, but that's not going to persuade Mexico to fund his imaginary wall (now a fence - and a fence is already what exists). Nor will it persuade Wall Street to support renegotiating NAFTA.

He thinks himself a maverick, but only because daddy Trump's casino chips have bailed him out and only because daddy Trump let him the means to leverage more time and money to try and build his shitty empire of bricks and racism.

The problem is this awful representative system, whether in the US with it's clearly broken electors, or the Westminster aristocracy here, is all we currently have. Whether we like it or not, there will be an election by, at the very least, 2020. If we don't vote against the Tories then we vote for the Tories - a fact the radical left ignores at our peril.

It's an unpalatable truth, but the system will continue regardless of how we feel about it; there is not, at present, the revolutionary willpower among the working class to force a change. I wish it were not so. This system is broken across the board.

The truth is that there are differences between the major parties, even between Clinton and Trump, and these need to be exploited for us to gain anything. It is most certainly a case of holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils because anything else is seen and used by the system to put our enemies in power: Tory voters will always vote and so anything that splits opposition to that, be it not voting or instead voting for a smaller party like the Greens, will only strengthen their position. The thought of another Tory majority, likely stronger than the present one, is unbearable. That cannot be allowed to happen and is, in my opinion, the over riding priority.

I do not like this reality, I wish it were different, but it is not. We know what happens if the Tories return, it's what's already happening with the deaths of the poor and the sick and the dismantling and destruction of public services. This we can see, we don't need speculation. On the other hand, while there are many Labour representatives with blood on their hands as well, we can reasonably speculate they will not be as bad as the Tories - and that's what it's about. It's an awful shitty choice, but, fundamentally, it is the only choice. It's also one that comes with many caveats; for example, if you live in a safe seat then there isn't much you can do, although you lose nothing by marking a cross on a piece of paper, a job that takes ten minutes of your day. You might as well at least try.

Not least of all, in fact most importantly of all, revolutionary work need not be compromised or interrupted. Using this system does not mean endorsing it, that would be a facile assumption. It is simply a recognition of the reality of the moment. Either we use the system or it uses us.

What the Hell is Success, Mr Green?

A cap on total benefits received by a family that has already driven people into (or further into) poverty is hailed as a success by the man now committing to a further reduction in that cap. This is reality: the redefining of terms to fit an agenda baked into the minds of the media manipulated masses. Not just a success, but a 'real success'; telling you that this is something you can take to the bank, unlike the incomes of the poor.

"“By making sure that those people who are out of work are faced with the same choices as those who are in work, the benefit cap has been a real success,” he (Damian Green) said."

In a way that's true, but only because of the degree of in-work poverty that now exists.

But what choices does Mr Green want the poor to face that they aren't already facing, and if this sort of 'tough love' is helpful why not apply it to colleagues in Parliament? Maybe they would perform better or make better choices (at least when it comes to paying themselves eye watering pay rises or taking out frivolous expenses claims for antiques and house-flipping).

The poorest already face the reality of choosing whether to eat, heat, or feed their kids. They have to send their kids to school with bigger holes in their bellies than on the shoes they can't afford to replace. What choice is being championed here and how does it help them get out of that situation?

How does this kind of poverty, directly attributable to income cuts, get fixed by further cuts? Is this government or homoeopathy?

He continues:

“By lowering the cap today, we are ensuring the values of this government continue to chime with those of ordinary working people and delivering on our commitment to make sure work pays more than welfare.”

The values of a group of people with no special claim to authority other than the dubious outcome of a media driven election. As if authority over others can be justified on the basis of a notion of shared values. What are these values? They are noteworthy by their absence. This is a popular trope: assert the notion of values, as a desirable trait in oneself or one's society, but never articulate what they are. It's used effectively - unfortunately - against outsiders (eg Muslims, refugees, war orphans): ie these people are incompatible with our values. I think we can all guess what those values are from the behaviour of successive governments, this one by no means least of all.

Does work pay more than welfare? Is this an admission of the failure of the concept of wage labour? It is predicated on the idea that no one will work if they can claim welfare instead so by making welfare so pitiful that option is stifled and made unattractive. But that presumes an admission of the undesirable qualities of wage labour, that we have to bully people by making the alternative (surely a false dichotomy: the choice should never be work or starve) so awful. And yet these are the same capitalists who, in the next breath extol the virtues of work as the great panacea when they cut the incomes of the sick.

Wages are determined by factors that have nothing to do with welfare. Indeed the latter is an important function of the modern industrial capitalist economy as seen in places like Britain and it shows the ignorance of the Tories who tinker with this at their (and certainly our) peril. A small reserve army of labour is required to keep wage bills low and to keep the working classes that are employed in line: this is your fate, they say, if you lose (ie quit - at least to their eyes) your job. You will end up in poverty hell and that is your punishment.

Of course it's also important for the Tories to be seen to deliver on their commitments - that alone is worth more than a functioning society because it makes them seem credible. In fact the more dysfunctional our society, the greater the value of that credibility.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday, Green reiterated this point, saying: “By the far the best long-term route out of poverty is to have a job

Fatuous. I would imagine inheriting a vast windfall is probably the best way out of poverty. It's also the best way into the Tory party. Considering the amount of in work poverty that exists. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (chart below) more than half those in work are also in poverty. I find it impossible to accept that Mr Green doesn't know this, which makes the idea of Tory authority all the more odious: unjustified authority depriving people in the community of the means to live. This is not just abhorrent it is murderous.

Green said: “Each statistic represents a person who has moved into employment and can now enjoy the security and dignity that work brings.”

There is no way this can be verified. At best it would be assuming evidence based on anecdote: a claimant would have to say they are starting work as their reason for ending the claim, but that alone wouldn't constitute proof. In fact the DWP won't check. I suspect most people use this reason, even if it's not true, because it's the most expedient and acceptable answer, given if only to get the DWP off their back, which may well be why their claim is ending anyway. 

 To assume people are moving into employment is just intellectual dishonesty. Who can blame people for ending their claim this way? I've done the same thing myself.

As for security and dignity? The evidence speaks for itself. Given how the Tories have treated the notion of a minimum wage I think we can reasonably and assuredly dismiss their idea that work = dignity. There's nothing dignified about forcing people to sell their labour in a rigged marketplace, one they have no control over anyway (if they did, they'd hardly need to be in that position in the first place).

PS: apropos of nothing, fuck Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton.


(Quotes from here)

First the Worst (nothing changes for the poor)

This is a picture perfect example of everything wrong with our society and how the least affluent are treated. It involves a certain public transport provider with a piss poor reputation, everyone knows of whom I speak, but let's call them First. I could think of more appropriate and entertaining names, but...

So last week, and with dismal inevitability, First increased it's fares again, hiding these changes behind a restructuring of their fare system. Their stated reason for this is to encourage folk to eschew paper tickets in favour of smartphone technology. It doesn't occur to them of course (and the entire reason for this post) that not everyone owns nor can they afford a smartphone. I certainly can't (I despise the damn things anyway, but that's another story).

Apparently, and because of increased complaints regarding punctuality, it was decided, in the rarefied echelons of Chatauex First, the reason for this was because of the time taken to issue paper tickets to customers. Obviously this is horseshit because they know full well they cannot avoid issuing paper tickets in sufficient quantities to make their service more efficient.

I accept that traffic conditions, in gridlocked Britain, are beyond the purview of First to address - this is a cultural shift that our society, sooner or later, is going to have to make. But that's another topic entirely.

Essentially what First has done, to persuade people to use the tech it prefers (assuming the system is reliable of course), is offer a discount to people buying tickets via smartphone. These tickets are then presented via a scanner and this is apparently more efficient.

They do offer an alternative: you can buy a smartcard similar to oyster cards. The problem here, aside from not actually telling people how, is that only a small array of tickets are available this way, none of them include the tickets I want. You would also have to make a minimum purchase of some kind: you couldn't just load a single journey, such as I make, onto the card. The consequence of this is that, the single journey I want to make, is now 50p dearer. This is separate from the cost of buying paper tickets. So not only are people without the preferred technology penalised, but the tickets are themselves more expensive. This is because...restructuring - who knows, their explanations make no sense. A journey that cost £3.50 last week, now costs £4.00 for arcane reasons.

Here then is that picture perfect example: poor people don't have access to expensive phone and app technology and yet they are the most likely to use public transport. On top of that they don't always have the means to pay the minimum entry fees required to make use of oyster cards and the likely such cards will require a certain level of ticket/price to be deposited at a time. Whereas I can buy a single ticket for my journey on the bus, that will not be an option with these cards, even though the poorest need that flexibility more than most.

It is this hubris that is at the heart of corporate Britain and it must be addressed. 

Another Damian, Another Dollar

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/31/sitting-at-home-on-sickness-benefits-is-bad-for-health-damian-green

Here we go again. Another Tory minister, another proclamation to the Daily Mail reading peanut gallery, reassuring them that it's the same approach. Don't worry, we'll make sure we continue to harass and hassle the least among us so that YOU can feel safe and secure that your 'hard earned' pennies aren't being 'wasted' on unproductive frivolities such as food and shelter for the poor and their dependants.

Never mind that everything these scumbags has tried thus far has failed spectacularly.

Never mind the vast sums thrown down the toilet of public opinion - in fact, while the press crow about money spent on foreign aid or brown skinned war orphans, there's a seemingly insatiable appetite for spending here. No limits for the public purse when it comes to chasing down the least among us.

Listen to this shit:

Damian Green will launch a consultation on disability and sickness benefits later on Monday. It will look specifically at how people qualify for sick pay and doctors’ notes, and review the controversial work capability assessments which determine whether disabled people are eligible for welfare.

Another consultation: as if one is needed. This isn't a riddle. It's not a cypher. People live in a particular economic system that requires they survive by means of selling their labour. They have no leverage in that large shark infested market, and no alternative. If that market goes belly up - so do they. If they find themselves impaired or incapacitated in trying to compete they are screwed. You don't need a consultation (at public expense of course) to realise this, you just need an open mind and eyes to see it.

Whether disabled people are eligible

That's Orwellian right there. The answer is in the comment itself: disabled people. But we now live in an age where having a disability is being whitewashed; it's Big Brother language to argue having a disability isn't enough to deem you as needy. Of course the really honest disabled people go out and work because they are good citizens so doublethink for the win.

Charities have welcomed the review of the WCA but there are some concerns that sick and disabled people could be pressured to return to work before they are ready.

'Be prepared', you're talking about humans not pheasants for the plucking!

Back to the production line, you've passed/failed the test. Never mind the quality of work available and never mind your ability to compete for it in this vast callous marketplace we've forced you into.

Green said the purpose of encouraging people to work was to improve their health as well as for the government to spend less on benefits.

Bullshit is there a connection. People are made to feel better by being welcomed into a caring community where they are encouraged and valued and can thus contribute something of worth. That doesn't happen on a zero hour contract for Mr Topshop and his ilk.

Why should spending less be a priority? It costs what it costs and that, within reason, should be what the government is prepared to pay. It's not 'their' money, it's the nation's assets. This isn't Bargain Hunt, this is about giving the citizens of this society their due as human beings and as people who have a rightful claim to that land these filth profit from.

Now if you can trim some bureaucracy then fine, no one will argue with that. But these scum won't cull their own.

“In the long run there is nothing more expensive than saying to someone, ‘Here’s a benefit you can have for the rest of your life and we will ignore you,’” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Really? How about Trident? How about the cost in terms of suicide, mental health, antisocial behaviour, criminality? How about the foreign wars?

The great mindset change I want to achieve is the acceptance that a good job is good for your health. 

We've got another zealot; another man on a mission. God spare us the believers!As I said, this isn't about helping people. If you want to do that you'll campaign against capitalism. Somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

Ministers released little detail about how sick pay and fit notes, previously known as sick notes, would be changed, but said they wanted to “support workers back into their jobs faster and for longer”. 

Meaningless. Are they going to introduce laws that affect what employers can get away with? Hell no.

Just as the Tories do nothing about rogue landlords because they themselves are landlords.

Duncan Selbie, the chief executive of Public Health England, said health, well-being and happiness were “inextricably linked to work”.

Sad to see the third sector jump all over this, lapping it up. But we all know what charities are worth these days. Just ask my new friends at the Slave Nation Army. That reminds me, it's soon going to be the season of poverty pimping. They'll be sending their charity letters out, begging for help while neglecting to tell gullible Middle Englanders and Shirefolk that those they claim to be help include those bullied by charities like - and including - the Slave Nation Army.

Equally meaningless. Who cares what he said. If what people say is enough, then let's quote David Icke who always has something interesting to say - even though it's baseless and completely out of touch with reality. Where is the evidence: that workers are not sick, well that's some handy logic isn't it. Of course health is inextricably linked to work - you have to be healthy to do the job, if you aren't well and can't work then, duh, you're out of work. So it's an easy if fallacious inference to make, that work and well-being are inextricably intertwined. But it doesn't begin to address the reality. What guarantee with the Tories have that people will be doing meaningful fulfilling and rewarding work, and not just bullied by the usual suspects into shitty jobs so that they can claim a positive (ie £££) outcome?

And remember what the Tories thought about real jobs when Cait Reilly complained about bullying from the DWP? Shelf stacking is next to godliness! Yeah right!

Nothing ever changes, and don't you forget it. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water!

The Professional Revolutionary's Long Winded Guide To Capitalist Propaganda

Most people don't have the time to indulge in revolutionary politics, by which I mean intellectually critiquing the systems of the day. Most don't have the inclination to read pages and pages of theory from the thinkers of yesteryear. Unfortunately for you, that includes me. However I don't have a job and you do (possibly) so for the purpose of this I'm going to pretend to be a professional revolutionary.

I should first point out that the idea of professional revolutionaries is a bad idea. I do not want any revolution fought in my name to be co opted by any kind of vanguard. This was the idea behind Lenin's philosophy and it is arrogant. A truly 'professional' revolutionary should not be a leader, but a positive influence, an encouragement. It is fundamental to the idea of genuine revolution, which I believe we sorely need, that it be a bottom-up grassroots movement; not a top down dictatorship. That method will not produce positive lasting revolutionary change and as such I reject it entirely.

What is a revolution? I hear no one ask.

If, like me, you have lived a life stifled by an economic and social paradigm you will know, feel, in fact, something is drastically wrong in the world. You feel there should be choices and freedoms where none appear. More pertinently, as far as this piece is concerned, you will instinctively flinch when the stock explanations you are given do not match with your sensibilities. For example, we are told the world does not owe us a living, but then we are economically punished for not having a living. People are kept on low incomes so their masters can maximise their profit, but people are held in disdain for turning to the state for support. We are ruled by millionaires and murderers who make war for profit and the media is complicit in persuading us this is a good thing ("Gotcha!" said the Sun when a ship full of human beings was sunk regarding a disputed territory thousands of miles away from our country).

What is capitalist propaganda?

Every day we are subject to the necessary propaganda to convince us that the life we are leading is worthwhile; that it contributes to the betterment of our society. We do not question whether that society is a positive influence to those around it (see "Gotcha!" above). In fact an entire mythology has built up around the notion of wage labour: Monday mornings are treated with a weary respect for example. Radio DJ's exhort us to rise up like clergy of old, wielding saccharine pop music instead of the fear of god. They pretend they are experiencing the same existential numbness in a most patronising way given they obviously enjoy their job and the comfort of the broadcast booth. Not for them the claustrophobic commute and the endless array of supermarket shelves.

By the end of the week we are rewarded with a mere two day respite during which pent up frustration at an unfulfilled life is soaked in excess and abuse. We drink to forget everything except the reality we cannot escape. That same DJ now tells us how great it is that the weekend has come around again, ignoring the ceaseless nihilistic repetition of it all. We celebrate our meaningless lives with commensurately mundane practices, sound tracked by the latest disposable sounds.

Most everybody questions this at some point, but we are never taught why. More tellingly, we are never presented with any kind of argument for the status quo. It is simply assumed; reinforced through cheap urban wisdom such as 'the world doesn't owe you a living'. What does that mean: it seems to suggest people shouldn't and don't help each other. What a lovely notion. Why shouldn't we challenge that?

The reality is that people are complicit in this system because they need an income, and so, by selling their labour, they actively enforce its ideology. Yet what power do people have in that arrangement? Where is the social contract? We are told we live in a free society, but that freedom is relative and, in key areas, lacking. We do not have the power to negotiate a better contract, though we enjoy the freedom to try. A supermarket shelf stacker can certainly appeal for a rise in his meagre income, but won't get it. In fact he's likely to risk being seen as a nuisance - and there's propaganda for that as well. People are told to keep their heads down and just 'get on with it'. Maybe you'll be lucky and get a promotion, but what does that entail? You are attracted to the promise of a (slightly) higher income, but the work gets harder. This equation doesn't prove quite so rewarding as you aren't really any better off and the capitalist, through exhorting you to work harder, derives more profit from you.

Hard work is the watchword of the day. The antithesis of hard work is the lazy scrounger who doesn't deserve his state provided pittance (a sop to maintain the fabric of social order, nothing else), you are better than they because you work - and of course when I say that I mean you work hard. Who doesn't? But the options as you rise up the ladder grow ever smaller. It's a pyramid scheme of course and the top spot, the pinnacle of this vile edifice, is a single position for which you would have to fight with the vast number of other people who all rose from the bottom like you - better work even harder. Just know that as you do work harder, you generate more profit for the masters, you are not rewarded as they are except in the kudos that society dishes out via this propaganda.

Oh and by the way, that top spot? You won't get it; that seat is reserved. If you aren't born to the same class as those that deserve the top seat, it doesn't matter where you started or how hard you work.

Along the way you will be told that your hard work translates into 'earnings'. This is a facile euphemism. What you are given is the wage you signed up for. Remember? The wage that was agreed when you started, right at the bottom, with all the power you had to bring to bear on that agreement. That's wage labour and your means to negotiate a better deal for yourself are unfortunately reduced by the size of the labour market you are forced to compete within. Sure you want that job, sure you might need that job, and sure you might even be good at that job, but so what: the world doesn't owe you a living, remember?

We don't need markets; they dehumanise us and devalue our creative output. If I make one item, it's as worthy as the others I make. In a free society with no bosses and direct ownership of the means of production, those items are mine and the result of my freely given and freely determined work. I do this because I want to and because I like to. Not because I need an income.

So you are taught that your wage represents your hard work: you have earned your pay for today, good citizen. Consequently you are free to do with it as you wish - though that likely translates into purchasing the items you have made, at an inflated rate (because...profit), since you are conditioned to aspire to, or need to, own those things. Is this freedom?

Compare that to the lot of the scrounger who, in spending his money, is subject to all sorts of influences: he shouldn't spend that money on X or Y. We don't give him money to fritter away. If you want the nice things, you should get a job. That doesn't even make sense: surely it is better for benefit money to be spent than not spent. What does it matter how as long as it returns to the economy. If no one brought anything our wonderful system would collapse. Society can generate a profit, but that cannot be used to help others. Where does it go? Well it's needed to grow the economy? What does that mean? Nothing, it's a vicious cycle. But you just better keep earning because that is a good thing, of course. Why would you question that when you've worked hard for it? You've earned it - and the harder you work, the more onerous the effort or intense the labour, the more you've earned it - as if earnings can be measured in degrees of pressure.

They can't obviously, but this notion exists to reinforce a hierarchy. This structure is perfectly represented by the yearly spectacle of capitalist media we call the Apprentice. Here a gaggle of gullible capitalist wannabes demonstrate their talent and reliability by abandoning the businesses they've apparently established to fight each other in an unrealistic colosseum of enterprise in the form of reality TV. The odds of any of them winning outweigh the risk taken in throwing their business down the toilet in order to build another business in partnership with an angry billionaire funded by the poorest in society via the license fee.

...and breathe!

So there you have it: a users guide, or at least, a long winded introduction into the social conditioning employed by capitalism. It occurs to me that, in explaining it thus, I might appear somewhat conspiratorial. That's not entirely true: it isn't really helpful to look at it as if this were the conscious actions of an elite cabal out to manipulate the world beyond. Instead it is merely cultural; these are norms that have become, well, the norm, over the time capitalism has bedded itself into society. Again, it is vital to understand that we are complicit in this system because we have no choice; most cannot live beyond it if only because capitalist education systems don't teach that knowledge and the notion of division of labour doesn't provide the means (how would you farm in a tower block for instance?).

This propaganda exists to maintain a social fabric through endlessly iterating and reinforcing norms and values. The revolutionary's job is to question these norms and values. Most people seem to respond believing capitalism to be a natural thing or that it reflects human nature. The truth is otherwise.

Good day.

BLM Meets the Quiet Man?

Black Lives Matter is a movement I agree with, as I suspect (and hope) all anarchists do. Who can deny the existence of racist structures in the American (and not just American) state?

Colin Kaepernick is an American Football player who's standing up to the racist US establishment and its imperialist hegemony by refusing to participate in the anachronism that is the national anthem

So it's kinda weird to see this:

The only 'Ian Smith' that I know of who said such a thing is our beloved former Welfare Overlord, Iain "The Fridge" Duncan Smith (he's certainly cold as ice).

Now, look, this isn't a criticism. I've got all the respect in the world for BLM and it's supporters, including Colin. It just made me chuckle.

Or maybe the Ian Smith's of the world are on the march, nmaybe they could adopt a catchy acronym: IS...?

No, that will never catch on.

Here's a poem someone else wrote. I found it while trying to find IDS' toe curling quiet man speech.

 I couldn't find that speech, perhaps it's for the best. Not even a wet grey Monday morning can persuade me to trawl the depths of youtube and listen to more of that awkward hateful zealot's performances.

The Peacock Festival

The internet is in so many ways a wonderful resource. Social media likewise offers a truly democratic (advertising notwithstanding) platform for people to be heard. But neither are perfect nor are they free from all the shit humans carry with them. In particular the internet seems to foster some traits that are denied by simple real time human interaction, where honesty is a must. Online, people are quick to judge and slow to change, they are also deeply uncharitable refusing to extend the benefit of the doubt in conversation. It is also deeply reactionary. It's a peacock festival, a competition not a conversation.

Last night I got into an online argument with a guy who, like so many, believe they are living in an age where the average male is being oppressed. These are people that use terms like 'social justice warrior' seriously, even though the only purpose behind such pejorative is to stifle the discourse. I am not a 'social justice warrior' - nothing so patronising - I am someone who cares about equality and is aware (or at least trying to become aware) of the relations between groups and their hierarchy within our society.

The bone of contention was the notion that men don't have the freedom or opportunity in society to air their problems and discuss 'men's rights' issues. The reason for this isn't the prevalence of toxic masculine values in our culture (what feminists call patriarchy), it's because the feminists (as if they are a singular, monolithic, hive mind) are stifling every attempt to do so. I simply don't buy this. Certainly there are protests of events where 'men's rights activists' have attempted to hold meetings, inviting individuals with a record of hate speech to attend, under the guise of free speech.

Now look, I'm all for people being able to discuss issues and certainly there are issues that affect genders - largely because of those self same values I mentioned. Male suicide rates can be, if somewhat simplistically, attributed to feelings of failure in not having lived up to one's perceived potential as a male. But these are also issues that feminists care about - even the more strident ones. However feminism is a broad church and, like any movement, has outliers and fringe thinkers. So what? They are not shutting down every avenue that men have to speak - they are protesting occasions where dodgy speakers have been invited to lecture at, for example, a university. That's not a free speech issue either; these people have plenty of opportunities to speak and walking into a university lecture hall isn't one of them.

That said, I endeavoured to find out more about what was happening by asking a reddit forum entitled 'askfeminists', a place I'd been to before with some success. I woke up this morning to find that my question had been deleted, and that I was banned with no explanation. An attempt to find out what the reason for this was, and to allay any suspicion that I might be a misogynist troll, was met with a warning not to contact the moderators again within 72 hours. No explanation, no effort made to interact, no charity offered, just the obvious assumption (presumably) that I am trolling.

And so one avenue of inquiry is permanently closed.

This is also not the only instance of this. I have made similar inquiries of anarchists, in particular in trying to learn about Trotsky on an anarchist forum. I was accused of being a 'trot', though given I don't understand his politics, let alone why they are bad, how can I be? No one would answer because, again, no explanation, no effort, no interaction, and no charity.

This fucking annoys me. I find this intensely frustrating. How can this attitude be anything other than utterly self defeating. Both feminism and anarchism are perceived negatively in the mainstream media: the popular view of the strident harridan feminist or the black bloc student throwing bricks at coppers are the stereotypes de jeur. How on earth are people to change perceptions if, when asked, representatives of these communities not only refuse to engage, but actively disregard those making inquiries as troublemakers?

I don't live in a cosmopolitan area. I live in Toryshire. I live in the sticks in a sea of electoral blue. There's nothing radical or progressive happening here for fuck's sake. Who can I appeal to offline to learn more about these long standing traditions, the ideologies behind them, and the particulars of instances such as I have mentioned. If I can't access the facts then how can I defend against those who criticise these positions that I hold with such tentative knowledge.

Look, I'm anarchist not because I have a long proud history of involvement in direct action and class war, but because I believe that people should be freed from oppressive authorities and hierarchical structures (such as capitalism). They should be able to freely associate on a horizontal not vertical basis, working to render the state obsolete through grassroots activism responding to issues and problems.

And I'm a feminist not because I'm female nor because I held hands on cold grey weekends around Greenham common, but because I recognise that women are not fully equal partners in society. I understand that patriarchal culture, such as we have, is harmful to both women AND men, and that by destroying it and promoting true equality, we all benefit, regardless of gender or sex.

These aren't controversial opinions to me; in fact they are the only hope for our society.

So when I ask you, as advocates with expertise and knowledge, to share that knowledge, please don't fucking shut me out!

Mental Health

What is fear?


It is the distance between where you are and where you want to be.


It is measured in units of aspiration and regulated by conformity. To do what must be done is to invite fear. To resist what is expected is to invite fear.


It is the voice you hear when no one speaks.


It is what you do when you can't do.


Mental health is a shadow that obscures the reality of your experience when your experience falls short of what is expected. When you try to show the world that something is wrong, but there is nothing you can show them because your problems are invisible and can't be measured in broken bones.


This is the one aspect that separates mental from physical difficulty. Even though physical problems can be just as debilitating, perhaps even more so. Even though society can be just as judgemental toward those with such issues, these problems can be seen. As such they can be understood. A person with a broken bone can wear a smile and earn sympathy, a person with a broken mind can wear a smile and nobody will see how hollow it is. In fact in the eyes of others that smile will betray the depth of what they are feeling.


Not drowning but waving. Nobody sees the problem for what it really is. Nobody wants them to. .

The Measure of a Life

In truth, there is no future.

I should have lived a life markedly different and better than how things worked out, and I feel judged everywhere I turn. I feel as if I have to apologise for that life. For not conforming to the standards imposed by our culture.

I feel as if I have to apologise in advance because this post will seem indulgent and self pitying. I can't (and won't) help that; it's another cultural judgement.

This is not the life I would have chosen. It was not how I wanted things to be. I had dreams, but I didn't have the strength to realise them. That's my failing. Dreams are permitted only where and when they can be realised. Anything else is just shirking. That's the message.

I could tell you about the art teacher who didn't give a damn about the students when I was interested in art. I could mention the music courses that shut down while I was applying for them while leaving me with no clue as to what to do, or the education establishments that didn't care about offering any support in that context. I didn't even know what UCAS was while everyone else I knew at college was applying for university. I only went to college because the sixth form at my school weren't remotely interested - and I only applied for that because that was what you did. I had no idea how to live my life or how to do what I wanted. I was interested in things, but with no guidance I was adrift.

And that's how it's been ever since. Now here I am with nothing to show for it, except this self indulgent crap I doubt anyone will give a damn about. I never conformed and I paid the price for it.

Today I met someone in the street who has moved in to a nearby house; someone that moved away years ago and made a life for himself whom I knew as a child. Now he has a wife, kid, career and a nice home. Now I have to walk past it every day if I want to get around. Just one person in my neighbourhood I know will be judging me. That's what people do. I don't even walk out my front door these days, I don't need or aspire to the opinions of neighbours who, if they see me, will be thinking, hey, he's a joke. That's how we are socialised; it's the values of the Tory party as expressed in comments about inappropriately closed curtains.

We hide our lives behind appearances. When asked about our well being in the street honesty isn't required, just a polite acquiescence to the positive. But what can I say afterwards? Sure "I'm fine", but I'm not fine and I have nothing more to say - and if I say nothing then I'm rude and standoffish. I'm neither of those things, at least not internally. I care about people, but I care more about how they view me and so I'd rather not talk because talking reveals the paucity of my life and invites judgement. I'm not married, I won't be buying a home, and I doubt I'll ever have kids.

What are my options for changing this above and beyond the magical thinking that people indulge in when discussing the failings of another's life. Just pull yourself up by the bootstraps, or indulge in some cosmic ordering and wish it all into being. If wishes had currency, things would most assuredly be very different.

But they aren't. I have never felt comfortable in this society, or even in my own skin. That isn't a cry for attention, though it will be seen as such (as will that), it's a statement of fact. I didn't aspire to be created and I certainly didn't choose this fucked up society. But even expressing that invites more conformity: if you want to change things, get a job and vote. What good will that do? Plenty of people vote and nothing changes. Nor will it. First past the post Westminster style democracy is a pit of snakes and demagogues with no interest in actual change. No vote for a British politician ever amounted to a damn, and what compels these liars to even listen? We even make light of it, acknowledging that we understand our complicity in this charade, yet instead of accepting responsibility for this and addressing it, we blame the less fortunate or those we perceive to be lazy.

I don't see a future at all. I have a CV that's slightly less convincing than a blank sheet of paper. I have to compete in the labour market, both concepts I abhor, with that CV against people who have achieved more. My inevitable failure will enable society to dismiss my efforts and traduce everything I aspire to. I can't cope with the conventional work structures, but that will be seen as another excuse. The problem is that this isn't a two way street. They talk, I have to listen; that's the balance of power between state and citizen in this country. The DWP aren't likely to help me, even if they wanted to. Instead the government will hand money to private companies to waste on schemes intended to help, but never do, rather than actually give that directly to people to help them achieve something themselves.

In the end even that would be a sop. It's no substitute for a real society where people can take responsibility for their lives. When affored that opportunity they really can blossom, but our system stultifies genuine inner aspiration and replaces it with greed and ambition. A system where one must start out at 'the bottom' in order to reach 'the top', whatever that may mean. One must endure working through shit, in terms of pay and conditions, becasue that's character building. But I don't need to build my character, I need the means to live my life. I do not consent to be exploited and I don't need to be judged for not conforming to that exploitation.

There are no systems that can help. Mental health isn't interested in actual wellness, it is interested, at best, in simplistic triage. That why I'm continuously referred to a simple CBT service that will be over in a few weeks. A service that cannot address the root causes of the alienation I feel and that, like the rest of the medical service, seeks only to engage in victim blaming while using vapid excuses such as "other people manage" to mask it. This term has been put to me more times than I can count, yet it lacks any explanatory power and nothing to back it up is ever preferred, despite the asking. How do they manage? Who are they? What are they doing? Are their circumstances even remotely similar?

I had nothing to say to the person in the street and now I feel even more alienated. This isn't a personal attack. I do not begrudge him his life or his success at living it. I just don't want to be judged. I would rather he wasn't in the neighbourhood. Unfortunately there's nothing I can do about that except die inside a little more.

Two Months In Politics Is A Long Time!

I've allowed this to slide for too long, but I had to say something on the recent watershed in British politics. What a joke!

At first the news seemed to imply that remain had won the referendum, then the news revealed the reality. A shocking outcome, certainly, but when you think is it really that surprising? We've been subject to years of political arrogance that has disenfranchised the working class. This has coincided with the latest wave of migration, particularly from the continent. The Labour government, though certainly not alone in this, did precisely fuck all to help communities on both sides integrate and arrogantly assumed that people would tolerate the situation. It is here that the rampant and vicious xenophobia of the exit campaign took root.

But it is erroneous to assume that the working class are intrinsically and comprehensively racist. This was a shout of rage from still-deprived, and increasingly so, communities who want change. It was inchoate, possibly even inarticulate, and, quite possibly, in some small quarters even racist. But the message is clear: we are fed up with YOU: the people that take our power and act against our interests while claiming to do the opposite. People that claim they know best while communities crumble through deprivation. People want an easy scapegoat and that was provided by migrants, but they are a symptom and not the cause.

People were right to reject the EU. It is a vastly undemocratic institution - at its core. It is run by an economic elite comprised mainly of white men. It is unrepresentative and almost unaccountable. Unfortunately to reject it entirely is simplistic, because there are benefits that come from being within it; free movement of people for example. I believe in open borders, but I also believe that people should run their communities, not states or governments. The EU cannot really provide open borders because it is an institution built out of nation states and nationalist structures. Open borders means nothing if you can't get a passport or can't afford to travel anyway. These are still elitist propositions.

It is a fortress that, in recent years, has allowed refugees fleeing war in the middle east (largely fuelled by western imperialism) to drown rather than be helped. As such it is itself racist, never mind the thuggish rhetoric of those campaigning to leave; there is racism on both sides.It is a capitalist institution that seeks trade deals which oppress the working class: TTIP, for example. Fundamentally it is a structure whose existence cannot be justified and is not necessary. All the advantages it offers (such as movement across Europe) are temporal; they can be revoked just as easily as they can be offered. It is a sop offered for the benefit of capital, nothing more. Movement of people exists because it is economically beneficial to capital. That is all. Should that change, so would the policy.

People might argue that the EU protects human rights. But that merely shows the paucity of our own laws. If people have to appeal to the EU courts to get justice then something has already gone drastically wrong. Why is this not being addressed? What guarantee is there that the EU will be any more just than local courts? Does it address the fundamental problem of justice under capitalism: that justice exists only for those that can afford it?

 This was a shout that toppled a leader that had only been in power for a year. It seems like a small victory given the hawk that now sits in number 10, but don't forget, Cameron didn't comprehensively win in 2010. He had to appeal to the traitor Clegg to be his kingmaker. When that ended he won the first election for his party in decades - only to foolishly offer a referendum intended to appease the swivel eyed eurosceptics within the Tory party. That cost him his head and his legacy. A result that won't put food on the table for those still suffering the injustice of austerity (a policy supported by the EU, I might add), but a result nonetheless.

It's also a result sneered at by the liberal media. The soporific snobbery of Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones has been insufferable; they cannot understand why we would want to leave. Yes, that's the problem! You lot sipping Pimms in Islington don't understand!

And speaking of the odious Toynbee she's been a cheerleader for the leadership challenge initiate in the wake of Brexit against Jeremy Corbyn. This is an extraordinary state of affairs that has culminated in Labour spending the income from members to exclude those members from having a say in who leads the party - while landing those who resisted that effort with a whopping tens-of-thousnds-of-pounds legal bill. Is this the party against or for austerity?

It is a futile and brazen affair: Corbyn, like him or loathe him, was elected legally according to the rules accepted by all concerned. He's not even been the leader for a year and the knives couldn't have come out quicker. No sooner had remain lost the referendum, Corbyn was scapegoated. We have the likes of Margaret Hodge arrogantly blaming him while ignorant of the fact her constituency voted to leave. But they don't care about that, they have sought this opportunity from day one. Consequently this situation will not be resolved when the hapless and desperately unpopular Owen Smith (coming out from behind Angela Eagle and stabbing her in the back, while arguing that Labour is egalitarian) inevitably loses. Another crisis, another challenge, and so on until 2020. Corbyn will end up being ousted by the death of a thousand cuts. This to me is a dismal inevitability. They do not like him, they do not like his views, they do not care how hypercritical they are as long as the Blairte scum once again get power. They will do whatever it takes, with increasing desperation, until Corbyn is bled dry.

This then is the immediate future. People need to forget Corbyn. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a nice guy, but he is stuck within a system that will destroy him. He refuses to fight against that system while running a capitalist party. Labour is exactly that and that is why they want him gone, because they want that capitalist element to reassert itself. Owen Smith is just another corporate lackey, just another voice for a slightly less red blooded version of capitalism. He won't offer change, and he can't deliver it. He hasn't a prayer of winning this election, no matter how desperate the tactics of the anti-Corbyn contingent. But the reality is that Corbyn and the ballot box will not give us the change we need. That can only come from the grassroots. We must reject the system and replace it through direct action, making it and its representatives irrelevant, as they surely are.

Ghost Whistler vs the Internet

Over many years I've been online and one thing I've noticed; the internet is an awful place for conversation.

Don't get me wrong, I think as a source of information and even opinion it's superb. There are many positive aspects to this technology, which is good since nothing I do or say will get rid of it! Not that I want to.

The problem is message forums. I don't know what it is but I have managed to cross almost every single forum I have been on. Not deliberately, you understand; but the nature of the medium makes it impossible to discern honest intention and to differentiate between that and dishonesty.

But by far the worst aspect are the cliques that form. Even on places that profess to be more open minded, or to oppose accepted norms and values, such as capitalism. These forums will still be governed by prevailing attitudes determined by a clique who will refuse to extend the slightest charity when interacting with someone new or someone different.

There is also a curious phenomenon wherein those who are subsequently marginalised will be unable to respond in any way to defend their position. If they try this will be taken as evidence they are lying, because well he would say that, wouldn't he!

I don't think we see this in real life. Talk to someone for real and you have to acknowledge their presence in all aspects. They might be in your face. At the vbery least they will be right there talking to dyou, and that demands respect. It's a lot harder to bullshit to someone's face, than through a series of pixels. Tell someone to their face they are a liar and see what happens.

The internet has sanitised that vital aspect of communication and thus made it easier for people on forums to create vapid echo chambers wherein dissenting opinions, regarldess of evidence, can be silenced. It has become easier to dismiss someone who may simply have misspoken, or someone like me who finds communication difficult.

I can write text, I can put words together (you may disagree of course), but the problem individuals like myself have is that we have to dwecode our own thoughts. There is a cypher, created by cogonitive (dys)function, that takes what we intend to say and translates it, through the very same language, into something we may not. The problem with that is that we don't know this is happening. When input into forum converation there are no allowances made for this and attempts to explain are ignored. Again this is because people do not extend charity or courtesy online as they must in person because real human presence demands this.

Finally the last corrupting facotr is the prevailing cultural values that seem to find a home online. Currently there seems to be a backlash against progressive values and understanding. Advocates of these values are deemed regressive and examples of fringe or outlier behaviour are proferred as justification for intolerance. These people make no sense to me. What is wrong with tolerance, compassions, respect or courtesy? Why is the assumption that, when someone seems to mispeak, it can't be because he might have a cognitive impariment or anomaly? Why is it that they are instead deemed ot have subscribed to a regressive ideology? What in fact is regressive abotu this other than to limit people's ability, if not desire, to behave like an asshole to others? Why is it assumed that such cognitive anomalies are instead just loony left excuses for laziness?

I can't deal with people that think like this. To me racism, misogyny, and other oppressive social structures must be challenged. Why would anyone want to adhere to them. The answer is simple: because they benefit, directly or indrectly, consciously or otherwise, from the privilege offered. Why else do people object to Black Lives Matter, or feminism, or...whatever? We all benefit from supporting these efforts to dismantle established hierarchies. Even those who think they don't.

Unfortunately the internet is full of people who climb inside to have their conditioning reinforced and their prejudices pandered to. We are all raised within a certain culture and that includes submitting to the propaganda we've heard all our lives, and thus normalising and rationalising those values. There's nothing difficult about that and it is nobodies fault for how they are raised. But there must come a time when we challenge these views. It is sad that efforts, including my own, to understand these structures and to learn about what they are have been marked by dealing with some of the most intolerable and repugnant people I've ever come across who are every bit as unpleasant as those they criticise.

How I Survived the Cameron Years...

That was the subtitle I chose for this collection of thought vomiting I laughably call a blog. It appears to now be complete, since the Cameron years are - almost - over. His arrogance has cost him his job as Britain's premier feudal overlord and, as I write, he has been replaced by Theresa May about whom the less said the better (condescendingly, she promised to be a champion of the poor but her voting record says otherwise).

So it seems that I have survived. These words are not coming through from the Other Side (tm) and are not the product of a seance. In fact I appear to have been returned - unlike Cameron - to the Work Related Activity Group. I received a letter on Thursday informing me of my victory over the forces of ESA darkness. At least I hope so otherwise I'm in for a nasty shock! :D

I have not recorded my experience at the interview since there really wasn't much to tell. Most of those reading will know what to expect; it was a routine affair (fortunately I suppose). My appointment was 20 minutes earlier than when I was seen, despite there being no one else present. The same receptionist was present as the last time, but, pleasantly, she was much less snarky than before. Perhaps we can attribute that to a change in management as these tests are carried out by Maximus and not ATOS. Though I imagine it's too much to assume they are significantly improved over their predecessors.

The interview process was pleasant enough: the interviewer could well have been from any medical (or not) background. I have no idea and didn't see any point asking. The questions were the usual psuedo-friendly mix of polite medical inquiry and subtle pressure - i.e., asking how I attended and who my companion was is all an attempt to elicit a kind of response. We all know this.

There are two fundamental truths I can point to by way of advice to anyone else undergoing this experience from my own:

1. Take someone with you. I had a friend who very kindly volunteered his time to attend and offer invaluable support. I can't express my gratitude enough for this, particularly as he was left to sit and observe. Not the most fun way to spend your time! I cannot offer hard data to support this, but I strongly suspect the presence of another really helps the case.
2. The moment you knock on the door the test starts. From that point everything, including how you enter the building, ascend the floors to the waiting room, how and whom you speak to, is part of the test. It's not Bladerunner's Voigt-Kampf test, but it's close. In fact, and again without hard evidence, I suspect that being kept waiting for 20 minutes is also part of the test. There was no real reason for it, they have plenty of assessors - in fact the whole top floor of the DWP building is given over to this process. Everything is there to test you, no matter how pleasant it may appear.

So this is a happy way to end the Cameron years, for now at least. I am supposed to now be available for Work Focussed Interviews. I've technically already had one, back in June, when I spoke to the adviser on the phone. At that point I was ready to throw in the towel. He was supposed to get back to me but didn't, now I suspect he will.

But the problems still remain: this is still a horrific situation and any victory, and associated happy feelings, must be tempered. There are also plenty of people with far more serious conditions experiencing far worse than I. This system is ridiculous: I mentioned that the entirety of the top of the DWP building is devoted to the medical testing. That itself is absurdity: why are these tests not done by one's own GP or even through the NHS? Why is this bureaucracy necessary? Why is money spent on hiring a private insurance company to administer a test we all know to be, at best, arbitrary, at worst discriminatory? These questions betray the reality: that the poor and sick are to be treated with utmost suspicion if their value as production drones is ever called in to question.

That is the worth of a man, and, to end on a considerably more downbeat note (the struggle is far from over): this isn't really a victory. I don't want to be in this situation. I don't want to be dependent on the capriciousness of capitalism and the whims of its neo feudal aristocratic overlords. I remain at their suffrance and what they deign to giveth can justeth as easily be snatched back.

Still Going

I started this blog thinking I could do something useful, provide some decent citizen journalism, or at the very least offer something credible for, at the risk of stroking my own ego, posterity. But in truth I have found it very difficult to keep up with my own standards. This is true of all the writing I engage in. It isn't that I don't enjoy it, or that I don't know how (YMMV), but that I just struggle to maintain the concentration. This is part of the problem, mental health-wise, that I have tried to address in recent years; all to no avail. Unfortunately it is simply perceived as an excuse by our society. In response to that, I offer none. I am what I am, and if that means I'm lazy then lazy I must be.

I was due to have a WCA on the 7th; instead I rang and said I couldn't go through with it and that they could pursue whatever consequences they saw fit. Curiously they offered me the opportunity to postpone the interview, which I did, though I'm not sure why. Apparently claimants have the right to a one-time 'no questions asked' postponement.

Today I received the new appointment, which is Monday the 27th at 9-40am. I can't say I'm looking forward to it. I don't really want to be sat in the waiting room, which I will be because one of their tactics is to deliberately keep 'customers' waiting. It's part of the assessment process. I don't want to be surrounded by strangers, and I don't want to the attention of staff like the receptionist who was present last time. Her attitude was thoroughly unpleasant and judgemental, with that permanent "I'm better than thou and I can barely tolerate your presence" attitude.

I also don't think I have a cat in hell's chance of passing a Work Capability Assessment. Amusingly I compare my chance to pass to my certainty that I will most assuredly struggle in a working environment. I believe that I need support, but support there is not.

I was supposed to have a Work Focussed (aren't they all?) Interview at the JC last Thursday. I didn't attend and again rang up saying that I wasn't going to attend and that whatever consequences were forthcoming I would accept. I've no wish to fight these people any more, I haven't the energy. I was offered a telephone appointment instead, which I took. It didn't go anywhere though. The guy was friendly enough and his attitude was sympathetic, to be fair, but what can he offer? What can he do? The system isn't designed to help or support people. He mentioned that I should write to my MP. But why; the guy is a Tory who voted to cut ESA by 30%. He wants me to court the attention of someone like that? Irony! That aside, all he could offer was to talk to colleagues in the Work Choices programme and that we would talk in a month. I did tell him that I had no chance of passing my WCA, so there's not much point. I guess we will find out, I saw no point in refusing to talk again.

Work Choices is another DWP programme, which immediately makes it suspect in my book, even though I don't' know it very well. It specifically targets people out of work for health reasons, but I can't see what it can offer. Ultimately it's going to be the same old same old, maybe with a slightly softer approach so as not to be seen as bullying the disabled. Not that bullying has ever been something the DWP has had a problem with. Who knows maybe they will have something unique to offer, but in terms of healthcare, mental health support, training, etc, none of it will meet the need. A little bit of 'confidence building', some box ticking, polishing up the old CV etc. Meaningless: no amount of polish will make my CV competitive, I haven't the experience, and, with a history of unemployment on grounds of mental health, there is precisely no chance of finding a job, never mind a decent one. That assumes I can tolerate the nightmare anxiety labyrinth that is Universal Jobmatch.

What future is there?

PS: I notice that comments are apparently being made, but they aren't showing up on this page, only the email notification. If I don't respond to anyone kind enough to comment, know that's the reason why.

Looking For A Job

I've no idea how I'm going to handle full time work, but as there is no way short of a miracle that I will pass another WCA, I have little choice. I'm not even sure of the point of attending and, given that I don't have three forms of ID (as required), I doubt I'll even get in the building. The receptionist at the place is a stone faced haridan who has a habit of deliberately making people wait - all part of the test no doubt.

Consequently - and for a long time now - I have been searching on the still-appalling Universal Jobmatch website. This site is so broken and so poorly designed as to be completely useless. In fact it's beyond useless to the point of actually being counter productive.

Nothing is stored correctly, adverts are mislabelled and misrepresented, out of date and in some cases, don't even provide the means to actually progress forward. I would have used the word apply, but since clicking the link takes you further down the rabbit hole of online recruitment website links, one after another, it would be erroneous to do so.

The overwhelming majority of adverts pertain to telesales in one form or another, often mislabelled as 'customer service' or even 'sales assistant'. So jobs that should be retail, which is the most likely gig I'm going to get, are never actually shop work. All of these jobs require someone that is committed to being a profit hungry sales jockey. That is most assuredly not me and there is no way on god'd green earth I can fake it. Nor should I have to, it's absurd to expect a successful labour market to be built on such mendacity.

One of the worst features of this site is that, instead of moving through the adverts as you click next page, it reshuffles the existing adverts. Consequently you just end up looking at the same adverts repeatedly. Given that most of them are the same kind of job, all mislabelled, it's like a terrible hall of mirrors where nothing is real. Since none of these agencies ever bother to respond to emails the whole thing, really, is a massive waste of time.

Of course the government won't give up this system any time soon. The contract may be up for renewal soon, but the site requires more than a change in ownership, it needs scrapping and a complete overhaul. It is utterly broken at the most fundamental level and functionally useless.

This just leaves dealing with jobs advertised in real space. Unfortunately this is no better. I saw that WHSmiths (do they still exist?) wanted part time staff (everything is part time). But the application requirements called for a five year checkable work history - for a job selling magazines and Top Gear dvd's! Hardly Fort Knox! Waterstones too had a couple of adverts; you might think they'd be a good place to work, but no. The first was for a 'bookseller barista'. Their shop now, inexplicably (though probably due to the exorbitant price of books these days), has a cafe and as such they need someone to man the espresso machine while on hand multitasking flogging paperbacks. Unfortunately, the barista required someone with coffee shop experience. Such is the nature of the job that it requires an exotic moniker to make it sound more exciting than the reality of making tea and serving it to yuppies at silly prices.

Annoyingly they also listed a vacancy that turned out instead to be a CV gathering exercise. I asked about the position (my CV is useless and I don't carry a copy around with me since there's no point). But they said that not only did they not actually have any vacancies at present, but they had lots of CV's on file anyway. What is the fucking point of that? Why even bother? I complained on social media, which of course is the equivalent of pissing into the wind. What can you do? Had I made a fuss in the shop it would have had the opposite effect.

The reality is that jobs like this, shops and business in the city, will get their staff from the local student population. I've no doubt they have similar adverts regularly placed in student unions and that loads of kids, who make ideal part time staff (the least likely to complain about shit terms and conditions as well), will give their CV's in. You can see this in the make up of the staff in these places. Someone like me doesn't stand a chance.

Top Down Reform of the NHS In Action

No top down reform, that's what the liars in the Tory party said before the collective herd of ignorant ill informed morons that voted for them managed to enable a coalition. 

Five years later, and a change in the face at the Department of Health, and it's another set of treacherous promises, all designed to obfuscate the truth. This time it's all about a seven day NHS. This against a backdrop of, amongst many things, increased difficulty getting a routine GP appointment.

So the privatisation of the NHS is going well.

I've just been to my local surgery, in person, to try and book an appointment. Ordinarily this is difficult enough, thanks to the Coalition's decision to turn PCT's into private enterprises and give a bunch of local autocrats the power to do as they please. My surgery has, apparently for a month now, only been open in the morning. Staffing issues is the reason, despite their being enough staff every time I have visited prior. We have always had a surgery here, for as long as I can remember.

The real reason for this, I suspect, is that the programme manager, along with a number of the senior doctors, are more interested in their private business, 'Work Doctors'. They are supposed to be working for the NHS, for the community, as is the local surgery. However ever since our local surgery lost it's two long standing doctors to retirement, they have struggled. Merging with a neighbouring practice, against a backdrop of Coalition changes, has created a piss poor provision run by these people. Appointments with my GP are impossible at the best of times with waiting times running into hours. Now it is impossible to be seen here except in the mornings. What makes this worse is that I have to compete (yay capitalism!) with those patients from the neighbouring cohorts who also want to be seen. 

This is disgusting. This morning I received notification that I have a Work Capability Assessment on the 7th of June. This is not something I have been looking forward to. My attempts to get a diagnosis for any of the issues that I face have comprehensively failed. My last appointment with the aforementioned GP got nowhere, as usual. In fact, the evidence I presented to support my case for a successful Aspergers diagnosis, have disappeared into an administrative black hole (ie, they lost the paperwork I gave them, which will not be easily replaced in a hurry). It's a farce at this point and it's long since past the point where I feel they stopped taking me seriously. 

My attempts to address the metabolic problem - whatever the fuck it is - that has plagued me for over a decade have similarity met with no success. All of these are, IMO, valid issues to raise at a WCA, but without supporting evidence (never mind an actual diagnosis of some kind), there is little point in me attending. Not only that but to even be allowed to proceed with the assessment three forms of ID are required in lieu of a passport (i don't own one, nor am I legally olibagated to). I don't think I have anything beyond a tatty (at this point) birth certificate and a bank statement - and I sure as shit don't want them having access to what's on there. You can't trust these filth with anything.

So there it is. That's the state of support for people like me. As ever I stress there are plenty of people far worse off than I, though I shouldn't need to mention that since I am not against the divide and rule tactics that the ruling elite employ. Everyone who needs support should get support. At the moment there is nothing. In fact even the appalling Universal Jobmatch has proved to be not just a haven for shitty/funny adverts, but is so dysfunctional as to be completely useless. 

There is, quite simply, no future.

From the Office Of... 2

(This too precedes the resignation of a certain appalling senior Tory...)

So I received a letter in respect of my email to the local Tory overlord regarding the plan, now implemented it seems, to cut ESA for those in the WRAG by 30%. This cut reduces ESA to the same amount as JSA. The reasoning of course is pernicious: despite these people establishing their case as being unfit for work they are still regarded as being capable of work. I have spoken about this before; the WRAG is just spin because the government still regards these people as being fit for work and capable of 'work related activity', despite being medically found otherwise. Really there should be no need for an WRAG, but the distinction is made because the government feels these are people that can be cured somehow. Even then it goes on, as I say, to disregard their problems.

This time, the response was more than an email. I got a letter with a six page attachment from the Employment Minister - the awful tobacco lobbyist Priti Patel (it really is!). Before I dissect what she says, I will address what the my MP had to say, which, unsurprisingly, isn't very much.

Essentially he makes two points, both of which are bullshit, indicative of the huge disconnect between the Tories and not just the rest of society, but the systems they assume control of.

Firstly he shares the above assumption that ESA WRAG claimants:

"are (by definition) able and expected to look for work."

He hopes I will agree. I do not. These are people that have passed a test, a notoriously onerous and prejudiced test, establishing they have difficulties regarding being able to work. All you are doing is dismissing the problems these people have; this is pure cynicism. This is how you whitewash disability in a capitalist market and this is how you empower divide and rule.

People in the WRAG are not able. They are meant to be placed in this group if their problems are known to be curable (which begs a whole series of other questions). Even the acronym is pernicious: Work Related Activity Group.

The second point made by the local fuhrer asks:

"It's also worth noting that, even though the Lords were happy to vote against their change, they have been strangely silent on how they'd pay for the enormous increase in spending which it would require."

The last part begs the question, but that aside we all know that this can easily be paid for. This doesn't even warrant discussion; the Tories have borrowed beyond even the last government. They've repeatedly peddled austerity and yet cut taxes for those that can afford them and who already receive massive subsidies and benefits. Yes, we can afford this; we have to because these are people that need to be supported if we are to even pretend to be a civilised society.

So there are two (two seems to be the numerical them thus far) conclusions I draw:

1. Support is cut from those who need it most by those with no right to do so. Then, it is argued, that said support cannot be afforded. Given the decision is arbitrary and made without evidence it is akin to burning someone's home and then arguing that repair or replacement cannot be afforded.

2. The WRAG should enable those with 'curable' conditions to receive adequate support, free from constraint or unreasonable demand, such as expectations of recovery made without due care. Instead the conditions experienced by those within are used as weapons against them.

As I mentioned, his response included a six page load of Tory hogwash from the Minister of Employment (it really does). To be honest, most of what she says you've already heard since my MP ultimately agrees with it and summarises it. But there are some parts worthy of note:

The system should not support lifestyles or rents not available to the taxpayers who pay for that system.

Well isn't that handy; eviscerate people's wages and then complain about all those scroungers living it up with their plasma screens and their brand name shoes. Or, consider that the Tories vote for inexplicable and unjustifiable pay rises themselves and apply the same standard...

I believe that it is only fair that those whoa re capable of taking steps to prepare for work receive the same rate of income-replacement benefits as out of work claimants.

Huh? I personally don't care what YOU believe. You were not put into power to materialise your beliefs (though that's just being naive, since that's precisely how representative parliamentary democracy works and why I no longer support it). Not the phrase 'prepare for work'; a nebulous phrase that the reader is encouraged to view as synonymous with looking for work. But it's not the same thing at all and, fundamentally, I do not see any justification of the proposition. Why should such people - again, these are people that are sick and cannot currently work - be arbitrarily financially deprived? Where is the evidence that cutting their income helps them?

I can also confirm that claimants in the ESA WRAG will not be required to carry out the same job seeking activities as a Job seekers Allowance claimant as a result of the is change. However, claimants in the WRAG will continue to be required to undertake work related activity. There is a great deal of flexibility in the types of work related activity that claimants may be asked to participate in and activities must be appropriate and reasonable for each individual claimant taking into account their circumstances.

Unfortunately we know this is bullshit; at best ESA claimants will be required to do exactly the same as JSA. Not least of all because the JC+ and it's allies have not the first clue how to provide a more nuanced and suitable service. Anyone who complains or fails to meet the burden they are set will of course be sanctioned. This is just rhetoric.

It is time to think about how we can improve the way people are assessed for sickness benefits that is less 'binary' and more positive in looking at what people can do and the support they will need to do it.

Sounds wonderful. Sadly that ideal is far from where we are right now. When I was on the Work Programme what I was interested in was completely ignored and mention of mental health immediately dismissed by someone with no idea what he was talking about whatsoever.

Your constituents (sic) particularly mention the difficulties people with mental health conditions face with entering employment (sic). We know that 47 per cent of all ESA claimants have a mental health condition as their primary barrier to work. Being out of, or away from, work can not only sustain the symptoms of a mental health condition but also reinforce negative views about capability and future prospects.

This is capitalist thinking at its most sinister and most ignorant. The reality is that it is not being away from work that is the problem since that begs the question, what is meant when we talk about work. It is being away from community, society and the ability to flourish as fulfilled human beings. Work - of the correct kind - can be part of this. So what is work? It is that which fulfils us and improves society, either adding to knowledge, culture or understanding. But there are further questions about the nature of that work: do people need to be driven away from family and community in economic cages like battery chickens merely to produce profit, keeping nothing they create so as to enrich another? I do not agree.

Mental health is incredibly complex and poorly understood at best. Capitalism only exacerbates those environments that alienate us and so her spiel is idle rhetoric, and ultimately dangerous.

We also know that previous schemes did not do enough for disabled people including those with mental health issues. This is why the Work Programme focuses on giving some of the hardest to help people two years of support as it can be a real struggle to get back into work.

And yet it has proven, as was inevitable, to be a dismal failure that has succeeded only in enriching private sector parasites and sub contractor agencies who are as ticks on the public purse. The Salvation Army, of whom I see no evidence they are in any way suited to this kind of endeavour (beyond a few choice bible verses), were not even the primary provider for me. They subcontracted from 'Rehab Jobfit'. They were the people I was assigned to and yet all they did was sell my contract to the Salvation Army.

Is that the kind of support the Tories mean?

From The Office Of...1

(I intended to write this before the resignation of Iain Duncan Sauron. That was not something I was expecting and I don't think for one moment it will make any difference to Tory plans. In fact it now frees Osborne to place his own pro-EU man into the post. Consequently this means nothing will really change - not that I believe IDS is the saint he thinks he is).

All you need to know about my MPis that he is a Tory and that he's also the one responsible for culling people from the electoral register. He claims that these are people that are inactive or don't exist any more. I don't trust a Tory and that's why I regularly contact him - usually through the many online petitions and campaign that groups like 38Degrees organise. Fortunately they make it easy enough to do. Even more fortunately, people like my MP respond. When they do so they always claim that 38Degrees are partisan and biased - though entertainingly this has to be done in a friendly way so as not to alienate the constituent. It's pretty transparent though.

His response to my questioning the government's handling of the NHS, particularly in the context of the capitalist maw threatening to swallow our economy known as TTIP, claims that the NHS will be exempt from such an agreement. 

He says:

On whether Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will endanger the NHS, I'm pleased to report that the European Commission has confirmed that TTIP specifically exempts public services like health, and won't require any EU country to open up their national health systems to private providers. A letter from the EU trade Commissioner, Celia Malstrom, to the former UK Trade Minister, Lord Livingston, confirming this is published here: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/july/tradoc_152665.pdf 

This document seems to agree:

To be clear, the effects of the EU's approach to public health services in trade agreements such as TTIP are that: 

• Member States do not have to open public health services to competition from private providers, nor do they have to outsource services to private providers

This of course assumes that the NHS will remain public. That's the elephant in the room: we all know the Tories are hell for leather intent on privatising as much as possible - and this now includes the wholesale academisation of the school system as announced in the budget. So while public services may be exempt, there's no guarantee those services will remain public. Furthermore the comment from Celia Malstrom says that member states can still choose to open up public health services. Given that it's highly likely the Tories will, even if the NHS remains public, they will still allow TTIP to screw with it.

He continues:

 In spite of all the political rhetoric about competition and privatisation, almost every GP practice in the country has been a private, profit-making company (or partnership) since the NHS was first created back in 1948. Of course (and rightly) no-one suggests they should be excluded from the NHS as a result; in fact GP practices are usually held to be one of the crown jewels in British healthcare.

He assumes I want GP practices to be private and profit making. I don't.

Finally:

So I'm happy to say the e-mail you've been asked to send me is basically wrong (and rather party political too, I'm afraid). And I fear it shows that 38 degrees' claims to be an apolitical organisation are pretty silly - from all the emails I've received so far, their briefings to their members are frequently one-sided, and overwhelmingly left-wing, even if they aren't officially affiliated with any specific political party. I suppose it just proves the old saying, that we can't believe everything we read in the papers - or, nowadays, on the internet either!

No, sir, it's not wrong. You've just put a spin on it that suits your party's agenda; thus it's pretty ironic to make accusations of bias. I've made no claims as to whether 38Degrees are non-partisan. In fact I don't want them to be; I want them to oppose your politics (and you are hardly non-partisan either) from a strong ideological centre, just like me - that's why I agree with them!

So yes, I'm non-partisan. I'm not interested in a facile notion of 'balance'. I want you, your party, and your politics, gone. Balance only exists in the feeble minds of media pundits who seem to think that discussions about important issues can be reduced to a 1v1 discussion, regardless of the strength of evidence on either side.