Universal Credit: Where we go from here?

Currently there is little political will to sort Universal Credit because policy makers perceive it to be separate to Brexit. Brexit will demand a complete reevaluation of the relationship of our cash transfer system to other systems, to the labour market, the housing market, the care economy and the rule of law, and this crisis is part of that even though it seems unrelated. There is no either or, there is just different facets of the same crisis. We will be forced to address UC through Brexit even if it is not addressed before, and it will be because the political instability generated by UC will jeapordise any Brexit plans, so anyone thinking they can kick this into the grass and deal with it later misunderstands. Addressing UC makes Brexit easier not more difficult. These things are intertwined and policy makers cannot currently see that. The question is how this crisis plays out and what it gives us.

So I thought it was worth putting pen to paper to outline some of the problems with Universal Credit that are not beingdiscussed, outside the minutae of problematic aspects, and I thought it was worth discussing what we do with this crisis, because it’s important.

It’s important to understand the significance of Universal Credit being subject to poliical consensus, and why there was no opposition. Welfare policy is ALWAYS subject to consensus, its why they can have the vicious empty rhetoric as a stable. This is no different. There will always be consensus on this institution and always has been, howver tribalism is presented. Welfare cuts were done by consensus and the new consensus that that is not ok will also be a consensus, but everyone will want to prerend they never agreed with it in the first place.

Labour’s problem is they identified as a representative of the working class and defined the working class by abuse of those on benefits. Once the working class and benefit recipients wereall the same, Labour needed Owen Jones and the elite brats of the Left to hide what austerity was doing and consensus on it.

Universal Credit

Contrary to popular opinion Universal Credit is not a new problem. OUr welfare spending has expanded and forces which have been shaping our cash transfer system, financialisation, changing family shapes, the intersection between work, childcare and motherhood, have never been recognised within welfare economics. We have never once used the datat this institution provides to tell us anything about the economy, which is staggering given what it tells..

Welfare economics evolved from a discipline concerned with working men and the state, and when Labour got into power they tried to financialise our welfare system, pursued asset based welfare. Every time changing demographics, ageing populations, children being born, financialisation, crisis, increased our welfare spending, we sought to use the system to expand control over those within it.

What is currently happening with Universal Credit is a crisis is exposing the forces which shape our cash transfer system, what it does, and the belief system shaping it, which is bunk. Unfortunately we spent about 20billion on a computer system which tallies to this bunk belief system and is currently straining against the institution which is trying to establish itself as doing many things. THis is the same belief system which has been trying to use the cash transfer system to recreate a ‘two adult worker model household’ and put women back in the home, and where its punitive aspects are now being expanded to the employed population. This crisis means the end of using our welfare system to abuse people, full stop. But this winter is going to be grim and we need to use this crisis.

What is going to happen?

The government are going to roll out Universal Credit, in the hope that crisis will resolve tension between what was intended and what can be delivered. This is now what will happen. To the people caught up n this, its not reassuring for someone to say right, we have to use this crisis, but we do. The fact is our welfare blueprint has always had the consent of the public and been demanded by the public, consensus is now shifting and the public will want to pretend this is not the case and whoever is delivering this or preventing it being addressed will be burned by this.

What will each layer of this crisis tell us?

Each layer of this crisis will tell us several things:

  • What Universal Credit does. Welfare economics does not recognise children, our cash transfer system’s role in bridging labour market inequality, care labour. It does not recognise equality legislation and these crisis will demonstrate that our cash transer system is a dynamic record of the interlinked systems which link families to the economy. A live record of childcare, housing costs, and low wages. It seems obvious that this is what this cash transfer system does, we all fill in our forms. There is not a single welfare economist within earshot of Whitehall who know this. This is why single mothers had to apply to judicial review, demonstrating the links between care labour, motherhood, and the labour market. Welfare economists never did this, this crisis now forces the public to accept this.
  • This crisis will categorically expose both the forces shaping the institution and the bullshit belief system shaping it, and the tension between the two. Rapidly.
  • Currently policy makers have no idea what this system does, they have no idea they have a stabilising institution whic accurately records a dynamic picture of the interplay between the market economy, families, care labour and inequality. At Monetary Policy Committee level they need this information.
  • These crisis will show how systems are linked. We will see in living colour and in crisis where families lose their homes, their livelihoods and their kids, the links between the systems those families need.
  • These crisis will show how the system has evolved since the last crisis of this scale. It’s difficult to decide when that was, but it may actually be reasonable to assume this crisis is abouyt flaws in the structure of the post war settlement itsef and will expose flaws in thinking, and the cumulative impact of those flaws over the entire lifespan of the institution. Certainly the problems in UC can be traced to Beveridge, this crisis will expose the inherent contradictions in the belief system that was used to design Universal Credit.
  • Because UC takes people who are usually covered by HMRC and not the DWP, the transfer of these people to DWP will expose the dysfunction within that institution. It has been an open secret that the DWP is badly malfunctioning and noone was bothered because it was the unemployed and the sick. Once the working population has been subjected to the DWP, and journalists have shown interest(they are), this exposes the DWP as not functioning. The rollout will mean this is staggered crisis, HMRC are not out of the woods, the rise in self employment makes them central to this even if the bulk of this system is administered by another department.
  • These crisis will expose to policy makers which aspects of this system are functioninga nd which are not. Policy makers may not understand this because they do not understand this system or the context in which it operates. It is likely this will result in redefinition of institutions in which the case questions at stake are not about current problems but about how institutions evolve an how to establish institutions which evolve. Which is cheap, it just means connecting those institutions with policy makers. Trade unions are central to this.
  • These crisis should expose how our cash transfer system links rule of law and other institutions and is central to maintaining stability..

Power Dynamics and Coercion

We are an odd species, we cant really see power dynamics that well until they become dysfunctional. Once that has happened we go through a process of relearning  until we identify certain types of relations as abusive, this is now happening on a grand scale. The continual reflex expansion of coerciona nd control to the working population, will undo the deserving/undeserving divide which has allowed abuse of lone parents, the sick, the unemployed. Once this is done, it cannot be undone. Evolution. We have less than 6 months before this is apparent. Abusive relations and normal relations cannot coexist and once relations become abusive change is required and acknowledgement of that risk and need to manage it, or crisis will escalate until this is exposed.

This is the end of the welfare blueprint that has been used since 1945. We have to use Universal Credit, we need a coherent single system, the only thing we don’t need is the whip. The expansion of that whip cannot succeed and the attempt will generate political instability.

It is important to understand that nothing policy makers did or said will change what this institution eventually looks like. It is redefining its boudnaries through crisis, and will end up the same shape as it always would have done, even if sensible policy had been suggested. The only variable here is the level of political instability it now generates and who benefits

What Govt and Labour have accidentally done is undone the entire welfare blueprint. You can only abuse a minority with deserving/undeserving rhetoric, to deliberately expose the contradictions inherent in the belief, while not being aware you need votes attached to this system, was foolish, However grim this winter is, this is done. Dusted. They cant keep Universal Credit and keep using welfare to abuse people, one has to go, and we dont need a whip fro the poor but we do need a system which allows efficient management of the labour market, care economy and the inequality which shapes the lives of families and women who bridge that gap.

What we need Universal Credit to do

1- Blowing welfare economics out of the water and absolutely proving it is bunk is easy. Look at benefit data, and look backwards checking it for trends and patterns against known events. Financial crisis, changes to family form, birth rate, the labour market. An age of empiricism right there. Current welfare economics uses synthetic inequality modelling and bullshit political science which cant be challenged cos they are contained in elite institutions. (That’s why I went to LSE…cos its one of them).

We have to know what this system does. That it is an accurate and dynamic contained data source which demonstrates the links between the market economy, the family, and inequality long covered by equality legislation. This is a crisis about the context which changed around this system since 1945 and inertia in accomodating change.

2- Equality legislation. Since the days of the Sex Discrimination Act, we have deliberately excluded our welfare systems from equality legislation. So every time there is a crisis and policy makers react by expanding coercion and control, it gets closer to undermining the rule of law itself. This is what Hayek warned of, its what Minsky warned of, its what Keynes knew but modern welfare economics never bothered. We have to apply equality legislation specifically to this institution, and understand that it provides information that Monetary Policy Committee need to monitor the health fo the economy and way inequality shapes it.

3- Even though Child benefit is the passport benefit to tax credits, there has never been any consideration of the legal duties to children laid outr in Children’s Act 1989, or the duties before. Welfare economists and policy makers need to learn to think multidimensionally and welfare policy must as a minimum know what the minimum standards are for families, and not be seeking to undermine them. We are now creating poverty and rescuing children from it.

3- We need to use the data it produces. We need a dynamic record of the link between children, the labour market, blah blah… So basically this whole crisis, all the bullshit, all the harm, is about this. This central point. Because this is not a crisis of an institution, its a crisis of the belief system shaping it meeting the actual forces shaping that institution and there is only one winner here. By next year we should have the political ground were for the first time ever we can use te data our welfare systems provide.

4- In essences we dont need this system to do ANYTHING else, it already does everything we want it to do, but we dont acknowledge its uses. This is a question of repurposing data, not a policy which can shape this system. Criiss are now doing that and are the most efficient way for this to be done. The question is about the political safety of whoever is in power, because those crisis will be felt there. It is important to note that Jeremy Corbyn is the reason UC got this far, he ignored IDS resigning and left UC in the manifesto. But it is likely his abusive thugs will benefit. Which is no more dangerous than te Tories, except they might be.

5- Our cash transfer system was central to the development of the synthesis of institytions which evolved to allow women independence from domestic abuse. We need to understand that this system is central to many other systems, and that ONLY through tis system can we managed demand on those other systems and that the state cannot use our cash transfer system to undermine those systems, even accidentally, without causing crisis. Our welfare system needs to be planned ina way that acknowledges the evolvingr ule of law.. In addition to the 20+ billion UC has cost, we have also generated crisis across institutions using our welfare system. These should roll out over the next year or so. We need to learn from this how systems are linked.

6- Looked After Children are the children of the state, the state has taken parental responsibility for them, the crisis of Universal Credit will impact families with careleavders because they dont have the cusion that allows 6 weeks.

6 Our cash transfer

Clarifying what the system does:

Once we are clear on what this system does, once we are clear that the political ground has shifted under this system, it is a very small matter of accepting what it does, using that data properly., and not using this system to cause political instability and human suffering on this scale again.

Intergenerational Reciprocity. The relationship between the generations is a combination of time and money transfers through te lifespan including care labour. We need the welfare system to allow intergenerational reciprocity to be established, because thats how we fundamentally manage our future care needs. We cant use our welfare system to deliberately generate crisis at the source of intergenerational reciprocity, families with children, because it creates intergenerational crisis which impact spending. We need to start using our benefit data to think long term, instead of the next headline.

Rapidly changing jobs market: We already have a system which perfectly responds to the labour market and provides an absolutely perfect reflection of it, we just dont use the data that way. We now need to. THis should reveal that our cash transfer system is a stabilising institution and is central to our future needs.

Housing: THis system is a reflection of our housing market., It told us our housing market was a mess when the employed population were brought into it, we need to understand it is a stabilising institution and is linked to our housing market. We cant switch that off, we canyt change it but we can use te data better and am fairly sure Mark Carney needs it.

We will need to bring jobcentre infastructure back to functioning, because HMRC need it, and financial literacy services need it, and education provides and we actually need systems linked to the labour market, by people. We have a huge gig economy, this is onlt way tro address it. So the whip will have to be taken out of jobcentres and functionality returned.

The computer system:
It is tempting to try and salvage this system. We are currently throwing everything into salvaging this computer system. No. We need to understand that this crisis is a crisis whic is redefining this system for the next 70 years, we need to use this crisis to establish how we do that in the simplest way possible. It is likely that multiple institutions will be needed, one linked to health., social care the other to the labour market, but UC will have to stay and so it will be the banner for this.

We will end up with a system which relates to the Labour market and one which relates to inequality outside the  labour market, the only thing being achieved by fighting for this computer system is delay in accepting that. The only way to salvage this computer system is to strip it down and simplify it, and that cannot be done without taking conditionality out and by the time ytou take that out there isnt much left. The civil service are excellent at accomodating crap systems and ultimately this one will be accommodated, policy makers could help by allowing to be stripped down.

Whatever happens now, however bad this is, its the final hurdle for benefits system and we need a system to emerge which can respond to the economy and an evolving society and which can adapt to the context changing around it in ways we cannot even begin to predict. We wil end up with the benefits system that defines the next 70 years, there is very little that politicians will do to shape that, but the political instability in the meantime is now their problem.

What you can do, you personally,

I cant make the next few months any better, they are going to be fucking awful, and am as likely as any of you to be finding money for the gas meter a struggle but we need to record. We need to record, record, record, keep records, record your interviews, keep your documents, keep records of what you are asked to do. These records are very imporatnt. Keep them meticulously. We can’t do anything about the clusterfuck that is UC, its now in its crisis stage but we can learn from crisis, we can use crisis and we can record what happens during.

PS The productivity problem: LOOK HERE ITS GOT LOADS OF CLUES ABOUT OUR PRODUCTIVITY PUZZLE. Currently obscured by bunk welfare economics.

Trade Union functioning:

Universal Credit has already exposed problems in trade union functioning, in Labour circles and in the elite institutions which provide ‘the left’. Apparently government, opposition and activists were not even remotely aware that this system was linked to equality legislation. This is why the labour left;s movement concentrated on ‘the poor’.

Labour left UC cuts in the manifesto, which is more of a problem than when Tories do it because it exposes that PCS are not functioning., UNISON are not functioning, and the Labour Party are not functioning. Ask Owen Jones, or read Chavs, he will absolutely tell you he absolutely believes the baseline for citizenship in a modern democracy, is whether he pities them. Its why we got the Absolute Boys/Centrist Dad movement which didn’t notice UC.

Tories and Labour have been exposed by this and I don’t think either understand the scale of this at all. Which will be their undoing on not just this.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Those emails.(Again)

I didn’t want to share the contents of those emails, certainly not publicly. I live in fear of my daughter reading them. I have had a few messages about them, and I thought I would say this., I know that stuff sounds brutal and am not going to lie, brutal does not even begin to sum it up and it wasn’t all the elite left, they compounded a problem. Shit happens. And it happened.

The reason austerity was always going to hit me hardest was I am a care leaver. I don’t have the same structures other people have and so when I hit periods in my life where I earn less, retirement, childbearing, I am more or less guaranteed to need state support. That decision was made for me a long time ago. I know that for some of you reading you think that what you read is awful but it’s not compared to other people. I have a brain the size of a planet I went into the family courts unrepresented yes, but not without a clue. I knew the legislation and familiar with those courtrooms even if my new role within them was a shock. In the nicest possible way, I was raised in abject poverty and my mothers poverty it turned out taught me everything I needed to know. I am not going to say the last seven years haven’t been grim, they have. But i ended them with a masters degree from LSE, because resilience factors like above average cognitive abilities did what they always do for me, provided a safety net and that was a fluke of biology. The question is not me, but what happens when that isnt the case.

Nothing described in those emails was uncommon, food scarcity, the family courts shit, poverty, homelessness, that’s what austerity did. Except it didn’t just do it to women with a degree, and te ability to climb out of it. It did it to people who won’t ever recover, it did it to people who never had a single chance to do what I get to do all the time. Austerity has given me a great deal, I understand my mother and feel like I got her back, I found out what am capable of and what I can withstand, and I managed to get to LSE and do that and we all know what that means. There are women I know who won’t see their kids again till they are 18, and people whose health won’t ever recover from the the way the DWP terrorised tem when they were sick, social workers working in situations  where they were utterly fucking helpless as their departments were destroyed and they watched their jobs become coercive. refuges turn away hundreds and hundreds of people, we should have refuge beds available and that’s the bottom of line of chaos. We should have entire systems functioning and we don’t. Every means women had to leave abuse was taken, that meant women were trapped and still are. The people who were already on the bottom they got squashed when people like me were thrown down there. The people already on the fringes who used the foodbanks got pushed out by the making of the mainstream food bank. They still exist.

I would like to be able to say that the stuff that is referred to in those emails is remarkable or makes me remarkable. In fact it makes me lucky, because there was never a question throughout that time of me not being ok and coming out of it ok, with many people there was no chance of making it through intact at all. What the left have done to me is savage, and that on top of this was unbearable sometimes. BUt by and large I was always going to be alright.

If you are shocked by those emails, I am sorry you shouldn’t be. That’s what happened to people. I wasn’t the only woman in the family courts, there was a reason I was in tears when Peter Kyle stood in Parliament. Most of those women lost and because they lost they got hurt or their kids did. The DWP is mangled and not functioning and I have to sleep at night knowing we really don’t have a child protection system at the minute and what that means for the children in it, and the children who need to be in it and the children who should not be in it. I may not have kinship arrangements like most people but am connected to those people and those systems. I do appreciate that you may have found those emails shocking reading but really they were not shocking, not shocking enough at all and the only thing shocking about those emails is the number of people whe lived this who won’t recover. Who won’t walk out with a masters or a child whose development wasn’t impacted. If you are thinking I’m remarkable for just making it through that, that was systems that did that and if I had to many others did. If I was remarkable then many were not as lucky. I can guarantee you that my peers from those systems, they didn’t fare as well. At all. They never got chance to be remarkable cos the hand they were dealt said drowning was all there was available.

A thank you.

So the suspension of my account was permanent. It was taken permanently. When I realised, I said I would accept it but I was devastated. Not because I need twitter, because I probably have to shut my account down soon for ‘reasons’ anyway, but because of the feeling of being driven out of the public sphere in such an unjust and outrageous way. It wasn’t just the lost of the ‘platform’, I don’t use it for broadcast, am not media. That was people I have been speaking to for 7 years, the entire network.

So I just tried to go through my feed to read some of the people who demanded twitter bring me back, it took too long and I couldn’t get through it all. I was properly moved by some of the things that were said.  These fuckers may have targeted me for the past seven years, but twitter has also been a source of incredible people and I would have been really sad to lose that network.

Thank you.

You can put me back on mute tomorrow. Or next time am doing maths revision or slime making.

The 11+

The 11+ results are in today, cos we are partying like its 1955. I am going to have a little rant for future reference about the 11+.

A couple of years ago, we were going through a Harry Potter phase. We read each Harry Potter book over a year at bedtime, we watched the films endlessly, and sproglet took a notion she would like to attend a school called Christs Hospital. Which is basically Hogwarts and has its own train station and is near some people we know. I didn’t really think she would actually want to board, but you don’t discourage them so I let her register to apply and we saw the process. So while I didn’t really want her to do this(and she didn’t really want to either), we did get a chance to look at the bumpf the school sent. They did a two stage test, one online and one an exam. The exam was a lovely weekend, where kids were invited to stay, it was made into an experience for them so even if they didn’t get in, get a bursary, they had this lovely weekend. Christs Hospital is a lovely school, in lovely grounds and I didn’t think this was wasted time. I was happy to go along with this. I read the exam paper they set and it was a lovely test, genuinely an attempt to use a test paper to get a real picture of who this child is, what their ability is. Sproglet bottled when she realised ‘board’ means live there, like every other phase it passed, but when she said she wanted to sit the 11+ I assumed it would be something along these lines.

I didn’t know about the coaching industry for the 11+, I didn’t know ANYTHING about it. I have been hiding from the realisation she is heading to high school full stop. She asked in Septemberer and I said I was sure it couldn’t be till October because we weren’t picking schools till then and noone had said. No. The test was in the last weekend of September. I looked at the test, 3 papers, english, maths, and verbal reasoning. I couldn’t do the 30 maths questions in the 40 minutes allowed and had just passed quantitative analysis at the London School of Economics. I couldn’t do the verbal reasoning, these were tests for people who had been taught for a long time to do the test itself. Within the maths test there were many things that are just not on the curriculum for KS2, so most of the kids sitting it would never be familiar with these concepts.

I explained to sproglet this was not a test like Christs Hospital and tried to explain that this is a test for people tutored over a long time, did a bit of practice with her and to be honest I didn;t want her to sit this. When the results are published, they take the grade of your child and they rank them in order. So today at my daughter’s school there are approximately 20 girls, forming litlte Lord of the Flies groups around a ranking given to create a hierarchy. They don’t tell working class parents about this test until its too late, we found out a month before school applications, most will find out after. The test itself requires as a minimum(and we bought the minimum) 60quid’s worth of revision guides and practice guides, cos you have to actually practice the test. The test also requires approximately a year of tutoring.

On the day of the 11+ I stood outside this school, which until then I thought was a lovely school, with 2000 parents and I felt like I was stood outside the walls of Mr.Wonka’s chocolate factory, Class difference of parents stark. Absolutely stark.

As it is my girl is awesome, and was fine with the test, comfortable with it and am proud she sat it. She isn’t going to grammar school and today her friends will be comparing each other in a hierarchy they should never have been subjected to. I wanted to write a note about this experience, because I have never seen a more damaging and destructive process for children. Never. This is a process designed to set up kids to fail and then to beat them for it. I feel ashamed as a parent I ever allowed my child to be part of it.

I am to believe I have the Novara brats to thank for my twitter account being taken down

It is threatening for a single parent to discuss austerity within earshot. No more so than if you invited that single parent to be the badge of authenticity for your movement at its birth, and then put her child at risk because she needed to discuss the consensus on austerity. If you have been part of targeting and harassing vulnerable people after you recruit them for authenticity for your movement and you put a kid at risk, its really important that you spend seven years aiming hate at that woman and then if she continues to talk, you need to get her twitter account taken down. The reason Novara needed to get my twitter account taken down is because their movement only works if they can intimidate, abuse, and people don’t answer back. I am happy for them to demonstrate how they prevent people challenging austerity, and the impact of them viewing themselves as competing with welfare claimants for a ‘movement’. And for them to demonstrate they actively seek to remove platform for women and welfare claimants who threaten their false identity as a ‘movement’ for the poor.

These people want to be the media base for Corbyn, but once that is the case, social media is not for activism its for them to abusing people on behalf of the Prime Minister. Apparently social media activism will be done and dusted once these people have power. I am flattered that after recruiting me for their fake movement in 2010, my reality is so powerful and damaging to them that after they relentlessly abused me, exploiting and aggravating the vulnerability that made me useful to them, put my kid at risk, they had to resort to having my twitter account taken down and claiming I have harassed them. Narcissistic abuse. I identify as your representative and will abuse you until reality fits my delusion and I will make you go away. Hohum.

The bright future of new media. Where if one of them rapes you you better make sure Harvey Weinstein happened that week, and where terrorising women and kids is a tactic  and people saying your behaviour has put children at risk, and is creating material risk, and is causing distress, is a personal attack and harassment. When hearing your behaviour described accurately is perceived as an attack the problem is your behaviour.

 

PS if this post comes up in a journalist’s search, because you are doing a story on Novara, do feel free to contact me. Am really happy to help and I think I would be very very useful ;-D

One of the reasons I refused to write for the political press so early was their tendency to recruit extremely vulnerable people. extract testimony and place it in narratives which then sold the policies causing that vulnerability.

To recruit people for their vulnerability and then to attack those vulnerabilities as response to their reality failing to fit with your political identity, is astonishing behaviour from anyone. From people at the apex of our class system, the absolute elite, its downright cruel. Guardian used to force them to participate with below the line culture, shaped y political narratives about how deserving the poor are. They would withhold payment if that didnt happen. You had to be abused below the line in the most horrific ways to be paid 85 for an article they would edit to make Labour look good, When what you were saying was something really bad was happening and it was subject to political consensus. When your identity is doig good for the poor and your policy is fucking them over, and you have identified a working class you will represent on the understanding they are entirely defined by hating benefits and immigrants and the only good policy is policy tat harms them. It’s an interesting arena within which to invite the most vulnerable people in society, interesting wolves to throw them to. The thing is when you are discussing whether the poor are deserving the onus is on them to prove it. In the modern day den of lions. The reason these people have to hide from the power dynamics involved in their transition to a digital landscape is that the only way to continue abusive policy ib a digital landscape is to define the new social aspect of media, with abuse. Which I think goes some way to explaining the way twitter is evolving.

The tighter the echochamber, the less they can see outside it. And the more exposed they are. They are so used to having the conversation where the poor are objects of analysis, they hadnt prepared for a world whree they may be of interest. Given they moved into a chatroom and declared it their future, that’s interesting.

Statement about elite left and their hate campaign and my twitter account being shut.

The hate campaign against me by the elite left began 7 years ago when I was invited to Oxford university, by people now at thecore of Novara, this culture have just made sure my twitter account has been closed,  my response to their hate campaign has been treated as harassing them. This is how they use activism to subordinate marginalised identities, to reproduce the neo liberal system by the way.

In the last seven years, while also dealing with EXTREME poverty because of the austerity they used, the social circle of young people I met at Oxford University have led this hate campaign against me because they recruited me to be a badge for their movement and my reality showed their bullshit up as infantile

THIS post on Universal Credit is why I am a threat to them. This is after a seven year campaign which has included continual public harassment, death threats, rape threats, internships ended, attempts to stop me being published, violent stalkers being validated, defamation and abuse continually. You can see here that I was initially sucked in by them. To say they made my life a living hell after this is an understatement.

I don’t know why young people who already live above the law, were already given EVERY card, have to terrorise a single mother for discussing serious system failure but now they need me to be off twitter. I emailed Ash Sarkar to give her the context of this harassment, which her colleagues are all aware of, and she immediately declared she had an inbox full of harassment, a narcissistic reflex which is dangerous and so I published the emails but they referred to impact of the hate campaign on my daughter, The content of those emails, much like the events in them with her peers at the root would be damaging for my daughter just to read. She is old enough to google so I have password protected them.

Emails are here. Just message me for the password in the comments box. My daughter cannot read them but I think its important to see how Ash and Novara respond to the context of their harassment of me and I think its important to see just what a significant impact the behaviour of elite cultures can have, when you are already made vulnerable by the austerity they are exploiting. There is a bit of me does feel shame and I dont want to share that context to their harassment of me, because you dont want to share stuff about malnutrition, or poverty or te impact and I never liked people feeling sorry for me or wanted to play that game. I emailed Ash because I thought she may not be aware of that context. I dont know how anyone is supposed to withstand the torrent of hate the social circle around these people have aimed at me, as well as withstanding that level of poverty. I dont know why they hate me, life gave them everything and mine was hard enough. But now they need me to not have a platform at all, this is the second twitter accunt they have taken away, the last one they hacked. Cos they don’t get enough cookies at Oxford, Cambridge and their rich mummy’s and daddy’s didn’t tell them the poor had a say in their representation…..

James Butler in particular was acutely aware of all this vulnerability when his friends did this, he was acutely aware of how poor we were, how vulnerable I was because I was a careleaver, and that we were literally barely able to keep a roof over our head before they unleashed this hate campaign,. You will note, you can read my blog, my published work and what is in those emails is consistent with the events and issues raised there throughout austerity. Because for me it was never about a career it was real. Now I have had my twitter accoount taken away because this generation of elite media brats, need not only to use abuse and intimidation but to try and control their environment by removing any ability of the poor to speak at all.

7 years of hate aimed at me, by elite students because they learned a version of the working class at university and me living in absolute poverty and wanting to challenge it is a threat to them. 7 years of unbridled hate from people with privilege you will never have, jealous because the abject poverty you are living is  authenticity they desire.  I’d swap authenticity for being able to keep a roof over my kids head and my life not being that. While the demonstration of how the elite left were an essential component of the neo liberal consensus, I am stunned by their behaviour.

Driving me out of a chatroom does not make what I say go away, the reality of it does not stop being real, and ultimately the prize of ‘king of the chatroom’ is not interesting to me and it does not change the impact of the severe violent hatred of women, working class people, and the subjects of their analysis, by the NOvara brats. Nor does it change their tendency to abuse and harm and to enjoy distress. I amonly saying what millions of people already know and articulating something that is real, so terrorising me doesn’t stop that.

I am not one of life’s victims, I still ended this period with an LSE masters and a bright future, and my daughter is a marvel with a bright future, but I now have to enter a world which produced these young people. LSE at least taught me that their behaviour is largely just their dysfunctional plus a blindness that is reflected across elite institutions. Its just that blindness plus the violent ad extreme misogyny and abusive tendencies. To manage the extreme poverty and vulnerability that austerity created, while being subjected to a 7 year hate campaign by people who have never wanted for anything has been extraordinary but it scares me that these people will go after your child, you, your job, your home, and then perceive it as an attack on them if they are not successful. Is this representative of a class? Or is it just the thick dossers on the fringes of the elite and a higher concentration of dangerous and abusive people? How did these people come to hate us so much when they never met us? How do you reconcile being a socialist with hating working class women so much you will try to destroy their life for speaking? I suppose at least the violent hatred of women, the poor and working class people shown by Ash, James, Aaron and Sam, can be explained by their need to use those people as symbols but the only people i have ever known who have enjoyed distress, and behaved like were psychopaths.

If these young people are willing to harm children, women, and anyone else, and will be chasing anyone who threatens their false image out of the public sphere with violence,a nd by literally trying to remove ability of people to speak in public, I worry about what happens if these people get near power.

Re: Ash emails

I have to take them down because my daughters is old enough to google,. If anyone wants tem they are welcome to read them on request.

Added later: I have protected the post but if you just ask in comments I’ll give you the password to read them. You can read the emails, and her response to receiving that context to the abuse by Novara.

Identity, the poor, the rule of law.

The difference between the pre war period and the post war settlement, was one of identity and citizenship. World War 2 saw an evolution in citizenship which has continued. Duties to children, equality legislation these things evolved. This means that you have to think about things like policy in a more complicated way, you can’t just have batshit ideas when they are going to undermine the rule of law. THere is a way to avoid doing that though.

IF all the cultures around politics use ‘the poor’ as an object, then dysfunction can just be projected onto us, but te right can’t do that on their own. And largely understanding what market forces are, means also understanding evolutionary forces. Its not ideology, its just a way of describing how our systems function. The right cant maintain that on their own, and if there is consideration of the baseline of democratic equality, and you have to consider every person as a voter, its quite difficult to demonise at will. So what they need the left to do is to maintain the parameters of discussion around what should  be done with te poor. The poor have to remain as objects to be pitied, so behaviour and policy which would be inconceivable when talking about a voter, is all of a sudden ok. This is then justfied when the political culture using left and right as boundary of tribalism required to address homogenity say the poor don’t vote. This only works with a complete disconnect between these people and the poor. If that disconnect is broken by canges in some of the institutions holding it up, there is tension and conflict. Like a seal rotting on a pipe join.

As long as the poor are objects in the conversation they are having, any discussion of the evolution of the rule of law, equality legislation, duties to children, the evolution of instityutions, the erosion of institutions, can be avoided. Its quite easy to maintain that in a media landscape defined by broadcast. Its not so easy when people feeling the brunt of it are in te same arena.

THe discussion of the undeserving poor is what defined thecruelty of the pre-war period and it defined neo liberalism. It was upheld by a symbiosis of left and right which could not be pierced because the parameters were defined in elite institutios and media organisations the poor might be allowed to clean. Twitter meant they had to mix with the poor, and through twitter this culture demonstrated they were fulfilling this function. Its not quite the fault of twitter, economics, political science, they rely on the reduction of the poor as objects, to avoid having to consider the rule of law, evolution of citizenship. If its the poor needing to be reshaped it can be avoided. Genius of Milton Friedman. Only through twitter have we seen that this mediating class will rely on narcissistic abuse should they come into contact with the objects in their political identity,

God forbid the objects of their political identity need to discuss the role of the symbiosis of left and right, in masking discussion of serious institutional erpsion and failure. I think it’s only really seeing Universal Credit attempt to use the cash transfer system to take entire control of the working class(lol) and watching it undo the welfare blueprint that has defined the last 70 years and not just the last 30. Twitter has been useful for seeing how that culture react to loss of media insulation, is to have narcissistic abusive tribes. Inviting the poor to decorate their identity and then abusing them when their reality contradicts current requirements. What’s interesting is the absolute refusal to acknowledge the power they are protecting. Jeremy Corbyn wants to be Prime Minister, these people want to be the media landscape, and they want the right to behave in the most astonishing ways to make people fit their fantasy. How isi that sustainable? Am going to archive my tweets, cos I think the archive is quite interesting for the future. THis is playing out in very toxic ways.

Its really interesting how closely it mirrors narcissistic abuse. Reflexes to protect a false identity. How the poor are kept objects. We’ll just say you are picking on us if you refuse to stop discussing the austerity you are living within earshot while we are having a movement. Stop bullying us, says the next Prime Minister and not just his media people but his media orgs. If you describe distress, harm to children caused by our actions, harm to you, we will not only escalate but we will complain you are picking on us? Wow. That’s actually amazing when you think about it.

New Labour were cunts but they stayed away from you, they didnt seek you out to ask you to describe how miserable policy was and then do what these lot do when reality contradicts a false self image. I identify as rpresenting the poor and they will not discuss anything outside parameters I approve, anywhere on the internet. Ok then.Lol

It is disturbing the behaviour these people think is normal, but actually what I’ve learned is this., I thought it was disturbing but when I got to LSE, I realised this is the fringe dossers of the actual elite. And the structures they come from are huge. THese people are from money. You ask Sam Kriss…lol So all of a sudden the internet has exposed the culture, structure of social network, how it links institutions and they can’t reliably perform the function they used to. Its exposed what they dont know, and every time they attack to protect their bullshit, they demonstrate more of what they cant see and why. So they are getting increasingly nasty but only because they know their function is now superfluous and systems will evolve beyond them. See Universal Credit. It is funny watching them try to control realit through a chatroom though. Like when your kid believed it was really Santa on the telly. Or your brother taking over the world in his batmobile.