So I met Jeremy Corbyn.

So me and Techiecarer went to hear Jeremy Corbyn speak.

Even though we arrived early the hall was already packed. Asking for help we managed to get seated after someone had kindly offered their seat. Before the event had started the hall was filled with people spilling out of the doors and crowding around the entrance of the hall desperate to hear him speak. I obviously thought that this was likely as the same scenario seems to have been played out up and down the country. So arriving to a rapturous applause he began his speech.

He was the first politician I have ever heard to categorically state that those on welfare are not to blame for the UK’s problems, that we should be proud of the welfare state, that the NHS should be free from the point of use and that society has failed so many people in need of mental health treatment. That immigrants fleeing atrocities should be seen as people in need and not as swarms, as if they were non human. That we need to invest, tackle tax avoidance and increase public housing and pay. That we should have more public ownership, look after our environment and invest in education. That people should be able to learn what they want without worrying about fees at any point in their life. For the most part I agreed greatly with what he said even though I still have some questions on some of his policies.

After his talk he took random questions from the audience.

He then dashed around to talk and take selfies with everyone that wanted one. There were people at the event who were obviously struggling in their lives but he approached them with no less interest than anyone else and listened to what they had to say. Too often politicians seem awkward when talking to ordinary people and it was nice to see they were treated no differently.

Initially I didn’t think I would manage to grab a word with him, I was low on spoons and trying to ask something in a crowded room is not the easiest especially as I was sitting down. I thought I would only have a second as he was rushing to another event but he stopped and smiled. I spoke to him about how the disabled community felt especially about Labour’s actions and the discrimination faced due to the negative stereotypes portrayed in the media. He answered and when I mentioned my health asked about how I was managing. I also spoke to him about care leavers and he actively asked about my experiences.

Although he was in a rush I can honestly say there was not a moment where I felt he wanted to rush the conversation. I shook his hand and he reached to the side of me to shake Techiecarer’s hand, as well as the lad to the other side of me.

The main point that resounded with me from his speech is when he stated that no party has the automatic right to exist and that the public should play a part in helping shaping its policies.

I have supported the party in the past, as well as other parties but more recently like others I haven’t felt like I could. Labour's inaction to hold true to its roots has been infuriating. The election campaign was run on an attitude that voters must vote for Labour otherwise the Tories would get in and that voters must accept austerity light. That any disgruntled Labour voter who votes instead for another left wing party are allowing the Tories to get into power and obviously this attitude did nothing to win voters over. Throughout the Labour leadership campaign, the other Labour candidates and political commentators have stated that Labour lost the general election because it was too left wing. The fact that they state this shows how little they are listening to the public. Labour lost because it was offering austerity light. So people either decided not to vote or instead voted for other left wing parties. Instead of coming to the realisation that people were voting for other parties because they didn’t believe in Labour's policies, Labour decided to attack them stating how much their vote would be wasted. It is true that under the current electoral system for Westminster that these votes are more often than not “lost” but Labour did not understand that people wanted to vote for policies they believed in and I respect anyone holding on to what they believe in.

It is often stated that people do not care about politics any more but if that was truly the case why is this man packing halls up and down the country with people spilling out of the doors and jumping up to windows in the hope to hear what he wants to say?

Yes Corbyn could be like any other politician, this could be an act and he could totally change if he becomes leader or even prime minister but at the moment he seems to have been the most genuine politician that I have met. There is also no guarantee that the party, like any other might not backtrack on any election promises made. With how current opinion is within the Labour Party, there has been doubt cast on whether the party will allow him to lead if he gets elected as leader.

But you can not tell me that people aren't interested in politics, they just want policies they can believe in, an alternative whatever the party.

Westminster, If we can do it so can you!

So a few weeks ago I watched Prime Minister's Questions, oh why did I.

I rarely watch Prime Minister's Questions anymore, it has descended into a circus of baying, laughing & taunting that any child could tell you is a deeply wrong way to behave especially when parliament discusses matters that affect the public so deeply. But even putting this aside, no genuine debate occurs, ministers on the prime minister's benches jostle for a turn to stand up & state how wonderfully they're doing, with the opposition of course taking it’s turn to say they could have done it better. Any genuine inter bench debate is silenced. There is no debate, no back & forth of ideas & definitely no compromise. So whats the point? All Prime Minister's questions shows us is what the government & the opposition is arguing about on a given week. What they accuse each other of failing at & what achievements they claim to have accomplished, regardless of the truth of them. All of which are covered by any news source that covers politics within the UK.

Watch one Prime Minister's Questions & you can't wonder why people are disillusioned with politics in Westminster.

This is however not how Questions are done throughout the rest of the UK. With the countries that make up the UK having their respective devolved Assemblies & Parliaments that sit depending on the nation, on a differing amount of devolved legislative powers.

So I decided to look at the most recent sessions (at the time of writing), in the respective parliaments & assemblies across the UK, that were currently available online when all nations sat during the week. (I couldn't find any link for the London Assembly)

The First Questions were on Monday 24th November - First & Deputy First Ministers questions: Northern Ireland's Assembly.

During this session the chamber talked about the troubles, the Irish language & religion. Northern Ireland with such a troubled past, can gather in the chamber & discuss topics which outside the chamber can still be very heated without resorting to the same type of behaviour seen in Westminster.

The Second Questions were on Tuesday 25th November - First Minister's Questions: Welsh Assembly

During this session the chamber talked about transport, including roads & rail. The First Minister was asked about the changes in fares & admitted at present he did not know the information to give to the minister but that information would be made available in due time. There was no spin given & no guess work & the minister asking the question accepted the First Minister's answer. The chamber got a little more heated at 18.20 in the video when Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood spoke about Welsh under funding. However this didn't continue for long after the speaker intervened & brought the chamber to order. There was then further debate about health & domestic violence. 

Wednesday 26th November - Prime Minister's Questions: Westminster

The debate started with VAT & how the Prime Minister believes there should be a debate in the commons about the Welsh NHS even though this is a devolved issue. Even if there was to be any debate in the Commons, it should be about the NHS as a whole & not instead an attempt to politically point score by attacking the Welsh NHS. The Coalition attacks the Welsh NHS because a Labour government is sitting in the Senedd (Assembly) & a there is a Labour opposition in Westminster. There are various problems within the NHS as a whole but as a Labour government doesn't hold a majority in any other parliament, there is no other opportunity to attack the Labour opposition. 

The debate then moved onto those with learning difficulties, often those who get placed into institutions away from & against their families wishes instead of being supported in the community.

Then there was A LOT of it's your fault, no it's your fault. There was also a lot of “will you congratulate” so & so & oh our economic plan was so “awesome”. If this was cut out, all of the peppy filler, there may be so much more time to discuss more pressing issues?

Anyway, after the peppy interlude, the debate moved on to accusing the government of pandering to UKIP. Followed by the NHS & the Israeli bill removing the rights from non jews. A minister then tried to praise the personnel who were going to help with the ebola outbreak. Something very worthy of praise, however people continued to speak whilst she was trying to talk. Its worth noting that this help is arriving months after charities on the ground had stated the urgent need for further assistance & unfortunately this help was only given after westerners had become infected.

Thursday 27th November - First Minister's Questions: Scottish Parliament 

The session began with Jackie Baillie asking what the First Minster was doing & wishing her a safe journey to the Isle of Man. Could you really see an opposing party member doing this in Westminster? The debate primarily focused on further powers being given to Scotland. Although the debate was a little more rowdy in parts, the debate still continued with the Chair bringing the chamber back to order.

I have included all of the videos of each debate, from each of the respective parliaments & assemblies. I don't expect anyone to sit through & watch each session but click on each video, a few times on each & the difference in noise level between Westminster & the devolved parliaments is astounding. Especially the shocking frequency of how people are not talking when someone else is trying to speak in the devolved parliaments. Has it come to the point that we must implement a talking stick within Westminster & for ministers not holding the stick, to sit with a finger to their lips like children do in primary school before they learn to listen?

Although there has always been debate about the effectiveness, along with the ability to efficiently legislate in the devolved parliaments, the fact remains there is much more purposeful debate seen in these parliaments. There has been research to suggest that parliaments that sit in a rectangular chamber with two sides are much more confrontational than those that are round & parliaments that sit in a rectangular chamber are much less likely to compromise. In addition, in all of the devolved parliaments within the UK there is an opportunity for the member posing the question to the First Minister to respond to their answer, something which is not seen at Westminster with the exception being the lead for the opposition. Regardless of the reason it is clearly possible to have an adult debate without the behaviour seen in Westminster. When people are watching ministers laugh when pressing through legislation that may impact upon a person's life so significantly that it may mean they have less food, no roof over their head & less opportunity in life, there should be no surprise how little faith people have with Westminster. Laughing shows how little they are in touch with the people in which their legislation affects & that I think is the main difference, that too often Westminster MPs forget who they represent until the next national vote.

But it is always important to remember. These MPs are voted in, they represent their constituents with their consent. We are the ones that must push for change & understand the importance of who you vote for on election day. 

The Big Benefits Row: Facts, fiction & a whole lot of yelling

The show began first with a montage of multiple clips from the bewildering amount of benefit shows that have been produced recently from it being mentioned in the papers, to the news, in documentaries & through benefit bashing tv.

The long & short of it is, the small percentage of fraud that occurs is drowned in the sea in coverage it receives & I think this is the single most important point that people don’t understand. This is a trend that has been seen throughout history, that it is not necessarily a reflection of the reality of the time but instead reflects the attitudes of society which I covered a bit in  The evolution of benefit tv.

Question 1: “Do you think the benefits system is fit or unfit for purpose?”

Apparently 66% believe that it isn’t.

I’d love to know how many people actually know what support the benefit system provides & how many voted unfit because they were thinking instead about even with the countless forms filled in & assessments people have, that many people found “fit for work” are having their benefits reinstated on appeal.

At the start you had Katie Hopkins as usual never pausing for a moment to engage her brain before running her mouth. She started as many have done on this topic trying to pass off prejudices & stereotypes as fact but was pulled into reality by Mathew Wright.

Then Mathew Wright explained that they wanted to separate the facts from fiction.

FACTS?!?!?!?

Excuse me while I wet myself in delight at a show that is presenting the facts instead of perpetuating myths further.

Matthew Wright highlighted that tax evasion is far greater than benefit fraud (with the resources dedicated to tackling this far lower) & Annabel Giles spoke brilliantly even with Katie attacking her in a childish voice that she “wanted to be a model & didn’t make it”.

Katie went on further about people having multiple children & was quickly told it is a very small minority, not the norm. This was followed with people on housing benefit living in posh neighbourhoods, again not the norm & this was finished of with remarks about how “hardworking Britain” had had enough of going to work & seeing people staying at home, this being said without any thought to what the person behind the curtain may have to contend with.

Question 2: “Do you think the portrayal of people on benefits is fair or unfair ?” A close split.

Peter Stringfellow like many doesn’t consider a pension a benefit. He said that his main concern was the “abuse, not the majority of people. I’m looking at people over there” (pointing to the people in wheelchairs) “that deserve everything they can get”. But when Mathew pointed out that the abuse was small he replied “Not it’s not small.”

I doubt that he meant just people in wheelchairs but people with disabilities as a whole. However so often people don’t understand how significant invisible & variable conditions are, how much people struggle to walk on crutches or with a stick & the effort, pain & discomfort they go through. This is particularity important when people in the latter have to use a wheelchair to get around, this can often be on occasion when their condition is particularly bad or dependant on the situation. It can also be when they go out because their condition is such that they can’t move quickly, safely or the pain & exhuastion would be too much & can’t simply “hop out” without a great deal of difficulty.

Ironically this occurred just before the show when Sue Marsh had to leave her chair outside then struggle up into the seats because the disability provision wasn’t adequate. People often don’t understand the effort it takes to do things that people take for granted & the amount of time it takes from you to recover which Sue details in her post about her experience about being dropped from the panel & the lack of provision.

Then there was "White Dee". I thought she was either going to blow her top or say her piece, keep quiet & let Katie Hopkins tie herself in knots which she did beautifully.

Annabel Giles pointed out, that if ‘White Dee’ was well & didn’t have depression of course she would be working & Dee agreed. I can’t understand why some people believe this is the “optimum lifestyle choice” whereas in fact they have no choice at all because they are ill.

Question 3: “Would you support or oppose tougher means testing & rules about claiming benefits ?”

Apparently 66% were in support & I wonder greatly how many have any idea how difficult, demeaning & time consuming the whole process is.

Rachel Johnson was a pleasant surprise, coming from the point of not knowing much about her, she commented on the worryingly high percentage of people being sanctioned on JSA & that for people to get help from a foodbank they need a voucher to Edwina Currie to which she replied “only some of them”

Matthew saw this as a great opportunity for Jack Monroe’s opinion. It would have been nice to have heard more of what Jack had to say, unfortunately Edwina was intent on childishly shouting her down.

Jack explained that “You can’t rock up to a food bank & just ask for some free food” but Edwina disagreed. Jack pointed out that she works with the Trussell Trust, the biggest foodbank organisation in UK which in order to get help you need a voucher.

Then for some bizarre reason Edwina said they only run one & when she’s asked if she’s ashamed that people beg for food, she says no.

Jack started to make a reasonable point about the economy & bankers when she’s cut off again by Edwina.

"You come from a rich family." Jack explains again, no she doesn’t. "Yes you do come from a rich family," Edwina says with all the finger pointing of panto.

I had read that Jack had said these accusations had been happening before the show & she said she wanted to say her piece which she is more than entitled to do. She explained that her mum was a nurse, dad was a fireman & that they were hardworking ‘blue collar’ workers.

Edwina throughout Jack trying to speak made countless rapid interruptions, to the point she spoke so quick at times you could barely make out what she had said. It’s clearly obvious when you’re interrupting someone like this you want to stop them from talking, bate them & nothing more.

Edwina continued with countless interuptions about how they both went to grammer school….so what? Many a kid from council estates did also & that it was Jack’s grandfather who was “rich”, that he was a big property owner. By this point Jack, obviously upset, stated he had died with Edwina stating that she knew because she had seen the obituaries

Creepy.

Even more so when you know that she had taken the time before the show to search through Jack’s blog, to find a post she had done & tweet it out before hand. It also shows that before the show she knew she was likely going to bring up her grandfather, to get personal maybe because she didn’t have any defence. She says she admires Jack but her behaviour says anything but.

Also because she wasn’t willing to listen she missed a vital point

Jack is anyone

Jack didn’t come from an abusive family or a family dependent on benefits. The government rhetoric is if you work hard & get on you will be fine & in the unlikely case that you do fall, the system will protect you but it doesn’t and in Jack it proves it. See Jack’s heartfelt post about what she didn’t get to say.

Next they played a clip of “On Benefits & Proud” featuring Emma & Sophie. They explain the programme made them out to be something they’re not, that the system has helped them a lot & no that it wasn’t a comfortable existence.

Yet again, Edwina interrupts “go & get a job” repeating it over & over.

She then got a massive piece of her own medicine, the girl turned around quick as a flash “gimmie a job, innit” repeating it over & over. It reminded me of some Catherine Tate sketch that I couldn’t help but be pleased to see on this occasion.

Question 4: "Would you support or oppose new immigrants being allowed to claim benefits in the first year in the UK?" 76% oppose

Weirdly there was applause from the audience. Often there has been, in the same way as with benefit claimants a lot of stereotyping & myths surrounding immigration issues which people believe including those on benefits. Often pitted against each other, some benefit claimants believe that the reason that they can’t find a job is due to immigration.

Owen Jones brought up points about bankers, tax avoidance & the stereotyping of immigrants & the good that they have done for this country is often over looked.

I think the issue of immigration needed to be on a separate show (which Channel 5 are apparently going to do) as it felt squeezed on to the end, they didn’t have enough panellists to have a proper debate or the time & like with welfare it is yet another issue that has been a used as scapegoat topic.

The fact that they presented facts at the start of the programme was uplifting, I think it is truly disturbing how many programmes are aired with no reference to the actual facts of matter but instead just help perpetuate myths further.

There wasn’t enough time to address everything in the detail that it needed to be. A 45 minute show can’t undo the countless months of government opinion, tabloid “news” & benefit bashing tv, much more is needed to get to that point. People didn’t understand or want people like Katie Hopkins & Edwina Curie up there but the fact of the matter is it’s exactly people like Katie & Edwina that are helping perpetuate myths further because they either do not care about the people affected or that they don’t understand that things that they are annoyed about are myths or don’t represent the majority. When you put people like Katie & Edwina on a show like this against people that know their facts, they show themselves up to be the narrow minded people that they are….as long as people can speak that is.

Fleetstreetfox’s article on her experience

Owen Jone’s article on his experience

Food banks, poverty & a parallel universe

So I watched most of the food bank debate. Not at the time as my bendy spoonie arthur body wasn’t playing ball.

It was a sad sight to watch as Labour passionately recalled stories of people, in desperate need in their constituencies. As Labour were trying to make their point the coalition benches laughed, brayed & tried to shout them down as they attempted to highlight the crisis that is unfolding in this country, one of the richest countries in the world where people are being propped up by food banks, charities as there government continues to fail them.

The coalition benches made the whole Charade feel like the Goverement was implying that poor people are just darn stupid, we’re beating them with this rod with all the welfare cuts & telling them to work so why arn’t they? Their problems would be resolved. If they are at food banks they deserve nothing more, it is of their own doing.

The coalition further blamed people for poor budgeting skills but didn’t understand that for many, when they reached the foodbanks they have fallen so hard & so quickly & for others they have already striped their outgoings down to the bone. If the end line is that you need £60 & you only get £40, how are you supposed to win? Just demonising people further isn’t the answer.

Most of the coalition MPs come from much more privileged backgrounds, that have never had to deal with these problems. These MPs live in a world where they get a food allowance, expenses & subsidised bars. They have never had to hardcore budget like the people that end up at food banks do. They’re in a parallel world were they constantly live with their fingers in their ears & take their party’s doggy statistics on face value.

The coalition put these policies in place & they’re just not logical. If you speak to most, they agree that the system needed reform but it needed to be fair, the coalition need to accept that there are people that are just not able to work & that working isn’t the only solution out of this kind of situation, that work doesn’t always pay which can be seen by the increased number of people in work, forced to rely on food banks as wages are low & commodities high.

The coalition throughout continued to state that the food banks began under the last government which is indeed true but the explosion in the number of food banks under this government demonstrates how much policy is not working & that the simple truth is, that if social policy was better there wouldn’t be anywhere near the demand that there is now.

If anyone agrees that its ok for people in this country to have to rely on food banks, for children to be so grateful that they were given chocolate because its one of the best things they have seen in a while & that for the red cross to be doing its first appeal since world war 2 for the people in the UK, then remember this; anyone can find themselves in this situation & if you’re saying to yourself not me? there have been many people before you that have said the same & yet found themselves in a position they would never have seen coming.

These MPs call each other honourable members, if this is honour, its not an honour I recongnise.