Strong and Stable My Arse

Today is the day of the #StrongAndStableMyArse campaign. Print your own leaflets. Hang your own banners. Have fun and spread the word! And remeber, don't be a strawberry! #ToriesAreStrawberries #DontBeAStrawberry.

Carmine Raven

I'm Crying As I Write This...

I'm crying as I write this because, for the first time in this election campaign, I feel so angry, so helpless, and so forgotten that I'm not even sure I can survive until June 9th to see what little hope there is potentially dashed. Why? Because today (30th May) I spoke to someone who claimed to be Labour but was voting Conservative because Jeremy Corbyn is reluctant to drop bombs.

Yes, you read that correctly. The gentleman doesn't believe Jeremy Corbyn will make the decisions necessary if told a terrorist target is at a known location and we can launch a drone strike but only within a limited time frame. He thinks he'll want too much information. He also thinks Mr  Corbyn will refuse to enter necessary battles while he attempts to talk to those who do not want to listen.

There's a problem with that logic, though. The gentleman in question completely ignored that Corbyn wants is a correctly funded military, with enough resources, who can do what needs to be done more efficiently, without causing the vacuum we created in the Middle East, and without wasting unnecessary lives. Corbyn's stance isn't that we never have to fight, but that fighting should only take place after all peaceful avenues have been exhausted. That is a good thing. Being averse to causing death while protecting life is a good thing.

Those who vote Conservative because Corbyn is reluctant to drop bomb are just like the evil caricatures of Middle Eastern demons they so fear. They are choosing to sign death warrants of innocent people because they refuse to listen to reality. The sick and disabled are pleading for a peace treaty, but Conservative voters do not what to hear what is being said. Instead they follow the rhetoric of those who are as callous as any bomber. The Manchester bomber killed 22 innocent people. Nearly 600 suicides may be attributed to the governments fit for work assessments between 2010 and 2013 alone.

600 deaths. Because of a Tory led government.

And that was before they completed their plans for the NHS.

Yesterday (29th May), Jeremy Corbyn said that a good leader uses their ears more than their lips. He said he wants to get to know people, even those he disagrees with. He's right, a good leader must get to know people, even people they disagree with, in order to make sense of the world and navigate through it. I wish more people would do the same, but instead they cast scorn and blame and refuse to hear what is being said. But I need to be heard, because my voice is small. Smaller again are the voices of my children, who I can't give a better life to. So I'm asking you to close your mouth a moment. Don't judge, just read. Just take a moment to see who I am, and who so many others are.

Who I am today is a very different person to who I was seven years ago. Seven years ago I was a professional with a job I loved and a first class honours degree. My recorded work goals were to achieve a senior position within two years, still in my twenties, and I had lead roles on school building and hospital projects. Even after the crash, and after my husband was made redundant, I was Ok. Thankfully my husband got a new job within a few months and more good news came when we discovered I was pregnant for the first time, despite being sub-fertile and having spent two years seeing a stream of doctors, nursess, ultrasound technicians, and other health professionals, as well as other medical professionals, about my problems. Life was good. Hopeful.

Back then I still believed that my children would have better childhoods than I had. Not that my childhood was awful, it wasn't. I loved trips to the beach and the caravan holidays mam and dad struggled to save for every couple of years. However, my dad had been a striking miner in 1984 before I was born in 1985. Living in a Thatcher era pit village, we didn't have a lot.

There wasn't much money. The cars were always bangers which, by the time dad had wrung every mile out of them, were only fit for scrap. Our trainers were bought cheap from market stalls, which caused some teasing at school, but we knew branded clothing wasted precious pennies. We were grateful if we received 50p pocket money, and ecstatic when the tooth fairy left 20p. Somehow it didn't matter that other kids got a pound, and I can only rarely remember feeling jealous of others having things I could only dream of. We still received presents at Christmas and birthdays, we still went on day trips, and we still made happy memories.

But that's the thing. I can't offer my children the same small joys.

I know that buying my daughter a birthday present, even something from the "Poundland", will send me further into debt. We don't have sky. We wear our shoes into holes and then wear them six months longer, even if it means wet feet. We rely on our parents to clothe our children, something both me and my husband are ashamed of, but it's that or let them go without clothes.

Why are we struggling?

Lot's of reasons, but it didn't help that in 2010 the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition. That coalition made David Cameron Prime Minister, Theresa May Home Secretary, George Osborne Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Health and Michael Gove Secretary of State for Education, and that was when problems really started.

On Christmas Eve, my husband was made redundant for a second time. The first time had been from a social housing provider, the second from a small development and renewable energy company. Alongside that, Gove and Hunt saw to cutting funding to new build school and hospital projects, and so work for my employers dried up too. By the time I went on maternity leave, we knew redundancies we coming. I suspected I'd among those 'let go' as, since becoming pregnant, I'd been horrifically sick (I lost over a stone in the course of my pregnancy) and my work goals had been down-graded by my line manager from 'achieve a senior position' to 'return from maternity leave.'

Work didn't give me the chance to return.

In fact, they posted my redundancy notice the day I gave birth to my daughter.

That was hard. Not only did work wrongly stop my maternity pay, but because they only restarted it after terminating my contract my pay was placed on an emergency tax code and I was severely over taxed. While Revenue and Customs assured me the money would be refunded at the end of the tax year, that didn't help me pay the bills. Also, work had 'advised' me to take all of my annual leave before my maternity leave, to avoid it being carried into the next year. I did so, but it meant - when they made me redundant - I'd taken a full year's holiday in half a year. They deducted half a year's holiday pay from my redundancy money, which further exacerbated our financial difficulties. Our mortgage went into arrears and the job market was non-existent. It was only through setting up my own business that we managed to save our house. Not because I turned a profit that first year, but because it entitled us to tax credits.

That first year was hard. I worked 60 hours weeks for no pay, often with a baby on my knee, to set up that business while my husband knocked doors peddling cavity wall insulation to scrap by. He worked dawn til dusk five or six days a week for about £75 a week. It was hard.

I'd had mental health issues from childhood, but they got much worse then. The combination of post-natal depression and financial stress caused the low level mental illness I'd had since childhood to worsen, and I ended up seeing a therapist although I refused medication. Shortly after my therapy started I discovered I was pregnant again anyway, so medication was a no-go. Unfortunately only 6-12 sessions of therapy are given per referral; as if you can put a time limit on sorting through multiple deeply ingrained issues. The sessions came to an end and I wasn't better, but I was still alive and so I carried on, trying to ignore the hopelessness.

I worked. My husband went back to college. We fought a lot because times were tough, but we kept plodding on. That year, 2012, my new business won a customer service award and I began to think that maybe, just maybe, things would get better through time. We made a loss that first year, but that's normal. We were surviving all the same and had even managed to take our daughter on holiday. OK, it was five nights on a £4 a night campsite, but it was a holiday.
Then, in December, our son was born.

That time around I had no maternity rights at all. No pay, no allowance, no leave. I gave myself a week off because Christmas was within days of my son's birth, but I was back at it by New Year 2013. I didn't get to spend time with my son the way I had with my daughter and I worked and worked, desperate to grow the business.

I was a finalist in two or three customer service awards that year, despite being hospitalised several times because I developed gall stones, probably during pregnancy, and they caused excruciating attacks. The pain was worse than labour and on several occasions I ended up on morphine. I would rather spend 12 hours in labour pushing something the size of a small melon out that have another gall bladder attack, that's how mad they were. Between attacks, I answered client emails and worked on orders from my hospital bed.

Yup. I worked from my hospital bed, because I had no sickness rights.

My gall bladder was eventually removed, and following the operation, I once again returned to work far sooner than I should've done. Me and hubby continued to fight, money was still tight, and my mental health continued deteriorating. I didn't have space to work at home, especially with two kids, and our situation was frustrating. All the same, business was picking up, and as I had some regular clients I decided to rent a studio.

Having a studio ensured I stuck to sensible working hours while allowing me to separate work from home. But while having a studio and consultation space helped me grow the business, it ate into the funds of my first profitable year. Money remained very tight for a family of four with a mortgage, and my depression grew ever more controlling. I also suffered a great deal of back pain, left over from pregnancy, and even walking the length of our street had me crying in agony. I gained weight because pain limited my capacity for exercise. Kayaking hurt less, but thanks to our low income it wasn't something we could afford to do the was we had before the crash. Even getting to a nice spot costs petrol money.

By the end of 2014 I knew I'd make a slight profit but when a job became available, I jumped at the interview. It wasn't in the role I'd trained for, but it was back in construction and had an regular wage. I got the job, and started employment again in January 2015. The depression lingered, although being financially secure provided some respite as well as opportunity to gain some independence. I didn't enjoy the job as much as my previous one, but I loved the people I worked with so I was fairly content. Unfortunately my back pain didn't ease and my wrists began to suffer too, leaving me in near constant discomfort.
That year, my dad was diagnosed with cancer.

NHS waiting times were so long he went private for a diagnosis but couldn't afford private treatment, so he started chemotherapy on the NHS. He was given four years to live, but he died eleven months diagnosis. That was one month after I relented and started taking anti-depressants, and one month before I attempted suicide.

At that point I'd been signed off work and I'd stopped leaving the house. People triggered anxiety attacks and depression told me to give up. I wanted to see my children grow up while at the same time feeling they'd be better off without me. I'd failed them. I wanted the constant gnawing worry and self-hatred to end.

Following my suicide attempt, I was told I'd been referred to the community mental health team, but four months on I'd still heard nothing. My GP had to refer me again before I was finally assessed and put on another waiting list for a community psychiatric nurse. I still don't have one of those assigned to me.

In September 2016, I applied for PIP. In October 2016, at 2am the day of my PIP assessment, the anxiety and stress of the process sent me into crisis. As a suicide risk and self-harmer, I was taken onto the crisis team case load. I was diagnosed with several different conditions and needed to put measures in place to keep me safe. It was a stressful day on its own, but then my PIP assessor didn't bother tuning up to my appointment. That increased my anxiety levels again as we were desperately short of money.

The attitude of the assessor, a supposed health care professional, on the phone was so dismissive and antagonistic that its left a last impression. That impression prevents me from applying for ESA because I'm so scared that another assessor will push me towards the same ledge the PIP assessor did, a ledge which could kill me.

The result of feeling unable to apply for ESA?

This month I had £13 to cover the bills and mortgage, and look after the kids. Not feasible, but I can't change it. The nature of my illness makes interacting with strangers difficult, often impossible. Interacting with ones I know are out to deny me vital funds becomes totally impossible and totally unfeasible. It's not logical, but it is part of mental illness and part of how the Conservatives are killing off sections of the disabled public. People tell me 'just do it, just set you mind to it', but that's the problem. My mind won't let me do it. My mind is the main problem.

Thankfully PIP was granted, although at the lowest level. The backdated payments got us through November and December, but also in November, I lost my job. I lost it because I couldn't given my employers timescales for my return. I was still on waiting lists, thanks to Conservative cuts causing a decrease in mental health staff and services, with no clue when I'd be seen, never mind when I'd be better. I'd been employed for 19 month when I was 'let go', just short of the two year mark which requires notice, etc. In December I was also discharged from the Crisis Team caseload to the Step Up Team's caseload.

In January 2017, I finally got an appointment with the community mental health teams psychiatrist. He added another medication to the mix to help with depression and insomnia, but his concern over my self ham, suicidal thoughts, and mood meant he left me under step up care while also referring me to more intensive therapy and asking to see me again in three months.

Within a matter of weeks, Step Up decided to stop seeing me because I couldn't do the graded exposure asked of me. I was still on the waiting list for the therapy I needed and rather than supporting me, the staff developed a one track mind. It would've been sensible to have the therapy and then do graded exposure, but underfunding meant therapy could take months to get and the Step Up team gave up, lying to do so, which resulted in my sending a six page letter to the psychiatrist i saw. To this date, my letter hasn't been acknowledged. It hasn't been answered and I need to resend it because my psychiatrist has since left the trust, without giving me my three month review.

Now the community nurses phone every four weeks to ask if I still want to be on the waiting list, but I think it's more than four weeks since I last heard from them. I haven't had a review, even though it's been asked for again.  I don't know when I'll be seen or when I'll get treatment. My self harm and insomnia are getting worse again. I'm constantly on the edge of Crisis and it's more luck than anything that I haven't taken another overdose. I don't know if I'm going to survive because the funding just isn't there for mental health services to meet growing need, and so those cared for in the community are much more likely to die by suicide than those in hospital. On top of that, several of my conditions increase the likelihood of further suicide attempts.

I'm also in severe pain. My back still causes misery, and my wrists show signs of onset osteoarthritis, which feels like it's affecting my fingers and legs too. I also have a diagnosis of suspected fibromyalgia. The paid doesn't help my mood either, as it makes it harder for me to complete tasks I used to enjoy. It's hell. I don't leave the house. I don't see friends. I'm in mental and physical pain and the money has run out, so despite not having Sky TV or luxuries, I'm still heading into debt.

[I paused here for the night. I nearly deleted this post, but then another two people told me they weren't voting or intended to spoil their votes, and I realised this needs to be said.]

People get upset when I get angry at them for not voting/spoiling ballots/voting Conservative, but what they fail to realise is that this election isn't about a bit of hardship for me, it's about life and death. If the Conservatives get back in, I will die. My children will lose their mother, my husband will lose his wife, my children will by at risk of their own mental illnesses. That is the simple truth. I know this, because the Conservatives will continue to punish the sick and the poor by cutting back on Welfare and destroying the NHS.

I know this as a fact. I know the ill will suffer because Theresa May stated clearly that she is basing her transformation of the NHS on the Naylor Report, a document detailing how to sell off the NHS, including through 2 for 1 offers. Under the Conservatives, the NHS WILL be privatised. When children are injured, hospital treatment WILL bankrupt their parents. Like in America, hospital treatment WILL bankrupt thousands every year and ordinary people will lose their homes without ever reaching dementia tax age.

Even on the minute chance we manage to stop the selling off of our health service, nursing staff are still being cut, trainee numbers are in decline, we still won't have the medical staff to treat people. I have been on waiting lists for over a year now, waiting for treatment for a condition which could kill me. I have no idea when or even if I'll be seen, which exacerbates my condition which in turn makes a return to employment unlikely, adding to the financial pressure more and more each month.

I have a friend with EDS, a rare but severe condition. She needs many operations to improve her quality of life and she's often in so much pain she can't function. She has to miss her kid's school plays and family days out and requires a carer on the days her husband works. She needs welfare and she needs the NHS. She needs surgeons to carry out procedures. She needs and NHS to treat her so her boys don't lose their mum. She needs the NHS because her boys inherited her condition and they will need medical help one day.

Disabled people in Britain are going without treatment due to waiting lists. They're going without money to pay for food, clothes, and shelter. ESA claimants continue to face benefit cuts under the Conservatives while the private companies they've hired to carry out flawed assessments earn millions in taxpayer money, a cost which could be eliminated by listening to patients GPs rather than paying £44,000 per health care professional to hire and train them as assessors, then to go through all the appeals from those wrongly denied financial support. Our disabled people are being assessed twice for PIP and ESA to evaluate condition their own doctors have spent months evaluating. We are spending vast sums on appeals. The system itself costs more to run than it saves in benefits. It would be cheaper for the treasury to create a universal basic income than it is for them to assess, means test, and have appeals processes for all the various benefits and tax credit. More importantly, though, hundreds of innocent people will continue to kill themselves rather than face abject poverty. That is reality.

Over a million people in Britain already use food banks. That number went up more between 2015-16 and 2016-2017 than it did at the height of the economic crash. In 2009 a little over 40k families accessed food banks, that is figure is now now over 1.18 million! And food banks don't just hand out free food. You have to prove it's an emergency to get three days supply.

Yearly food bank use.

Child poverty is rising dramatically. Homelessness is rising dramatically. Our current youngsters will be poorer and have a lower life expectancy than their parents and grandparents. Millennials and younger, as well as the disabled and sick, are being left to rot and die. On top of that, teachers are being forced to give food parcels to hungry children. So yes, I get angry when people say they won't vote or intend to vote Conservative.  I get angry because it's not weathering the storm for me. It's not getting through tough times to create a better better. It's life or death. If the Conservatives get back in, then I have no future.

My children are 6 (almost) and 4. I might not see them grow up because there aren't enough NHS staff to treat me, the system works against me financially, and no one seems to give a damn. My children may go without birthday presents because we have so little coming in. And, do you know what? There are people worse off than us.

In a way I'm lucky. My dad left his house in trust to my children, and I can now live rent and mortgage free there (although there's still council tax, water rates, insurance, electricity - which i imagine will get cut off in the near future), so we're in the process of moving. Dad' house is only a two bedroom house though, and with a boy and a girl we need to convert the loft to make it three bed. My dad left me some money, a few thousand, which barely covered the floor and staircase costs. We can't afford skylights or insulation or the plasterboard to make the loft into a bedroom, and because the job's partially done, the second bedroom is a building site, meaning my whole family are living out of one bedroom with no money to finish make either of the other two rooms habitable.

Imagine that for a second. We're living like families in the 50s with the whole family in one bedroom. Put it this way, there's absolutely no chance if me having any more children!

And at present, we're still paying the mortgage on our original house. It's lost value, so we can't sell it because we don't have the money to pay off the mortgage (which we got back when we both had jobs) so our only option is to live in dad's house and rent out ours. The problem is, the rent will only just cover the mortgage and landlord insurance. It's not adding anything to our income and because of the area we can't charge more. What the Conservatives have created is an area of deprivation and we're trapped in it. We can't win. So we survive with four of us in one bedroom, with me in pain and struggling, not sure that it will ever get better, and we survive of JSA and PIP because my hubby can't find a job and needs to care for me and the kids, and i can't face going through another assessment for ESA when the previous assessment nearly killed me.

I have a first class degree, I'm not stupid or lazy.

I worked 60hrs a week for 20p an hour to save my house. I'm not work shy.

I want to get better and I want to work.

I want treatment for my mental illnesses.

I want relief from the pain of my back, wrists, and fingers which stop me doing the things I love.

I adore my children and I want to see them grow up.

But people are saying they won't vote for Labour because Corbyn is reluctant to drop bombs. They are saying they won't vote at all because Corbyn didn't do enough to stop Brexit. People are saying they are happy to watch their lose everything and die, killed off by Tory pledges, because of conflicts that happened 30 years ago. They say it out of apathy, or out of a lack of empathy, but it kills people all the same.

I didn't ask for this. I didn't cause the cuts that cost my career and my husbands. I didn't ask for the trauma and then poverty that influenced my mental health. I didn't as to be in pain every day. I did well at school, college, and university and worked hard because I wanted to give my children the best lives possible.  But they have it worse than I did under Thatcher. They haven't realised how poor we are yet, but it's coming.

How do I tell my kids that they can't have things others take for granted?

How do I make myself keep going when all I can see is pain, bills, debt, and eventually losing everything but the four walls dad put into trust? That we have those for walls gives us something many others don't have, but we still have food to buy and bills to pay. What happens when my overdraft runs out and I can't pay the electricity and water rates? Just thinking about it pushes me closes to the edge and the worry is constant. Every day. Every breath. Even in my dreams. It never stops. And I want the fear to end. I want the mental torture and the physical pain to end. I want it ALL to end.

Voting the right person in, even if you don't agree with everything the say, can save lives. I don't agree with everything Corbyn says. I like the monarchy and I think he should resist Brexit, but I also know we need him because only through him can we begin closing the gap between rich and poor again. Only through him can we save the NHS which any of us may need, at any time, and for any reason; from disability, to car accidents, to cancer, and to terrorist attacks. The NHS and our people matter. So vote to help them. Vote to save lives. An apathy and inaction, or even acts of rebellion, can cost lives. Between 2010-2013 such practises cost more than 600 lives through disabled people dying at their own hands, without including those bombed in Libya and Syria, or those who die waiting for hospital beds, surgery, or even to get to the top of a waiting list for routine treatment. Don't condemn thousands more.

Please. Don't condemn me. Don't condemn my friend with EDS, or her sons. Don't make my diabetic mam go without treatment or my best friend who has had cancer previously and so is high risk. Don't condemn my other friend who suffers severe mental illness, or my kids, should they ever get sick. Don't make buying food impossible for another million families.

In this election we can save people, but to do that, you have to vote for Labour, and if you don't have a Labour candidate, for someone other than the Conservatives.

If you don't vote, or if you vote Conservative, you may be complicit in the deaths of hundreds of people.

So I sit here crying, and I don't think I'll see my children grow up. This is my reality.

Carmine Raven

OSTEOARTHRITIS, FIBROMYALGIA, ASTHMA, PCOS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SOCIAL PHOBIA, AGORAPHOBIA, AVOIDANT TRAITS, BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, POSSIBLE C-PTSD.

Don't be a strawberry. Vote Labour. 

Sick and on the Font Line

Today I decided to do political phone banking for the first time using Labour's dialogue app. There are a number of reasons for this, starting in the post-crash world of 2009 and coming right up to the present day. To understand why I want a change in government, it's important to understand me, right down to the personal. So here goes...

2008

• The economic crash happened.

2009

• I left university with a first class BSc honours degree and a professional job.
• My boss warned us all that if the Conservatives took power, we'd lose work and they'd be redundancies.

2010

• The Condem coalition took office.
• My work goals were to be promoted to a senior position within 2 years.
• I fell pregnant with my first child.
• My husband was made redundant twice, first from a social housing provider trying to save money, then from a small builder and renewable energy company.
• The Condems cut funding to building schools and hospitals which I was working on.

2011

• Our mortgage went into arrears. A man from the Halifax turned up on the door when I was 36 weeks pregnant and we had to sort out an arrangement.
• The day I gave birth, I was made redundant.

2012

• I became self employed because there were few jobs available. I made a loss but tax credits at least meant the mortgage was paid ever month.
• I saw a therapist for post-natal and general depression. The sessions ran out before the problem was resolved as a maximum of 12 sessions are offered at any time. Often only 6 are offered.
• My business won a customer service award.
• I gave birth to our second child. I took a week off afterwards solely because it was Christmas. I was back working on my business the following week with no option for maternity leave, pay, or allowance.

2013

•  I had continuing untreated mental health issues.
• I suffered gall stones which caused gall bladder attacks which required hospitalisation due to the severity of the pain which was worse than giving birth. I needed morphine.
• In between attacks, when I wasn't on morphine, I did business work from my smart phone from my hospital bed because I couldn't afford to stop working without sick pay.
• My business got to the finals of several customer service awards.

2014

• I finally started turning a profit, although only just, and rented a business premises.
• I had ongoing mental health problems, not helped by low income.
• My business got to the finals of a customer service award.

2015

• I finally got a new job and closed my business.
• My father was diagnosed with cancer. NHS waiting times for diagnosis were so long he went to go private to get a diagnosis, although he couldn't afford private treatment.

2016

• My dad went into hospital but expected to come home again. He didn't. Instead he ended up on a palliative care ward, desperate to come home but unable to do so as there wasn't the resources available.
• I finally went on antidepressants and started seeing a counsellor.
• 4 years earlier than expected, my dad entered the last days of his life, still on a palliative care ward with no drip to keep him hydrated, unable to swallow, and with family required to moisten his lips with a sponge to give him some relief when he begged for water.
• Dad died alone in a private room, early in the morning, during the brief period a nurse went to get him some pain relief as he after he groaned in pain.
• A month later, I attempted suicide.
• I was referred to the Community Mental Health Team and put on a waiting list.
• My counsellor decided he couldn't help me and I needed more intensive help.
• I applied for PIP and the stress of the process and mistakes made by ATOS staff led to crisis and worsening suicidal intention.
• I ended up on the Crisis Teams caseload.
• I was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, social phobia, agoraphobia, avoidant personality traits, and borderline personality disorder, with problems stemming from both past trauma and poverty.
• I lost my job due to long term ill health because I couldn't tell my employer when I'd return or even when I'd be treated due to NHS waiting lists.
• I was transferred to the Step Up Team.

2017

• I saw a psychiatrist who referred me to psychotherapy and added extra medication, he also wanted to see me in 3 months.
• The Step Up Team stopped seeing me because I wasn't improving. I was left to wait on therapy.
• My 3 month psychiatrist review never happened as the doctor left the trust. Now a nurse phones every four weeks to see if I want to remain on the waiting list. I can't remember when they last phoned.
• I am still waiting for therapy.
• I can count the number of times I've left my house in the last year on my fingers.
• I'm in debt because I can't afford the bills. I'm too afraid of repeating my PIP experience to apply for ESA. Without free school meals, we won't be able to give our kids more than breakfast and one other meal.
• I'm still suicidal but I have no idea when I'll get treatment .
• The thought 'hang on long enough to vote' keeps playing in my mind, as if I will have a decision to make in June; find hope under Corbyn or die under a Conservative government.
• That is my reality and the reality on many sick, disabled, and out of work people.

That's why I'm voting Labour and it's also why I decided to use Dialogue to help the Labour Party, despite often having panic attacks when answering the phone. Labour rely on the support and help of the public, so I decided to phone bank because this election is so important for both myself and the future of my children. I forced myself to do it. 

Unfortunately, I only managed an hour, making around thirty calls and logging around fourteen replies. During that time, most people didn't answer. Some hung up as soon as they heard what I was calling about, but several were polite and friendly. More we friendly than openly hostile. One was misinformed but wouldn't let me finish a sentence. One only heard the words 'Labour Party' when I introduced myself before going into a tirade about Labour. She shouted and cursed as if I were the reason for all her woes then hung up without letting me get a word in. That triggered an anxiety spiral which led me to end today's session.

Cursing at strangers is not OK, alright people?

Now the suicidal ideation is whispering again. I'm at home alone right now. I genuinely afraid that the Conservatives will get back in and there'll be no hope for another five years. I want to see my kids grow up, but my untreated mental illness whispers that I'm a terrible person and everyone would be better off with out me, meanwhile everything I said while phone banking spins around and around in my head. My mind insists I made things worse, turning away voters, rather than helping. Logically I know that isn't true. I used the script. I was polite and friendly. But still the anxiety whispers. 

That anxiety and self loathing has almost proved fatal before now and I should probably phone crisis, but they'll only come out hours from now, once I've calmed down, that's if I'm lucky. They'll decide I'm not an immediate risk and nothing will change. I won't move up the waiting list. I won't receive treatment. It'll remain the same until the voice which whispers that there's only one way to change things overpowers me again. Next time it might mean a trip to the morgue rather than a ride in an ambulance.

It'll never get better. Not under this government.

So tomorrow I'll try to phone bank again because this election is so very important, even if the process makes my illness worse. Why? Because unless Corbyn's Labour win, I won't get better. I might not even get the therapy I so need.  But Labour need as much support as they can get, strong support from people who are more capable than me.

If I can fight past my illness to help Labour, even just an hour a day, so can others. For the sake of the sick and disabled, for children and the elderly, and for those in poverty, please help in any way you can. 

Carmine Raven

Lord Ebenezer Sugar

"Trust me, I came from the poorest family in the 50's. He offers lies, not hope." - Lord Sugar, 2017, Twitter.

Ebenezer made this statement in response to a twitter user who dared suggest Jeremy Corbyn offered hope to people after seven years of suffering under a Tory government. Let's consider that claim. His dad had a job, so while certainly impoverished, they were not the poorest. By 16, Lord Sugar had his own job, and by 40 he was one of the richest men in Britain. While his family were undoubtedly poor, to presume he understands modern day British poverty and can tell others not to find hope in Corbyn shows preposterous and blind arrogance in the face of grim reality.

Wages are contracting in the UK under Tory government, living standards are falling, child poverty is increasing, Theresa May is making u-turn after u-turn and purposefully lying about misquoting Corbyn and lying about being unclear about her unpopular and uncosted manifesto policies. Her foreign secretary has lied about giving the NHS £350m on numerous occasions. National debt is skyrocketing. Economic growth is slowing. The NHS is on the brink of collapse and teachers are having to provide food parcels for children whose parents can't afford to feed them. Yes, people should find hope in Corbyn, because under the Conservative government the cavernous divide between rich and poor is once again stretching. We need Corbyn because the already wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are becoming homeless.

Homelessness and food bank use are both on the increase. We need some hope because the Tories only offer lies and hopelessness. We should aspire to be better, not accept that we are getting ourselves into a worse situation. Even if poverty is insignificant compared to previous decades (it's not, but if), the only salient point remains that poverty is increasing and is a greater problem now than at the height of the crash. Rather than ignoring the increasing problem and dragging the country backwards, we should be looking to lift people out of poverty and work towards a more prosperous future for all. There is no reason for children to go hungry in modern day Britain.

"Who are the poor these days? There are some people in the north and such places who are quite poor, but they all have phones, being poor, they've all got microwave ovens, being poor, they've all got televisions, being poor..." - Lord Sugar, 2015, The Telegraph

But Lord Sugar doesn't believe real poverty exists in Britain. After all, we all have phones, computers, and TVs. He seems oblivious to the fact those things are essentials rather than luxuries in modern life. Many televisions were purchased before the crash when people had money, that they still have those televisions doesn't mean they aren't impoverished in the present day. More important than either of that, though, is the understanding that television is today's radio. In the 50's everyone had a radio or bought newspapers. Many came to own televisions too, even though they were black and white. Everyone could access news stories. Modern television is not a luxury, it is our access to the world.

As for computers, tablets, and even smart phones? It's clear Sugar hasn't hasn't needed to apply for a job recently, and I presume other people place job adverts on his behalf. Only such separation from the job market can explain his ignorance on the matter. Most people understand that many businesses only accept online applications these days. With libraries shutting down people need their own internet access to apply for jobs, which they do because a) they want work, or b) they are required to in order to get the job seekers allowance which allows them to pay for some food, some heating, some of the cost of living.

Even students have to have computer access to complete education these days. Technology isn't a luxury, it is essential. Everyone from potential employers to the Department of Work and Pensions expect to be able to get in contact and - shock horror - it can be cheaper to have a mobile than have a land line. Yet Sugar seems to be suggesting that people aren't truly poor if they have the equipment they need to survive. Taking away phones and computers these days is the equivalent of taking away Royal Mail and phone boxes in the 50's. Suddenly people don't have access to jobs, or other people, or even emergency services. As for microwaves ovens, I would love to pose this question to the wealthy oaf:

Have you ever tried to become an expert in making home cooked meals (rather than ready meals) in a microwave because you can't afford a cooker?

That was my reality for a while, and my first cooker was an already old thing donated to me free by a friend. My current cooker was my late father's. Not everyone can afford a cooker, in light of that can you really say poverty is not a problem in Britain? People can not afford kitchen appliances. They cannot afford electricity. Get your head out of the clouds, Ebenezer, and face the truth. If you're not to busy buying anything your heart desires, that is...

"Unless it's a plane or boat or something like that... I don't look at the price. I look at the product and if like the shirt I have it. The price is whatever the price is." - Lord Sugar, 2015, The Telegraph

Perhaps we should expect someone who freely admits he doesn't look at price tags (and doesn't know the cost of a pint of milk) to have no idea what is going on in the real world. His family were poor a long time ago. He's been among the richest people in Britain for the last thirty years. He made the most of the social mobility offered in the 80's, and the economic growth of the late nineties and early in the millennium, and somewhere along the way he surrendered his sense of perspective in favour of a sense of self-importance. He denies modern day poverty, and yet the number of people using food banks today makes the numbers using food banks during the crash look insignificant.

In 2009-2010, only 40,898 people used food banks. 

That was in post-crash Britain, when unemployment was going up, the government had just bailed out the banks, and we still feared worse would come.

Well, things did get worse, but not because of the global economy. No, Tory austerity brought about the second wave of suffering for many normal people, both those in work and those out of it. Zero hours contracts and being forced into self-employment brought down unemployment levels, improving the Tories' image, but such 'employment' meant and continues to mean many people cannot afford to live. Some aren't earning minimum wage. That leads us back to food banks.

In 2016-2017, the number of people using food banks increased to 1,182,954, despite our economy supposedly 'recovering' and 'unemployment decreasing'.

That's over a million instances of people accessing food banks even though, during the crash, the figures didn't even reach fifty thousand. Take a moment to think about that, then say you agree with Sugar that poverty isn't a problem in Britain. Do you really believe him?

If your answer is to accuse people of using food banks like takeaway, you need to remember than many food banks require evidence proving users cannot afford to purchase food. They do not give resources out to any and all, and they only give out three day emergency supplies, not a full weekly shop. Now you've remembered that, you need to take a good long look at yourself  and reassess how to be a decent human.

"You brain dead. I left before Corbyn was Labour leader." - Sugar, 2017, Twitter

Sugar even called a Twitter user 'brain dead' in another remarkable tweet. This only goes to emphasise how out of touch with ordinary people Sugar is. Under no circumstances is calling someone 'brain dead' appropriate, especially as we fight to overcome stigma against mental illness, and while the Department of Work and Pensions continue to sanction comatose disability claimants or declare them 'fit for work'.

Mental health is so underfunded that those being cared for in the community are killing themselves without ever reaching the top of the waiting list for treatment. The sick are facing so much stress when applying for benefits that they are dying just to escape poverty and trauma. All the same, Sugar feels it's alright to call people 'brain dead' for suggesting he's jumped ship from Labour because he'd rather look after his own wealth than the interests of the country. It seems like Sugar lives in his own self-important world where poverty can be erased by merely dismissing its existence and people are mentally deficient for daring to question his motives.  And while the ill have electricity cut off and die by suicide, Sugar can't even bring himself to be humble about his wealth.

"Yeh (I'm) a very rich man who paid £50m in tax in January to provide police and NHS for you. You talk a load of rubbish." -Sugar, 2017, Twitter

Apparently, Sugar as thinks of himself as a philanthropist who does his part for all of us. He pays his taxes in order to 'help' us, like some benevolent gentleman providing basic essentials to the plebs who work for him, watch him on television (which we shouldn't have anyway if we're genuinely poor), buy his products, and are the source of his wealth and continued celebrity. Yet, according to the Telegraph, in the year up to June 2016, Sugar took home dividends of £181m from Amshold. Taking this before April's tax increase saved Sugar £14m in taxes, according to This Is Money. He paid 38% in tax and still took home £123m after tax.

Most of us can't imagine taking home £123m in a year, and yet Sugar seems to have acted to avoid paying an extra £14m, and appears fearful of being required to pay more to support the people who buy his products and give him fame under a Labour government. He gets wealthier under the Conservatives, despite already being a billionaire, and he claims poverty isn't a problem in Britain despite evidence to the contrary. He is also so generous and 'helpful' that he's threatened to leave the country if Labour get into power...

Well, Sugar, I would say this...

Screw you.

I want to find out what businesses you are involved with and boycott them. I will not watch a programme with you in it, nor buy a newspaper where you are featured. Go ahead and leave, and take that blonde-haired harridan you made famous with you. Let a new wave of people make the most of the hope a new labour government would bring. Rather than hoarding British wealth to increase your own so-called 'worth', allow another young entrepreneur the opportunity to shine.

In 2015, your 'worth' was valued at £1.4bn, but that same year over a million families were forced to access food banks to survive. All the same you deny poverty exists. You have forgotten where you came from. You have forgotten what it is to be poor and you have no experience or understanding of poverty in the modern world. When you support the Tories who've tripled our national debt and sent child poverty skyrocketing to levels which are predicted to surpass those of thirty years ago, you become a national threat.

People die under Tory rule. People die in hospital corridors while waiting to be seen. Sick and disabled people - those who are already at their most vulnerable - kill themselves rather than enter battle with the DWP. Children go hungry. The police have faced such severe cuts that they cannot fulfil even basic duties, never mind protect us from terror. That is the Tory legacy. That is what you support.

You disgust me. You do not deserve the title 'Lord'. While your monetary worth may be more than most of us could ever dream of, your value as a as public figure, political commentator, and even as a person has crumbled. You should be ashamed, Sir. Today, somewhere in England, a child is eating cold beans out of a can because their parents can afford neither cooker nor microwave. Think about that the next time you wish to promote the Tories.

Yesterday, you said 'may your god help you' to a Corbyn voter. Today, I suggest you consider whether your god would approve of the blind eye you're turning to suffering.

EDIT 20170529: Sugar's current business interests, according to Companies House, are as follows: By Alana (search for Ridiculously Rich By Alana), Amsprop USA Holdings Limited, Dr Leah Limited, Climb Online Limited, Amstar Media Limited, Amsprop USA Holdings Limited, Amshold Group Limited, Amshold Trading Limited, Amstar Entertainment Limited, Hyper Recruitment Limited, Tropic Skin Care Limited, Aventom Limited, Amvest Limited, Amshold International Limited, Amsprop London Limited. His media companies are involved in pre-press aspects of The Apprentice and Junior Apprentice.

Carmine Raven

Debt, Deficit, Borrowing, Surplus, Tax, and Spend

I am going to explain this only once because I'm beginning to get truly frustrated with the ignorance I face from Conservative voters who don't want to accept that Labour has done the economy more good in the last three decades than the Tories. This really isn't that complicated.

Debt: The amount the government owes from borrowing, including the addition of any interest.

Deficit: The difference between budget spend and budget income leading to a negative balance.

Borrowing: The amount the government borrows.

Surplus: The difference between budget income and budget spend leading to a positive balance.

Tax: Money the government recoups from the populace through income tax and other taxes.

Spend: What the government invests in infrastructure, assets, welfare, and services.

So how do Labour and the Conservatives compare?

Debt

On its own and as a percentage of GDP, debt is consistently higher under Conservative governments than under Labour. Debt both prior to the Blair/Brown government and after it has been higher than during it.

Deficit

This is actually largely irrelevant. Large deficit isn't necessarily bad (unless the government are lying about their targets to lower it, but that's more because it shows government smoke and mirrors for the incompetence it is). Deficit is simply the difference in budget income and outgoings. Deficit is better than surplus in some respects as it shows money is going into the economy rather than being kept out of it in a surplus, although sometimes it is beneficial to be in surplus for a few years, pay off debt, and then start spending again. Under Labour, the Tory deficit was lowered, a surplus was created with fed into lowering debt, and then they began to invest, keeping the deficit stable. The rise in deficit came as a result of the GLOBAL crash, not as a cause of it, as government spending included bailing out the banks to stop a full scale crash of our economy.  This indicates anomalous spending in the years of the crash to save the economy, not recklessness on Labours part.

Borrowing

Under Labour yearly borrowing remained low and steady, the only exception was during the crash when the government borrowed to save the banks and the economy along with them. This was an anomaly, not a trend. However, since then, the Conservative government have continued to borrow at high levels. In 2015 their borrowing was still almost twice that of Labour's in 2007. Such borrowing while our debt remains high is reckless. It lowers the deficit, because it's 'income', but it doesn't improve our economic stability. In fact, high levels of debt are known to slow economic growth. As the conservatives are supposedly using cuts to welfare and public services to 'pay down the deficit'  and they aren't bailing out a new back every year, you have to wonder where all this borrowed money is going? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Ignoring corporate tax avoidance? Battle buses? I don't know, but it's an interesting question. 

Surplus

See Deficit

Tax

Despite a reputation for giving tax cuts, the Tories have a history of high taxation. They use stealth taxes to acquire income. Under Margaret Thatcher, effective tax reached a peak. It reduced under Labour, but rose under the Conservatives. We don't have any figures, but we can only presume the Tory dementia/death tax is intended to increase taxation further.

Spending

The government can invest in a number of ways, by purchasing assets which offset debt and can provide income or lower expenditure, or they can invest in infrastructure to improve productivity, or they can invest in welfare which has the twofold benefit of ensuring more people have money to spend, therefor increasing economic growth, and by ensuring recipients have some level of security and dignity, which in tern encourages productivity. Labour tends to invest in infrastructure, increasing economic productivity, while the current Conservative government seeks to cut spending which both slows economic growth and creates poverty. Child poverty has increased hugely in the last seven years, undoing the last Labour governments success and lowering it. 

Conclusion

The last Labour government had a policy of low levels of controlled debt, low levels of controlled borrowing, low levels of effective tax, productive economy, and investment to encourage productivity. The country made a lot compared yo what it borrowed. This placed us in a strange position during the global economic crash. Our accounts were in good enough shape that the government could borrow and bail out the banks to save the economy. The current Conservative government and the Tory government under Thatcher have high levels of debt, high levels of borrowing, high taxation, and slow economic growth, leaving us in a precarious position where another crash (such as that likely to follow Brexit) will have far greater impact than the global crash of 2008. And a future crash may well be the direct result of Tory policy and the Brexit referendum, as opposed to the 2008 crash which was global and not to be laid at Labour's door.

For a more in depth look at Tory and Labour policy, see my post Strong and Stable, or for more facts and figures on the economy, along with references for graphs shown here, see my post Debt, Deficit, and Deceit.

And remember, vote Labour for low debt, low borrowing, sensible spending, and low, stable, and open taxation.

Vote Conservative for high debt, high borrowing, spending on the already wealthy, and high, hidden taxation.

Carmine Raven

Vile, Awful 'It'

Today on twitter 3 tories decided to call me 'thicko', 'vile', 'awful', and 'it'.

Why?

I pointed out that I'm disabled, in poverty, a parent, that welface cuts cause poverty, and that it is not 'mismanagement' when you get pregnant before you know you're going to be made reduntant or end up on long term sick. I would rather work. I would rather have money to buy my daughter a birthday present, any burthday present, than get to the point where I have £13 in my bank account and four weeks of bills before I get paid. I would love to have the independence and future I had when I qualified under labour with a first class degree and a professiobal job. I would love not to worry all the time. I didn't choose or cause my situation. But sure, I'm the vile, awful, thicko of an 'it'.

This is how Tory policies of dehumanising the poor, sick, elderly, and impoverished translates to their supportors. It's ok to say this stuff, and to turn people into 'its' rather than people. How do they think this affect someone with a mental illness? If I told them, they'd probably say I was 'manipulative' or 'whinging'. Are these sorts of people really the ones we want to listen to?

For goodness sake, vote Labour.

Image from Pseudonymous Zombie

Carmine Raven

Strong and Stable Or Weak and Wobbly? You Decide

Jeremy Corbyn walks out on stage at a stadium to speak to 20,000 people and does so with confidence and animation. The crowds chant his name and video footage streams to thousands more. 

Meanwhile, Theresa May enters community centres through the back door to avoid angry service users at the front, and she speaks to whichever Conservative activists she can fit on her bus because when she is questioned by members of the public, the public reveal her policies are failing and are worth less than the uncosted manifesto they're written on. I do hope she's bothered to properly declare the cost of her battle bus and is ensuing her serving  MPs and candidates are doing the same, we'd hate to repeat that farce...

We can see who's strong and stable, and it isn't May; the farce is strong with that one.

Help us, J.C; you are our only hope.

Corbyn; If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. 

Corbyn has withstood character assassination and smear campaign, he has stood firmly despite the weight of misinformation and prejudiced propaganda levelled against him. He came back stronger from his leadership challenge and he looks stronger now, speaking to the people, than our current Prime Minister could conceive. May isn't even brave enough to enter a TV debate with the leader of the opposition, which is usually standard practise...

But then we know why she won't debate with him. She'd lose. Even in the commons, during debates, May has to resort to personal slight against Corbyn because he holds her accountable. That works in the commons because the press can then selectively choose what to show in the 6 o'clock news and put there own spin on it.

So many times even the supposedly impartial BBC show May making personal slights rather than dealing with the matter at hand and call that behaviour 'strong' then take one line of Corbyn's reply out of context to misreport it and ignore everything else he's said to expose Mrs May's failings. This attitude to 'news' encourages a bullying approach, spits on fair and honest debate, and is specifically designed to fuel the propaganda machine rather than provide quality journalism. It's not on, and it's time we stood up to it. Who pays licence fees? Who buys papers? We should expect more.

We only need to visit YouTube to see how low the BBC go when discussing May vs Corbyn. In fact, much as the Tories U-turned on the policy mentioned in the below video, some sources are already reporting that they have dropped the 10,000 promised mental health nurses from their manifesto just a week after they were promised! (This fact needs verified, but to see how the Conservatives manage mental health services, simply Google how many nurses we've lost over the last seven years - it's a lot.)

This behaviour in the media sets the tone for Conservative MPs, spin doctors, activists, and even Tory voters in general. During the course of the last week I've spoken to numerous Conservative voters through social media and I've discovered something. When faced with facts and figures they either go silent (like May when asked onto debate shows, or to nursing conferences) or they spout outright lies with no evidence to back them up (like the Tory propaganda machine), or they resort to personal attacks (much like May and the mainstream media). They'll trot out the 'loony lefty' line, or they'll say you're lying without having any evidence to dispute the wealth of evidence you've provided. They'll tell you that the Tories 'always have to clean up Labour's mess', despite the evidence stating that it is Labour who clean up the Conservatives mess. I have yet to receive any real debate in face of my Debt, Deficit, and Deceit post. I've been called a liar. I've been told pigs might fly. I've had outright disbelief. No one can dispute it though, because the figures reveal the truth.

The best anyone has managed to come up with, is 'but look at the 1970, Labour had highest rate income tax up at 98% and they still got us into debt by reckless spending'. At first glance, it would seem that tax rate was far to high for no benefit as that chased the wealthy away from Britain. But no one is suggesting we go back to 98%. Labour aren't even suggesting we go back to the 60% tax which Thatcher was reluctant to drop below. No one is intending to return to the 1970s and to claim that's where labour will lead us is nothing but scaremongering. Yes, a 98% tax would be damaging. A 50% tax? No, because as discussed in Debt, Deficit, and Deceit, if the rich were to pull investment on that, it'd be cutting their noses off to spite there faces. We need to stop spreading this lie that the wealthy will only receive 2% of their higher bracket earnings (those earning above what most of us can dream of, remember, they still have  personal allowances and basic rate earning, higher rate tax is only applied to income over the threshold). Labour still want the wealthy to keep 50% of higher rate earnings. That's 10% more than Thatcher and only 10% less than now. To keep mentioning the 70's is baseless scaremongering when what they should be worried about is the Conservative dementia  tax.

Let's have a look at that, then. The plan is to have the elderly who need care to sign up to an insurance policy which allows them and their partner to live in their home until they die, but upon death the money to cover care cost's is taken from the sale of the property, from equity over £100k. The average house in the UK is worth well over £100k, and it seems there is to be no real limit on the amount which can be taken from equity over that first £100k. These insurance policies will also be able to force the sale of a property at less than market value, reducing the amount any children will inherit with no recourse. People will see their inheritance slashed by such a move, and while inheritance is a luxury many don't enjoy, it does mean that even the average working family who have their own homes could see them taken from their families.

Such a tax would affect working and middle class families, and only serves the top earners who have enough to pay for care anyway. Why are families being asked to pay National Insurance to fund care and public services, only to be told their children will also lose their inheritance in order to pay for care for a second time?

This policy also flies in the face of parity of esteem between mental and invisible illnesses, and physical illnesses. 

Cancer patients will continue to be treated for free (as they should be. My father died last year on a palliative care ward of this terrible disease), but dementia patients will be forced to give up most of what they worked to have to pass on to their children. Perhaps it is a mercy that winter fuel allowance is being cut, some of us might freeze to death before we have to take such drastic measures. Also, on the note of winter furl allowance; the plan is to make it means-tested. This is a terrible decision.

Many people will fall through the net with such a system, either being daunted with the application process (as is the way with Universal Credit, PIP, ESA, etc) or they won't want the shame of being means tested. People will die for no reason other than the fact a simple systems suddenly becomes overly complicated and denies self-respect. Means testing is an accusatory process. You apply and then government bodies assess you to see if you're trying to steal the paltry amounts on offer. I know, having recently been scrutinised for PIP, after having worked for 15 years, right from 16, and having professional experience and a first class degree. I have aspirations, drive, a willingness to work, but saying I need temporary help is a shaming process. No one should be ashamed because they are sick, old, were raped, or because their parents decided to give birth to them...

Means tested benefits are also hugely inefficient. This is because they involve an application process which means paying staff to sort applications, award payments, and handle appeals. The current benefits system is hugely inefficient for this reason. It would actually be cheaper to award everyone a basic, living income, and then recoup the costs as taxes or National Insurance from those who earn enough not to need it. That's not to say the wealthy will pay extra or pay twice, they will simply pay back a benefit they don't need. They'll get no benefit and suffer no loss. However, government finances as a whole would benefit because they'd reduce the cost of labour and IT systems needed to deal with means tested applications, there would be lower levels of poverty, so more people would be spending money, which would strengthen the economy, people who suffer ill health or homelessness due to poverty would be taken out of poverty and become less of a burden on public services, whilst also regaining autonomy and therefore some dignity, which will improve productivity.

The productivity bit stumps a few people, people who claim that hand outs encourage people to live off the state, and that we should stop hand outs. If anyone was suggesting we hand out the average wage, I would agree, but no one is suggesting that. What is being suggested is that people are given enough for food, because poorly nourished people are unhealthy and unproductive, money for clothes, because looking smart helps get and hold onto work and respect, and money for basic essentials like heating and a roof, because people die of hypothermia and worrying about homelessness causes a cycle of depression and low productivity. A little stress is good for people, it's a driving force, but when this becomes prolonged it starts to lessen productivity. Constant worry about money lowers productivity, it makes people less capable of getting or retaining work, it makes people more prone to mental and physical illness, it costs government finances more by creating problems than it solves. Making sure people have a basic income lowers that stress and worry, and allows them to look above the parapet, to see that the can do more and start working towards aspirations. It encourages people, rather than discourages them. If you tell a man he's worthless for long enough, he will believe himself worthless. If you allow a man his self respect, most will seek to remain respectable.

Now, back to Tory voters and their claims I'm lying. One told me yesterday that Labour policies have always been 'high tax, high borrowing, and high spending'. This is a fundamentally flawed argument based on the '70's 98% higher rate tax and the lie that Labour borrows and spends more than the Conservatives. Yes, Thatcher cut higher rate tax to 60%, but she also introduced huge amounts of stealth tax, which mean the effective tax rate peaked under her leadership. People paid more in tax under Thatcher than they did under the preceding Labour government. The last Labour government lowered this rate.

Yes, that's right, under Labour we paid lower taxes. 

Source: The National Archives (with annotation)

When I pointed this out to the 'gentleman' I was debating with, announced that if the Conservatives taxed more, it was because they always have to tidy up after Labour's spending. At this point, I reminded him that Thatcher also spent more than the preceding labour government. He then reverted to the line 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'. I pointed out he had indeed told lies, damned lies, but had skipped the statistics entirely and ended the debate. He was too stubborn and to wilfully misinformed to keep spending time on, but I hoped someone else may read the information I'd posted and draw their own conclusions.

Source: Economics Help

Now posting that graph is a risk, and I expect a backlash of Tory voters claiming 'but look, under Blair's government spending went up! That just proves how reckless Labour are!' At which point I'd refer again to my previous post on the subject, Debt, Deficit, and Deceit. Labour's increased spending was due to better economic productivity and investment in infrastructure, not due to increased debt or taxation. As previously stated in this post, the effective tax rate was lowered, and as discussed in the aforementioned article, borrowing as a percentage of GDP was also lowered.

Under Labour we had less debt, and we paid less tax, despite increases in public spending, because we had such a strong economy.

Under the Conservatives, we have skyrocketing debt, slow growth in the economy, historically they require higher taxation through stealth taxes, which is a trend Theresa May's manifesto of misery seems intent on continuing. 

Under Labour, child poverty fell dramatically and the gap between the wealthy and the poor reduced. The NHS ran at a surplus, and numbers of nurses and teachers training remained stable.

Under the Conservatives, child poverty is rising and while it hasn't yet reached Thatcher's levels, it is heading that way and may well surpass them. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us is increasing. Our public services are in huge deficit, and the numbers of unfilled nursing posts are increasing, nurses in training are decreasing, and larger classes are being taught be fewer qualified teachers.

• Our children are malnourished.
• Our elderly are dying of hypothermia.
• Our workforce is impoverished.
• Our homeless and starving are increasing. 
• Our public services are failing.
• Our economy is teetering on the brink of free fall.
• Our wealthiest politicians and business owners  grow wealthier through our suffering.
• Our populace is, by majority, worse off now than they were ten years ago.

What more do you need to know in order to #VoteLabour?

If you do one thing on June 8th, then go and vote for your Labour candidate. If you don't have a Labour candidate, then vote Co-op (if you have a co-op working in conjunction with Labour), or vote Green, or vote for your independent representative (not to be confused with UKIP, votes for whom may ensure Conservative victory). Do it for your children, your grandparents, the disabled, the sick... Do it for yourselves by supporting economic growth rather than debt and economic stagnation. Do it because it's the only decent thing to do.

Carmine Raven

What We Stand To Lose

There is a lot riding on this general election. The NHS and social care are already in crisis, education isn't far behind, child poverty is rising by the day, as is national debt, and already the Conservatives have pledged to SCRAP both free school meals for infants and winter fuel allowance for OAPs. All this, on top of previous cuts benefits, cuts to tax credits, forcing even working families to use foodbanks, losing vast numbers of mental health staff and creating a mental health crisis... The message is a simple one; if you value our public services, our elderly, our disabled, our children, or even just our economy, then Vote Labour before the Tories drag us down.

Carmine Raven

Debt, Deficit, and Deceit: How Labour Caused the Crash and the Conservatives Saved Us

An election is coming, and we want to make sure we're in safe hands, don't we?

In advance of the General Election, it's prudent to take into account the past history of parties with government experience and look at their track record. Let's start with what we 'know'.

• The exiting Labour government left us in massive debt, with a huge debt following a policy of borrow and spend.
• Coalition and Conservative austerity has brought down the deficit as promised in successive election campaigns.

Those facts form the basis of much Conservative support. It is assumed that Labour will borrow billions and send us spiralling back into deficit. We've all seen the matter raised in the commons and on the news. We don't even need to look at Conservative campaign material to see that this is the truth; Labour caused the economy to crash and the Conservatives are cleaning up their mess. The Conservatives are taking us from deficit to surplus.

Right?

Well, the subject of debt and deficit is not that simple. Many people confuse the two. In fact even David Cameron, while in power, spoke of bringing down national debt when he actually meant deficit. So what are debt and deficit?

Debt

• Money borrowed. Often stated as net debt, being the money borrowed minus the value of assets. It's what the government owes.

Deficit

• The difference between budget income and outgoings. Deficit happens when income is less than outgoings. Surplus happens when income is greater than outgoings.

So in terms of debt, what is the track record of current and previous governments? 

To say the Conservative record is 'poor' would be an understatement. The current Conservative government have increased debt and debt as a percentage of GDP by quite dramatic amounts. They are borrowing in far greater amounts than Labour, which is all well and good in some respects as it provides us with income... until those debts are called in. Then we have one awfully big expense to pay off. That's extremely risky. 

Borrowing is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it is necessary, but it is a calculated risk, one the Conservative government is willing to put far bigger bets on than Labour ever did, and they are gambling with our economy. Not only is it risky because debts can be called in, but huge national debt can also slow economic growth as its lessens likelihood of other investment. It's a two pronged risk which the Conservatives are taking with apparently little concern.

However, this behaviour is nothing new to the Conservatives. It follows previous trends.

The last Labour government brought down debt as a percentage of GDP from that during the term of the exiting Conservative government. Under the Conservative led coalition, this rose sharply, surpassing even the previous levels under the previous Conservative government.

Source: Daily Mail, referencing ONS

In fact, here we can see exactly which party's policies lead to increased borrowing. Under Labour, borrowing as a percentage of GDP dropped to its lowest level in the two decades shown, while Conservative/Coalition governments have been blighted by vast amounts of borrowing compared as a percentage of GDP.

Source: Daily Mail, referencing ONS

Now, lets look at some current public sector debt data... This speaks for itself. We're still up to the eyeballs in debt.

Source: Office of National Statistics

OK, the debt's looking unhealthy, but what about deficit? That's coming down, right?

Well, yes, it is, but it would have done even without Conservative austerity because the huge deficit left in the wake of the global economic downturn was something of an anomaly. It didn't cause the downturn as many would like to imply, but rather it was a response too the downturn. The Labour government who were in power at the time were faced with the prospect of our financial industry collapsing. If the banks failed, they would wipe out savings. They would also have call in debts, including mortgages, loans, etc. The economy would have bombed ever worse than it did, and so the government bailed out the banks. That is what the huge expenditure was about. It wasn't reckless investment or unwise borrowing, it was an attempt to save our economy from the affects of a GLOBAL (rather than UK/Labour caused) downturn. It was a response, not a cause, and therefore an anomaly. 

So if we discount the deficit caused by the economic crash, how does Labour's track record stack up compared to the Conservatives?

When Labour came into power, the Conservative government left them with a deficit. The Labour government brought this into surplus where it remained for four consecutive years, longer than the previous and short lived Conservative surplus which preceded a Conservative deficit which was greater than Labour's at the height of their pre-crash bail-out spending. In fact, in recent decades, Labour have had us in surplus for a greater length of time than any Conservative government has managed, that is despite the Conservatives being in government for far more of the time.  The Conservatives had plenty of time to prove their policies were financially sound, but it was only under labour we had any substantial surplus. Even the later Later deficit was coming down again - under Labour... until the global crash.

Source: The Guardian

So how is the deficit doing now?

Source: BBC News, referencing ONS (annotation added).

It's come down, but not at the speed promised. Under Conservative election pledges, we should've been back in surplus by now. We aren't near. We have gotten back to a deficit equivalent to that before the crash, but we're no where near in surplus. That reduction in deficit has been paid for through austerity measures, cuts in funding to the national health services, education, welfare, and so on, while being somewhat slowed by tax breaks given to the wealthiest members of society and corporations. In other words, the reduction in the deficit is being funded by the poorest members of society and the working class, while big business continue to increase profits and the wealthy continue to hoard wealth - keeping it out of circulation and therefore slowing economic growth.

But who cares who paid to get the deficit down? It doesn't matter, right? At least it's down, so the Conservatives have done a good job?

That would be a rather narrow view. The previous Labour government took us from deficit to surplus without austerity and without reaching the deficit of the previous  Conservatives at its worst.  As much as I resent giving a thumbs up to Blair's government, they did a good job. They took us from deficit to surplus without the NHS going into free fall and without workers relying on food banks. They did so without the disabled committing suicide rather than losing their homes due to lost benefits. The did so, without spitting on the poor by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Now, some economists say that surplus is bad, that it takes money out of circulation and causes economic crashes. However, Labour's surplus bucks that trend. They balanced the Tory books, paid off Tory debts, and then started investing while keeping debt at a stable level as a percentage of GDP. Even in Labours second year, investment was up on the previous Tory governments final year, then it dropped for a year, then it went back up, and Labour managed to invest without causing debt to rise as a percentage of GDP. The Tory government have severely cut investment while dramatically increasing debt as a percentage of GDP. In other words, they pose greater risk to the economy.

Labour did a good job. The Conservative legacy is less positive.

Yes, the deficit is down almost to what it was before the global downturn, but at what cost? The NHS is on the brink of collapse. Food banks are back. National debt and the associated risk has risen dramatically. The government is hiding reports indicating that their strangle hold on welfare is costing lives. Meanwhile, they can't even account properly for election spending (battle buses) never mind the economy. On top of that, they have sold off national assets for less than they were worth to corporations in which they or their friends have interests. We now have a huge amount of debt and far fewer assets to balance it with. But sure, the deficit is down compared to at the height of the crash...

That the number of working families in poverty has increased shouldn't matter, should it?

That the number of children in poverty has increased shouldn't matter, should it?

That the NHS is collapsing shouldn't matter, should it?

That funding to mental health services has been cut to the point of crisis in the last seven years shouldn't matter, should it?

The fact student debt isn't being paid off because even the employed aren't earning enough to live, never mind pay off loans, shouldn't matter, should it?

The fact our disabled are being deprived of security shouldn't matter, should it?

It's all OK, because the current wealthy Prime Minister who went to university for free, with her supportive and wealthy husband who has interests in a company which is getting away with not paying full UK task is bringing down the deficit...

We all have the national debt around our necks, and the Conservative government is increasing that debt. As far as track records go, the Tory government has spent a far greater percentage of the time in office in deficit over the last few decades than Labour. And they too left a deficit as an outgoing government in '97, without being in the midst of a global downturn. 

• Labour did not cause the crash, but they did act to prevent it becoming worse than it was.
• Labour has a better record of surplus than the Conservatives.
• The Conservatives are bringing down the deficit at great cost to the poor and working class.
• The Conservatives are giving tax breaks to the wealthy and selling off public assets.
• The Conservatives are increasing national debt.

The Conservative government is carrying out a two pronged attack of economic growth, first by running up huge debts, and second by reducing investment in infrastructure. Both slow economic growth and while yes, the deficit is down, that doesn't actually benefit economic growth and therefore isn't a long term policy. It's also a bit of a fluke, and however you look at it, they've failed to reach their targets. What we do know, is they are borrowing huge sums and gambling with the economy, and they aren't investing, meaning the majority have less access to services or financial security. The Tories have done far more damage in seven years than Labour did.

Incidentally, welfare can be regarded as positive investment because welfare money doesn't leave the economy. It is given to the poor who have to spend, so the money goes back to local businesses or goes towards items which then earn the government both VAT and income tax from the wages of those supplying goods. What doesn't benefit the economy is the rich getting richer. If a person's bank balance or worth is rising, then that money has been taken out of economic circulation. It slows the economy. Amassed wealth doesn't improve a countries economic stability, what it does do is create poverty.  Money is not infinite, to have the super rich there needs to be the super poor. The wealthy are not philanthropic investors providing jobs to working man, they are creators of poverty and class division in order to amass their own personal wealth which is outside of our economy.

You will see a lot of posts at the moment about how if the rich are attacked and taxed more they will remove investment... Will they? 

Well, no. They wont. Why? Because that's cutting their noses off to spite their face. Paying more tax lowers profit - that earned on top of expenses, and in addition to already amassed wealth. That's not to say it removes profit, it doesn't, it simply takes a very small percentage of it to give back to the poorest people in society, who then spend that money in businesses owned by the wealthy, so it still goes back into the 'pot'. It gives the wealthy a larger client base and promotes economic growth. The wealthy still make a profit and grow their personal wealth. It doesn't stop the wealthy becoming more wealthy, it simply slows that process down fractionally to make like better for the poorest members of society - the children, the sick, the elderly - while also ensuing economic growth. Withdrawing investment as a response to higher taxes would mean yes, the wealthy would keep the money they have, but they would no longer be investing to increase their profits. No investment, no return. No investment, potential for profit decreases. No investment, and the wealthy stop getting wealthier. Everyone ends up worse off. And if the economy crashes because the wealthy don't invest? Well, thanks to Tory debt, I doubt we'd be bailing out the banks a second time, so who's savings will vanish as the banks collapse? Well it isn't the savings of the poor because they don't have any savings. It would be the savings of the wealthy. The poor would suffer immeasurably, but currently wealthy people would also go bankrupt. It seems a rather silly risk to take, because of a 10% tax increase on earnings over what most of us could dream of earning anyway. 

Also, the past proves that taxing the rich doesn't cause economic gloom. Labour increased tax on wealthy earners while keeping debt at a stable level compared to GDP. Investment didn't stagnate under them. People were investing and the economy was the strongest it had been in years before the global economic crash. The current Tory legacy on the other hand, is one of tax cuts for the rich, low investment, rising debt, and economic uncertainty.

Oh, but if you're still worried about a tax hike on the wealthy, Labour's proposed tax rate is still less than it was for nine of Thatcher's eleven years is office, until her chancellor cut it, close to the end of Maggie's popularity and while causing her concern. So when you hear people claim that taxing the wealthy is 'politics of envy' or 'communist', ask yourself this, was Thatcher practising the politics of envy or was she a closet communist? Well it's not the latter, as she was openly anti-communist (as most of us are). The former also seems unlikely, she wasn't really in a position to envy the wealthy who kept her in power and have granted her an almost saint like position among politicians. If anything, her legacy was a standard Tory legacy of high debt as a percentage of GDP and securing the wealth of the already wealthy while child poverty remained high. She was neither envious, nor communist. Nor was she philanthropic.

It actually provides a more stable economy to tax the wealthy a little more to keep the poor afloat - after all, it's the poor who are renting from the wealthy landlords and paying for whatever they have to sell or are invested in. Lowering tax on the wealthy while creating massive amounts of poverty and debt leaves us in a position of economic uncertainty, failing public services, and rising child poverty, alongside rising rates of homelessness, suicide, food bank use, and preventable deaths of the elderly due to lack of heating and social care.

Conclusion? If you care about national debt, the NHS, education, the disabled, the impoverished, or even just getting the taxes due, then vote for Labour, because the Conservatives are playing Russian roulette with national debt and systematically destroying our public services, while also increasing national and child poverty.

Please note that I have used a range of sources from the Daily Fail Mail, to what I'm told is the 'twisted lefty' Guardian, as well as the not so impartial BBC and going straight to the sources with the Office of National Statistics. I've done so specifically to show how the figures remain the same across a range of sources. These aren't biased, labour leftist statements, they are facts and figures I'm giving you to draw conclusions from, alongside my own thoughts. What you do with that information is up to you.

But I'm team #VoteLabour.

Carmine Raven