“Evidence to UN highlights extreme poverty in UK”

The sixth richest economy in the world.

“A disabled former soldier who said he is so poor that he lost 16kg (2st 7lb) due to a lack of food is among the contributors to the first United Nations investigation into extreme poverty into the UK.

Alexander Tiffin, a 30-year old from the Scottish Highlands, sent a diary of his life on universal credit to Prof Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, who is coming to Britain in November.

The eminent international human rights lawyer called for submissions from anyone in the UK to establish “the most significant human rights violations experienced by people living in poverty and extreme poverty in the UK”. He is interested in the impact of austerity, universal credit, the advent of computer algorithms making decisions on welfare matters, and Brexit.

Anyone taking part has been asked to set out in no more than 2,500 words what is happening, where he should go and what he should look at. He has set a deadline of 14 September for submissions and academics, thinktanks and charities are among those drafting responses.

The visit is set to be politically controversial. Alston conducted a similar exercise in the US earlier this year, which resulted in public clashes with the Trump administration. In the UK, he wants to know “to what extent austerity has been necessary” and its impact on public services including police, firefighting and libraries.

He will also consider how Brexit might affect people living in poverty. Alston defines extreme poverty as “a lack of income, a lack of access to basic services, and social exclusion”. …

Tiffin’s diary of life on universal credit is among the most striking contributions so far. The wheelchair user told Alston he is living off £95.35 a fortnight in universal credit payments and that after paying for his electricity and gas, fuel for his adapted car, broadband connection, TV licence and baby milk for his youngest son, he is left with £10.50 for two weeks.

“At one time in February, I had no food at all for two weeks,” he wrote. “I probably ate on less than a quarter of the days in that month. I just had nothing. I lost two and a half stone … my hair has started falling out and my teeth are loose due to a lack of vitamin intake.”

On 8 May, he wrote: “I wanted to be able to make myself some sandwiches, so I bought a loaf of bread for 45p and a small block of cheese for £1.72. This left me with £3.30 [with 10 days to go until the next payment]. I must admit I felt bad after buying it as I shouldn’t have wasted the money.”

Tiffin has suffered from mental health problems. He is a Muslim convert and was recently admonished by a court for threatening to kill unbelievers. Police considered he was “an idiot” rather than a terrorist and he was not punished. He said the incident occurred when he was going through a complete breakdown. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/22/un-poverty-chief-calls-for-evidence-on-effects-of-austerity-in-uk

“Dead People Gave More Money To The Tories Than Living Members”

“The Conservative Party made more money in 2017 from dead people than it did from its living members, as the Labour Party surged ahead in fundraising.

The party earned £835,000 last year from its membership, but brought in £1.7m from “legacies”.

Over all the Tories had an income of £45,947,000, compared to Labour’s £55,793,000.

Figures published by the Electoral Commission on Tuesday showed Labour had raked in £16.2m in membership fees. …”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dead-people-gave-more-money-to-the-tories-than-living-members_uk_5b7d4688e4b0348585fc1e1a

“The bigger the question, the less we are asked”

Owl says: he is behind the times – just about everything that we pay for is now decided “behind closed doors”. Examples: Local Enterprise Partnership, Greater Exeter Planning Strategy, local Clinical Commissioning Group. All our money and all decided in secret.

“… A striking example is the government’s plan for an Oxford-to-Cambridge expressway. A decision to which we have not been party, which will irrevocably change the region it affects, is imminent. The new road, says the plan, will support the construction of a million homes.

To give you some sense of the scale of this scheme, consider that Oxfordshire will have to provide 300,000 of them. It currently contains 280,000 homes. In 30 years, if this scheme goes ahead, the county must build as many new houses, and the infrastructure, public services and businesses required to support them, as have been built in the past 1,000. A million new homes amounts, in effect, to an Oxford-Cambridge conurbation.

But none of this is up for debate. By the time we are asked for our opinion, there will be little left to discuss but the colour of the road signs. The questions that count, such as whether the new infrastructure should be built, or even where it should be built, will have been made without us.

The justification for this scheme is not transport or housing as an end in itself. Its objective, according to the National Infrastructure Commission, is to enable the region “to maximise its economic potential”. Without this scheme, the commission insists, Oxford and Cambridge and the region between them “will be left behind, damaging the UK’s global competitiveness”.

This reasoning, you might hope, would prompt some major questions. Is continued growth, in one of the wealthiest regions of the world, desirable? If it is desirable, does it outweigh the acceleration of climate breakdown the scheme will cause? When air pollution already exceeds legal limits, are new roads and their associated infrastructure either appropriate or safe? And are we really engaged in a race with other nations, in which being “left behind” is something to be feared?

But these questions are not just closed to debate. They are not even recognised as questions. The megalomaniacs with their pencils, the rulers with their rulers, assume that their unexamined premises are shared by everyone. …

By imposing this decision, the government ignores its legal obligations. It has failed to conduct a strategic environmental assessment before the corridor decision is made, as the law insists. Under the Aarhus convention, public participation must begin while “all options are open”. But neither people nor law can be allowed to disrupt a grand design.

This is not democracy. This is not even a semblance of democracy. Yet the consequences of such decisions will be greater than almost any others that are made, because they are irreversible. The bigger the question, the less we are asked.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/22/project-britain-debate-oxford-cambridge-expressway