Frank Swift - a Fleetwood Legend

From Fleetwood Town programme for home game with Cheltenham on
30 November 2013

Charities under fire for using workfare schemes and backing benefit sanctions

From the current edition of the Big Issue in the North magazine - please buy the magazine when you see a seller.

The YMCA has defended its involvement in the government’s workfare programme after it was among a number of leading charities heavily criticised by welfare rights campaigners.

Under workfare, individuals must undertake work in return for their benefit payments or risk losing them.

Workfare had come to an end in Britain in 1948 when workhouses introduced in 1834 were abolished. Inmates had performed a range of tasks, such as sewing and weaving, in return for relief. However, the last Labour government introduced the New Deal programme, under which claimants lost their benefits if they failed to take up full-time education, voluntary work or a job placement with companies that included Primark.

Condemned

The current government has expanded workfare. These now include the mandatory work activity placements that last four weeks, which a Department for Work and Pensions report in 2012 showed did nothing for participants’ long-term job prospects.

Many of Britain’s major companies, including Asda, Greggs and Poundland, are known to have used or be using workfare. The same is true of many national charities.

Boycott Workfare, an organisation committed to “ending forced unpaid labour for people who receive welfare”, has condemned charities that provide community work placements under workfare. They include the Shaw Trust, Groundwork UK, the Salvation Army and the YMCA.

In December, the Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty blockaded a Salvation Army store in the city for two hours after a member of its group was forced to work there or lose his benefits. The charitable organisation responded to its critics by stating: “It is offensive that volunteering and work experience can be referred to as ‘forced labour’ as we help support victims of human trafficking who go through unimaginable ordeals.”

‘New skills’

Liz Wyatt from Boycott Workfare said: “The motivation for many charities using workfare is because they can’t find regular volunteers who can commit to more than one or two days a week. Workfare provides an endless stream of workers at little cost to charities, who often become reliant on workfare workers to operate.”

Through the mandatory work scheme some charities can receive payments – normally around £50 week – while some also boost their income by administering schemes. The latter includes the Shaw Trust, which The Big Issue in the North approached without success for comment.

YMCA England does not receive any payment in exchange for work placements in its retail shops and community construction and gardening projects.

The organisation has justified its workfare involvement by claiming participants may get their first experience of a work environment or acquire new skills to allow them to get back into work.

A YMCA spokesperson said: “We have read media reports of bad experiences through workfare but we find it difficult to condemn any scheme that carries the potential to help individuals gain new skills or prepare for future employment.

“Anecdotal evidence reveals many people on our projects have progressed into paid roles within YMCA or in other organisations. We cannot provide any figures as YMCAs are independent charities.”

The spokesperson also defended the use of benefit sanctions against claimants who did not comply with workfare.

“Many young people felt sanctions could provide motivation to get some people into work,” said the spokesperson. “However, we have supported people not wishing to work at the YMCA to return to the Job Centre and find an alternative role.”

Withdrawn

But Wyatt said there is “no evidence that unemployed people or society at large is benefiting from charity involvement in workfare”.

She added: “No wonder therefore that many charities have withdrawn from the schemes as the public are angered by their involvement.

“There is no evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work when there are so few jobs anyway. Workfare is about pushing people deeper into poverty and any charity that doesn’t recognise that is the case isn’t worthy of the name.”

In October last year, the Chancellor, George Osborne, said there was “no option of doing nothing” for welfare payments. He announced a £300 million nationwide scheme to force 200,000 long- term unemployed to undertake community work, attend a job centre every day or undergo an intensive programme to tackle their failure to find work.

Osborne’s statement came in the same month as it was revealed that benefit payments had been suspended 580,000 times to people who were ruled not to have done sufficient to find work in the previous 12 months.

Pesticide safety victory

A North West resident diagnosed as chemically poisoned has welcomed the government’s decision to alter the way the safety of pesticides is assessed for arable use.

The government move follows a long-running legal challenge by Georgina Downs, from Sussex, who was also left unwell by the use of crop sprays on fields next to her home.

According to the World Bank around 355,000 people worldwide are killed each year by pesticides.

Withdrawn

In March 2009, Downs
forced the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to review its risk assessment for people exposed to agricultural pesticides used in spraying crops.

Its working group took until December 2012 to report to ministers, who have only just announced they will accept its recommendations.

The recommendations include assessing the effects of repeated exposures to crop spraying rather than single exposures, and separate assessments for children and adults.

Some crop sprays may now need to be withdrawn or amended.

But the working group exclusively concentrated its attention on crop spraying and did not consider other methods of pesticide application, including hand-held applicators.

Collapsed

Gillian Broughton is convinced it was the use of the latter by farm labourers in June 2009 that left her seriously unwell. She was walking on a footpath in Billinge, near St Helens, alongside a farmer’s field with her son, Paul.

She saw what were possibly rabbit warrens being sprayed with what smelt like cleaning fluid. She collapsed 48 hours hours later and was unable to get out of bed for weeks. Paul was also badly affected with rectal bleeds and was off work for six months.

After failing to get a diagnosis from the NHS, Broughton paid privately for laboratory tests that concluded she had been chemically poisoned. She has been unable to prove a direct link with the use of pesticides but has campaigned against their use in her area, supported by the local branch of the Green Party.

Broughton, who hopes to soon be fit enough to seek part- time work, said: “It is great to see Georgina Downs winning out on the way that the safety of pesticides on arable products is to be assessed. This now needs to be extended to all pesticides, as the very least that needs to be additionally achieved is preventing people becoming as poorly as me in the future.”

Downs said: “By accepting all the working group recommendations the government is finally acknowledging that the risk assessment approach they’ve relied upon has been inadequate – just what I have always argued.”

Ban

However, Downs wants a ban on pesticide use in the locality of residents’ homes, schools, playgrounds and public spaces.

“There has never been any UK assessment of the health risks for residents and others exposed over the long term,” she added. “Under European legislation pesticides should never have been approved for spraying in the locality of such areas.

“The existing UK policy has put rural citizens in a guinea pig-style experiment, for which many of us residents have had to suffer the serious, devastating and even fatal consequences.”

The Battle of Hastings: the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England

Author Q&A: Harriet Harvey Wood

The Battle of Hastings: The Fall of Anglo-Saxon England 

Published in 2009. 

Harriet Harvey Wood’s book challenges conventional wisdom on 1066 by arguing that rather than bringing culture and enlightenment to England the Normans’ aggressive and illegal invasion destroyed a long- established and highly developed civilisation.

What is the basis of your claim that England in 1066 was ahead of other European people in its political institutions, art and literature?

The evidence. Much has been lost from all Dark Ages European countries, but in England we know there was poetry of a high quality, because some of it survived. We also have the law codes of the English kings from the very early 7th century to the 11th century available that show that even kings were not above the law in England. There were no law codes in Normandy. For art, look at the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Sutton Hoo jewellery and the Benedictional of St Athelwold. That’s not to say however that there wasn’t fine art work elsewhere in Europe.

What was the basis of William’s claim to the throne of England? None. He claimed that the previous king, Edward the Confessor, had promised him the succession but there is no independent proof of this.

His only blood claim was that his great-aunt had married Edward’s father. In any case, England was an elective monarchy: the previous king could say who he would like to succeed him, but the Great Council were free to disregard his suggestion – and in the case of William, they did and elected Harold.

Can you say a little about the battle of Stamford Bridge that occurred days before the Battle of Hastings?

The King of Norway Harold Hardrada invaded, claiming to be the King of England, a claim even weaker than William’s, but both were ultimately relying on force, not right. Hardrada was the most celebrated warrior of his age, and was considered unconquerable. To the English, Hardrada would have seemed the greater threat and his defeat at Stamford Bridge finally ended the Viking threat to Western Europe. However, Stamford Bridge undoubtedly reduced Harold’s strength and he arrived with fewer men at Hastings than might have been the case. It’s entirely possible also that if Harold had not been at Stamford Bridge, William would not even have managed to land.

Why did Harold choose to fight at Hastings rather than draw William forward?
With hindsight, one can only say God knows! William had caused devastation in Sussex while Harold was up north. The first duty of a king at that time was to defend and avenge his people. He had to challenge William. The point to remember is that if his defensive

tactics had worked, and they should have worked (in fact they nearly worked, as even Norman chroniclers admit), William would have lost.

It was Harold’s death that finished it.

Considering most accounts were written long after the battle took place then how much is conjecture? There aren’t many first-hand descriptions of Thermopylae or Marathon. William of Poitiers and Guy of Amiens were writing about it very soon after the event, using the accounts of those who had fought in it. From the Norman point of view, the evidence is as good as you’re likely to get in the 11th century. From the English point of view, of course, yes, it has to be largely conjecture, since there was no surviving testimony. Even the English chroniclers were reporting hearsay well after the event.

What changes did William introduce after his victory?
The most fundamental change was in land tenure laws. There was land held by the king and land held by the people (folkland). One could hold land as a gift from the king (bookland) in return for certain services, or one could hold it by “folkright” – this was probably family land, the inheritance of which may have gone back to the period of the original 5th century Anglo-Saxon settlements. William made all land the property of the king, granted by him to the holder. A man sitting on land that had been the property of his family for generations suddenly found it belonged to William.

Interview with author Lance Hardy on his 1973 FA Cup final book

STOKOE, SUNDERLAND AND ‘73

The Story of the Greatest FA Cup Final Shock of All Time

Lance Hardy

With football today dominated by money it is almost inconceivable that in 1973 Second Division Sunderland beat Manchester City and Arsenal before facing Don Revie’s mighty Leeds United in the FA Cup Final. Yet the Wearsiders, helped by the greatest save seen at the famous old stadium, thrilled the nation by taking the cup.  

Why did you write this book? 

It was the story I always wanted to write. I fell in love with football and Sunderland AFC on 5 May 1973.  It was hard work though. There were so many sub-plots concerning Bob Stokoe, Don Revie, Brian Clough and Alan Brown - and they were just managers! Sunderland were near the bottom of the old Second Division at Christmas 1972 and Leeds United were the best team in the country. So how could it happen? 

Were Leeds playing the whole nation? 

Leeds were pretty unpopular at the time and Sunderland were the romantic underdogs. It was David and Goliath stuff. If you had no association with Leeds, you supported Sunderland.

What made it the greatest FA Cup Final shock of all time?   

Sunderland had no internationals whilst Leeds had ten. So there was no way they could win it, but they did. They also knocked out Manchester City and Arsenal earlier in the competition. Other Second Division teams later won the Cup but they don't compare in my opinion. This remains the greatest and I believe it will never be repeated. 

But surely winning the FA Cup is no big deal?   

In 1973 it was a very big deal. It was the only domestic club match

shown live on television in those days - and both BBC and ITV covered it. When the Sunderland players returned to the North East 750,000 people lined the streets welcoming them home. The match touched the hearts of the nation like none has done since. It also gave the area a great sense of pride and honour in what was a very bleak time up there.   Production in the mines and the shipyards rose tremendously during the whole Cup run. People were so happy in their work. The mood around the area was joyous.

 You suggest the Sunderland fans played a big part in their sides success?

The incredible team spirit within the players was carried along by the fans on the terraces. Sunderland had a great history but little success leading up to 1973. The whole thing came together with such momentum on that Cup run. The players acknowledged the importance of the support to me and the fans there at the time genuinely felt they played a part in the triumph. The support was awesome; the semi-final win against Arsenal at Hillsborough provided the most emotional post-match scenes I have ever seen.    

    

 Leeds lost many cup finals and important league games in the 1960s and 1970s - any reason why?

There is a great quote from Peter Lorimer in the book when he talks about the famous 7-0 thrashing of Southampton in 1972 and the difference in how the Leeds players approached that game from how Revie preferred them to play. Fixture build-up is mentioned a lot too. Squads were smaller and Leeds were often challenging on all fronts and couldn't cope. Lorimer cites losing the 1973 FA Cup final as perhaps complacency and under-rating Sunderland. He gave a really honest interview.           

The match wasn’t the greatest, but there was a moment that has stuck in people’s memories as ‘Wembley’s greatest save.’ 

That involved Peter Lorimer! He had the hardest shot in the game and was faced with placing the ball into an open net from six yards out but the Sunderland goalkeeper Jim Montgomery flung himself off the ground to somehow turn it on to the crossbar. Peter said if he had the same chance again he would have hit the ball exactly the same. Montgomery made the save due to sheer instinct and his superb reflexes. His upper body strength to get himself up from the floor and to get anything on that shot was truly remarkable. Every time you watch it you think it has to be a goal. That won Sunderland the Cup, really.  

Prescott is a laughing stock

To: Letters page

Tribune magazine

I bet Paul Routledge could never have guessed that his Tribune piece on Hull becoming the UK City of Culture for 2017 would be so swiftly followed by the first entry for the city’s comedy award. This was in the form of an article by Colin Brown seeking to laud John Prescott because the former Deputy Prime Minister has refound his social conscience so profoundly missing when he actually had the chance to use it during his time when he was Blair’s side-kick.

Of course, there is already a comedy written about Mr Prescott and it’s one he is so scared of that he dare not even utter its name, or even mention on twitter - DUSTBINGATE. This was a book that sold in its tens of thousands - certainly many more than Brown’s biography of Prescott - and helped take its author, Ian Newton, out of a drab factory job with a large wedge of cash to hand. The book featured allegations over re-possessed council house property dealings by Prescott’s family and claims of secret files being removed from a stolen dustbin outside Mr Prescott's house. It made front-page news at the time, although nothing was ever proved and no one was ever charged.

Still it so threatened New Labour that when it looked like some Hollywood producers would turn the book into a film the party sent some of its advisors out to the United States. They successfully persuaded the money men that this would be politically dangerous in an era when Blair was backing up President Bush in the ill-fated - and illegal - adventure in Iraq. If only the movie had been made then maybe we could have laughed our way out of the conflict and saved countless thousands of lives. Prescott, a hero? Even suggesting such nonsense is not funny!

Mark Metcalf

No show for pensioners

A TV critic, who is also an avid tweeter, backs the UK’s principal pensioners organisation in their campaign to appear on the BBC’s Question Time.

 

The one-hour topical debate programme is made by independent production company Mentorn and has just celebrated its 34^th birthday. In a pre-recorded show currently presented by David Dimbleby, politicians from at least three major political parties are joined by other public figures to answer pre-selected questions from a selected audience.

 

On 26 September 2013 the show featured education secretary Michael Gove MP, shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander MP, UKIP candidate and Daily Express chief political commentator Patrick O’Flynn, novelist Will Self and journalist Louise Cooper.

 

The National Pensioners Convention (NPC) is 35 years old this year. It is made up of around 1,000 bodies representing 1.5 million members.

 

No NPC representative has ever appeared on Question Time. For the last two years the organisation has been making repeated appearance requests to the BBC and Mentorn and supporters have leafleted the audience as they go into what is the BBC’s flagship political programme. The NPC has reported that their correspondence is now no longer acknowledged.

 

The NPC has no elected representatives in either central of local government but its national officer, Neil-Duncan Jordan, said: “We have significantly more members than any of the political parties. Older people also play an important role in the country through volunteering and providing unpaid care. If the leader of the National Union of Students can appear on Question Time then why not us?” 

 

Andy Dawson is a comedy writer turned TV critic for the Daily Mirror. He is well-known as Twitter’s Profanity Swan and describes himself as ‘an avid Question Time live tweeter.’ Earlier this year he heavily criticised the programme after comic actor Russell Brand appeared alongside London Mayor Boris Johnson and right-wing journalist Melanie Phillips. After viewers were left disappointed by the lack of any clashes, Dawson supported criticism of a similar nature in other papers when he said: “Question Time continues to become less about reasoned political debate and more about gawping at some firecracker guests in the hope they’ll all bang at the same time.”

 

Dawson believes “there are no valid reasons why the NPC shouldn’t sit on the Question Time panel. Pensioners are largely ignored by the popular media as it is, and it would be great to see them represented instead of yet another tired old newspaper columnist.”

 

Asked about the NPC’s request a BBC spokesperson said: “Question Time prides itself on representing all sections of society and many panel and invited audience members are over or close to retirement age. The selection of guests outside political parties is usually based on topicality or direct involvement with an appropriate issue.”