Wednesday 30 October 2013

None of the Above

Regular readers will be only too well aware that I've been writing about this TR omnishambles for what seems ages and although understandable because it is about our very future as a profession, it can get tiresome. Sometimes it's useful to try and put what we're going through in some kind of wider context.

I've been pondering this for some time and handily I see an article comes along that very neatly does the work for me. Writing in the Guardian yesterday, Seumas Milne has written a piece entitled 'The grip of privatisation on our vital services has to be broken'. It addresses pretty much all the stuff that's been going on recently from the electricity oligopoly to the raid on the Co-operative Bank. From privatising the Royal Mail, to re-privatising the East Coast rail line.

Often billed as 'the only way' of doing things, it's fascinating to read that in the rest of Europe things are changing and the Germans are in the process of taking electricity back into state control:-

Any doubts about who really controls Britain should have now been dispelled. Any thought that the financial crisis might have broken the neoliberal spell, rebalanced the economy or chastened the deregulators and privatisers can be safely dismissed. October has been the month when the monopolies, City hedge funds and foreign-owned cartels put the record straight. It's they who are calling the shots.


In the past week, a Swiss-based tax exile announced the closure of the Grangemouth petrochemicals plant, a crucial slice of industrial Scotland, after provoking a dispute with his workforce. Threatened with the loss of 800 jobs, they signed up for cuts in real pay and pensions.
Naturally, the employer claimed to be losing money (despite having made £1.7bn last year), while the media blamed the union. In fact it was a textbook lockout and display of corporate power by Britain's largest private company – a strategic and once publicly owned complex supplying 85% of Scotland's petrol, left to be run on the whim of a billionaire.
But that is mere bagatelle compared with the defiance of the energy privateers. Ever since Ed Miliband forced electricity and gas profiteering into political focus by pledging a price freeze, the monopolists have outdone themselves. Squealing that such interference threatened power cuts, one after another has taken the opportunity to jack up prices still further.
Four of the "big six" cartel, which controls 98% of electricity supply, have now increased prices by over 9% – blaming green levies and global costs – while wholesale prices have risen 1.7% in the past year and profit per "customer" has doubled.
Thousands of old people will certainly die this winter as a result of the corporate stitch-up that is called a regulated market – designed in large part by the same John Major who last week called for the introduction of a windfall tax on energy profits.

It should be obvious that powerful interests are driving what is by any objective measure a failed 30-year experiment – but which transfers income and wealth from workforce, public and state to the corporate sector. In the case of privatised utilities, that is the extraction of shareholder value on a vast scale from a captive public.
What's needed from utilities are security of supply, operation in the public interest, long-term planning and cost effectiveness without profiteering. The existing privatised utilities have failed on all counts.
The case for public ownership of basic utilities and services – including electricity, gas, water and communications infrastructure – is overwhelming. It's also supported by a large majority of the country's voters. But it's taboo in the political mainstream.

The answer is because it's a commercial relationship, not one of democratic accountability. There are any number of models of social ownership, including local and mutual, that could bring Britain's utilities back into the public realm. In energy, for example, it could start with a single firm or power generation alone.
However, the costs of privatisation have created a powerful counter-momentum in Europe (and even more so in Latin America) to bring services, resources and utilities back into the public sector: water in France, power in Germany, and transport in Britain (Newcastle is currently attempting to take back bus routes). In September, the people of Hamburg voted to bring back the power supply into municipal ownership. Berlin is set to follow suit this coming Sunday.
Privatisation is a failed and corrosive model. In Britain, it has combined with a determination to put up any asset up for sale to hollow out the country's industrial base to disastrous effect. If Britain is to have a sustained recovery, it needs a genuinely mixed economy. The political and corporate elite have run out of excuses.
There's a growing realisation ahead of the next General Election in May 2015 that there's going to be bugger all to choose from in terms of what the main political parties will be offering and what most people want. We have a severe democratic deficit. We know that opinion polls regularly favour retaining public services, yet all parties continue to press on with privatisation. Membership of all the main parties continues to fall, but at the same time the popularity of online campaign groups like 38 Degrees and Change.org continues to rise. 

The politicians have noticed of course and some feel that the real target of the Lobbying Bill currently wending its way through Parliament is such groups. The aim of the political elite seems to be to make sure such groups are neutered and prevented from campaigning during the year preceding a General Election. 

This is all very dangerous stuff for a democracy because it's quite likely turn-out will continue to fall as the disconnect between the governed and politicians becomes ever-greater. One concrete sign of brewing discontent, but that politicians have chosen to ignore, is the level of civil disobedience during the ridiculous charade to elect Police and Crime Commissioners last year. A staggering number of voters spoiled their ballot papers. This says loud and clear to me that people are not so much apathetic, as getting angry.

So in this context I was interested to come across the following article on the Guerilla Policy website, triggered by an interview on BBC 2's Newsnight programme with Russell Brand:- 

In this interview with Jeremy Paxman for BBC Newsnight, Russell Brand lit a political fire. Well, he didn’t so much light it as point to it and fan the flames. Borne of growing frustration with a woefully corrupted political and economic framework which serves only a minority of wealthy people and corporations, this fire is now raging. The None of the Above campaign has been gathering support to stand candidates at the next general election, to reject this system outright. Is Russell Brand to become the face of this movement?

None of the Above
This will be familiar to anyone who has watched the film Brewster’s Millions – the Richard Pryor comedy where Pryor’s character unwittingly becomes the figurehead of a political movement by standing in an election as ‘None of the Above’.
The campaign is designed to promote independent candidates who stand against the establishment. They may be women or men; young, old, or in between; of any racial, ethnic background; of any religion or none; they are the bricklayers, teachers, carers, parents, students or office workers that keep our world ticking over day and night. A ‘NOTA’ campaign is designed to give voters a chance to actively rather than passively (by abstaining) reject the status quo at the ballot box.
A Call to Arms
During his fateful interview with Paxman, Brand successfully gave voice to the millions who have had enough. The indebted students, the jobless young, the working families that cannot meet the rising cost of living, the elderly forced to choose to heat their homes or eat, the public sector workers whose jobs, pay and pensions have been cut, the private sector workers going through the same, the parents terrified at the nightmare future ahead of their children – of all of us who are not represented by our current political, economic and social systems.
Where is the democracy if you get to choose between the least worst option? Where is the democracy when there is no choice to vote for a single individual or party that stands for what you do? Well…?
And democracy is about more than the vote each four or five years. Where is the democracy in our workplaces? Where is the democracy in our schools? Where is the democracy in our health system? Where, in fact, is the democracy in any of the decisions which affect us on a daily basis? There isn’t any. Not only do we not do democracy well, but we barely do it at all. Don’t point at Iran and tell me to feel lucky. I don’t aspire to dictatorship, I aspire to democracy. To do it well and all the time. And so, in our hearts, don’t we all? Aren’t we all, if we really admit it, coming to the realisation that we are living in precarious times – and that all those in positions of power, and the locks on the doors to such power, are not there to serve us?
So, here is an opportunity. Russell Brand has become a megaphone for a national conversation that was already underway, but fervently ignored. The None of the Above campaign is not looking for a leader.  Like the Occupy Movement, it seeks to promote leadership in all of us.  It is more about fundamentally transforming the way we do democracy, than it is about a red, blue or yellow tie. But what Russell can do, if we get those 10,000 signatures and he accepts the challenge, is turn his expression of our anger into a tangible political result in 2015. He has the platform, if we have the courage. So…what are you waiting for?

37 comments:

  1. On the day that a legal challange is brought regarding the workfare programme (go and work in McDonalds for your dole, whilst most of their employed staff are on zero hour contracts), this wonderful report in the mirror seems to sum it all up nicely. We are after all, all in it together, aren't we?

    Cabinet ministers and Boris lord it up at Tory donor's £3 MILLION birthday bash

    29 October 2013 08:25 PMBy James LyonsWilliam Hague, Theresa May, Chris Grayling and Boris Johnson celebrate with hedge fund boss Sir Michael Hintze after £1.5million of donationsBirthday: Sir Michael HintzeCabinet ministers lorded it up at a £3 million birthday party for the man dubbed the “godfather of Tory donors”.While Britain struggles to make ends meet, hedge fund boss Sir Michael Hintze held his 60th at Blenheim Palace.Among 500 guests were Foreign Secretary William Hague, Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.London Mayor Boris Johnson was also at the champagne-fuelled bash, entertained by singer Billy Joel, X-men’s Hugh Jackman and dancers in “little more than a few swan feathers”.Sir Michael, who has paid almost £1.5million into Tory coffers, admitted to guests his party was “very selfish”.Labour MP Yasmin Qureshi said: “Cameron’s Tories live in a different world, but this is incredible.”The Aussie’s empire made almost £85 million in a year while using legal means to pay less than £30,000 in corporation tax.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yesterday Jeremy Hunt had his knuckles rapped by the courts.
    Today IDS has had his appeal against a previous ruled on workfare issue dismissed. It appears that many of the things that the government have done to impose their right wing neoliberal ideology on the nation pay no attention to the law or peoples rights.
    Maybe its your turn tommorrow Mr. Grayling?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Left Unity has its founding conference 30th November. The project is all about democracy, stopping power elites from forming and keeping the decision making process at the bottom with ordinary members. Russell Brand could help in this process. As I type we have policy commissions working away. We are talking about the creation of a " Citizens Wage" all to have say 15,000 or 20,000 for being a citizen with all the responsibilities that go with it. A new pension scheme that would pay in excess of £30,000 per year for each member by pooling all pension into one giant sovereign wealth scheme that would invest in cooperatives and re-building the nations infra-structure and we would bring the Probation Service back into the public sector should Grayling and his mates have their way. Oh and we are looking for members (:

    ReplyDelete
  4. Education Debate in House of Commons winding up as I type, next up is Probation debate which can be followed live or viewed later>

    Sitting started at 11.30 am or thereabouts- it is now 16.00 by my computer clock - so you will need to scroll through at least 4 and a 1/2 hours.

    A link to the motion and amendment is here: -

    http://t.co/VGvBRSbfrc ( I hope - via Twitter - I don't know if you need a Twitter A/C to view - this will be a test)

    And a link to the debate here:-

    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13972

    Just started ballot on Education debate - so Probation debate will probably start in 15 - 20 minutes (16.04)

    Andrew Hatton

    ReplyDelete
  5. Watching the debate spell bound and just amazed at how little understanding Grayling has about what probation does. Amazed at one tory confusing prison service and probation service! Good performance by Sadiq Khan and a great one by Elfyn Llwyd thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  6. MPs have voted against the Opposition day motion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does that mean exactly?

      Delete
    2. The government won - 223 against 289 no great surprise as the whips will make sure enough present to save embarrassment - all a charade really but some of the speeches were good - if life was fair the opposition won the argument - but life ain't fair!

      Delete
  7. First hour of today's Probation debate in House of Commons already available from Hansard

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/696/

    For those who want to view video - it started at 4.19 pm and should be available to watch again later on - after there is an Adjournment Debate about a very disturbing Domestic Violence case, that I suspect is being followed by Harry Fletcher and his Paladin Colleagues.

    That debate mentioned above has now finished.

    I presume the rest will be available on same link later.

    Government amended motion accepted by House of Commons - Opposition Motion rejected - I do not have figures.

    Andrew Hatton

    ReplyDelete
  8. 66 votes against the Opposition Motion; a turn out of about 500 MPs at the Division.

    I was generally horrified by the lack of any true understanding of the role of probation across the House and the often confused descriptions of our work, but was nevertheless very impressed by the Member for Dorset (Con) who had clearly taken the time to listen to probation staff in his constituency & had taken their views very seriously. He posed some difficult questions from his position. The usual Labour suspects presented strong cases. The LibDem contribution was, frankly, forgettable & a waste of good debating time, and the member for Thurrock (Con) seemed to be speaking in tongues – “the ethos of the public sector flows through my veins”.

    I was also saddened (won’t say shocked) at the persistent contempt Grayling displays for democracy and others – not only in leaving the debate after having had his say but, on returning for the closing speeches an hour or so later, simply “chatting” to other members around him as if it were afternoon tea.

    I suspect just a simple acknowledgement today that the idea needs to be piloted & evaluated and therefore that the whole thing could be delayed a year or so pending the outcome of comparable pilot studies aimed at working with prisoners released after serving less than 12 months could have been sufficient to prevent industrial action.

    Furthermore, I suspect it might have been enough to get Probation Trusts and staff therein alerted to the way things will eventually be going regardless of the shape, size or colour of the next government… giving them time to make their own decisions as to which way to vote with their feet: Do I stay or do I go?

    But no, Mr Ideology is determined to fuck everything up & cause as much distress as he can because he has a funny feeling inside that he’s right.

    I’d like to echo John McConnell’s words in the House and urge that we all hold this arrogant man and his toady government responsible for every victim, serious incident and resulting tragedy that occurs once the TR:ain with no brakes sets off from the station.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I sorry to hear that the opposition vote to TR was defeated in the House of Commons. And I'm sorry to hear that this blog has been blocked by South Yorkshire Probation Trust. And I'm sorry to admit that I think, "None of the Above" is powerful piece of writing and yes I reckon I'm "coming to the realisation that we are living in precarious times – and that all those in positions of power, and the locks on the doors to such power, are not there to serve us?".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you explain about the blocking of the blog please? Was it recent? Has there been an e-mail or notice?

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete
    2. My partner still works in SYPT. About a month ago he heard colleagues talking about your blog. He asked for the address and was told by them that it blocked at work, which he confirmed to be the case when he tried later that day. This annoyed him, which reminded him to look it up from home. Since then he has not missed any of your regular writings, and has often tried to get to the blog at work on a lunch time, but a message comes up "this site is blocked, please see your system administrator". He tells me that he can get to BBC News while he eating his lunch-time butties, but not on the "On Probation Blog".

      Delete
    3. Sarah Champion said in today's debate:

      "Finally, I understand that senior staff in the probation trusts have been formally “reminded” that they have a duty to carry out the will of the Secretary of State."

      Coincidence?

      Thanks to Andrew for the link.

      Delete
    4. Blog sites are blocked across all probation trusts - it's not that this one has been singled out

      Delete
  10. "The Justice Secretary has got it wrong on privatisation of probation services - In the end I doubt the government will save any money. The last Labour government wasted £800 million trying to implement a new computer system which eventually was junked before it was commissioned. That is the annual cost of running the Probation Service. The present government will probably hand vast amounts of money to SERCO with no appreciable reduction in reoffending. But by the time the mistake is realised the Probation Service, with its years of service, experience and highly committed staff will be lost for ever.

    Now that really is criminal." From LibDemVoice website Jan 2013.

    Every LibDem MP voted against the Opposition Motion inclusing Cable, Farron, Teather, Featherstone, etc.

    "Now that really is criminal." Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the Lib Dems have a lot to answer for.

      Delete
  11. Hurrah for John McDonnell (apologies for the typo earlier):

    "We have looked at how privatisation of the justice system has worked. Perhaps we should reflect on Oakwood prison, where a report last week told us it was easier to get drugs than a bar of soap. Privatised companies have made profits in prisons by reducing wages by 23%. That is the prospect held out to probation officers—professionals who are committed and dedicated to their task. If these people are saying—they are front-line staff who know their job—that the public will be put at risk, for God’s sake let us start listening to them.

    Finally, let me send out this warning to Ministers. We have heard so much advice about the risk posed by this privatisation to my constituents and members of my community, so if Ministers go ahead irresponsibly without heeding those warnings, they will be held responsible for every member of the public who is harmed, hurt or murdered as a result of these ill-thought-out reforms. This is a warning from me: if any of my constituents are harmed, I will hold Ministers responsible and I will seek to ensure that none of them ever holds public office again."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Grayling had three attempts at this, I still don't know what he means:

    * "On the point about public protection, the national public sector probation service we are establishing will, of course, be responsible for risk assessing all offenders supervised in the community and will retain the management of offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public, who have committed the more serious offences and who require multi-agency supervision.”
    ** “First, the categorisations are existing categorisations—they are not mine—and are part of a triage process within the existing probation system that we will continue to use. Secondly, on moving people from one category to another, it will the responsibility of a national probation trust to carry out risk assessments at the beginning, or later if circumstances change that require a new assessment to take place. The two organisations will be in part co-located, so it will not be a complicated bureaucratic process—people will be sitting in the same office. The national probation service will carry out assessments when they need to be carried out.”
    *** “As I have said, it will be a simple process. The national probation service team will be responsible for risk assessment. They will have a duty to carry out a new assessment when a person’s circumstances change, and it will be the duty of the provider to notify the team of any material change of circumstances. They will be co-located, and when an offender becomes a high-risk offender, they will be taken back under the supervision of the national probation service. This is about people sitting in the same office and working together, just as people work together in any office environment.”

    Then young Jezza Wright had a go. I'm still none the wiser:

    Wright – “I have also been asked whether the system will involve contractors passing back difficult cases. That will not happen for two reasons. First, the decision on whether an offender has become a high-risk offender will be taken by the national probation service—that means public sector probation officers—not the private sector. Secondly, if such a thing were to happen, the individual offender would stay within the cohort for the provider, so there would be no financial incentive to pass them back.”
    Wright - “I was shaking my head because when someone is categorised by the national probation service as moving from medium risk to high risk, they will stay with that service. There will be no passing to and fro when that allocation process has taken place.”
    Drax – “I am most grateful to the Minister although that still leaves a slight query about those categorised as low risk. What happens if, as I mentioned in my speech, someone moves from low risk to high risk?”
    Wright – “The same.”

    Eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 21:30, Hope you don't mind if I distill your post into the following two exhibits:

      Exhibit A - Grayling: "They will be co-located, and when an offender becomes a high-risk offender, they will be taken back under the supervision of the national probation service."

      Exhibit B - Wright: "I have also been asked whether the system will involve contractors passing back difficult cases. That will not happen..."

      Does this constitute misleading the House?

      Delete
  13. They are talking an upside down pile of piffle, basically grayling and his goons have no idea. Will fuck things up and be out of government before the shit storms come.

    ReplyDelete
  14. NAPO - now is your chance to prove you're not muppets - you've been handed gift-wrapped morsels of PR gold in 24 hours. First, The Guardian FRONT PAGE. Now the witless, incoherent & disjointed ramblings of a deranged minister & his sidekick available via Hansard. Get something out there and help protect our profession and your members, who will be putting themselves on the line next week.

    Even Teresa Munt's debate on the sugar content of jam got prime airtime on every radio & tv station plus it made every newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Blog also block in thames Valley for some time now. Have been following blog daily from home. Finding the whole situation unbearably sad. Thank you Mr B for everything you and others on this blog are doing to keep us informed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. blogblock reported in the fiefdom of Russell the Bruce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)

      Mr Bruce is not renowned for his sense of humour!!

      Delete
    2. Interim Chief Executive Russell Bruce, Cumbria PT - he does look remarkably humourless here on the 'welcome' page:-

      http://www.cumbriaprobation.org.uk/

      Delete
  17. "..."the Lobbying Bill currently wending it's way through Parliament..."
    There should be a law criminalising the misuse of the apostrophe, though...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite write! The proof reader has been shot.

      Delete
  18. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/30/privatising-probation-reoffending-rise-costs

    ReplyDelete
  19. Diary: urgent appeal … will anyone send good news to Chris Grayling?

    Rows to the left, mess-ups to the right. Tough times for the justice secretary Wednesday 30 October 2013 11.08 GMT‘Chris Grayling's favourite private sector providers hardly seem in top form.’ Photograph: Sean Dempsey/PAHugh Muir• Daily the irritations grow for justice secretary Chris Grayling, assailed on one side by lawyers aggrieved by his legal aid cuts, on the other by probation specialists who identify his proposed reforms as yet another dog's breakfast. And then, of course there is the problem that his favourite private sector providers hardly seem in top form. G4S is under fire amid disputed claims about poor stewardship of a prison it runs in South Africa. At Serco, with its chief about to walk the plank, the company is still facing allegations of fraud, and there are proven instances of sexual misconduct at the Yarl's Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire. Worries too about the community service provision in London. Practioners worried when Serco won the contract. They worry even more now, amid tales of those sentenced to "community payback" turning up for work only to be sent back home for reasons such as staff shortages, lack of transport, etc. Others may have exceeded their work hours. It's said that promised IT and other technology seem conspicuous by their absence. For its part, Serco says the contract is working well "with no significant issues" – but siren voices won't die down. The justice secretary waits for someone to bring good news. And waits … and waits …

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear they want to hand back the C P contract as its not making money. What a surprise there then !

      Delete
    2. Tell us more - please?

      Andrew Hatton

      Delete
  20. Have probation upset the BBC? Or is there a news embargo? Or is there something more sinister going on? Not a squeak on R4's Today in Parliament - PMQs, discussion about teachers - nothing about the opposition's probation debate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was too wound up last night, having recorded and watched the debate - what debate? I will find a way to overcome this, but CG - there is no saving grace - the man is a prize prick of the first order and on top of having offensive ideologies, and an offensive face, he is now showing up his family - who I presume thought they had raised him right! Given yesterdays debate centered on his own 'gut feelings' and little else he may have had the courtesy to at least stay and hear the point of view of others, (listening is something he struggles with, we know) those also paid by the tax payer and who had every right to speak and be heard. No manners, no argument - just went back to the same old drivel and in my view treated the parliamentary process, the opposition, his own back benches and the country with contempt, Is it really bad to be smirking, as I know he is heading for a fall, but I also know the human cost involved, so it is bitter sweet!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what his gut feeling is going to bring:-

      http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/clare-sambrook/g4s-guard-bludgeoned-woman-to-death

      Delete
    2. If it was just Grayling "heading for a fall" at least he and the others who actively support him like Messrs McNally and Wright are the authors of their own destruction.

      The folk I feel most for are probation colleagues but perhaps as much the as yet unknown victims of crimes committed as this dangerous policy works itself through.

      I think I hold almost as much disregard for those who really know about probation - having been real front-line practitioners and then got into management who are colluding - even by inaction because either they do not know what else to do or in an attempt to protect their own income or even have some advancement.

      We know this WILL FAIL unless seriously amended and carefully implemented. I am especially disdainful of those who wanting probation to work with under 12 month prison sentenced folk are not qualifying their support for The Offender Rehabilitation Bill that will have people - sentenced to - 'sit at the back of the court' as a clear up exercise - or sentenced to be released immediately - taking account of time in custody on remand - will also be liable to stringent supervision for a whole 12 months which many will breach - hopefully in the fullness of time - the human rights legislation will resolve that as it is clearly unjust as well as impracticable and hard to enforce.

      There is still more - one thing I have only began to think about in recent months. Unlike conventional parole (or even the traditional probation order - pre 1992) automatic releases on supervision without assessment bring problems such as have been experienced with ACR cases where the supervision is often resented rather than accepted as a consequence of not doing more time in prison.

      The related issue is the lack of consent from those supervised.

      Andrew Hatton

      Delete
  22. I see from Twitter there were questions in House of Lords this morning to Lord McNally - I don't know any details right now but they are searchable - Ramsbotham and Jeremy whatsit were involve - is it Bellamy - the Labour House of Lords justice spokesperson - long involved in local government and probation as a former chair of the employers side of the national negotiating committee - If I am not mixing him up with some one else - sorry for ramble - I have got a thick head - not sure why - it is not alcohol induced!

    Andrew Hatton

    ReplyDelete