Regarding incidents described in emails to Ash Sarkar

Each of those incidents was done openly, while crowds of her peers cheered. It means there is a public written record of it, going over years, which is useful. That’s how power works. Sam Kriss’s victim was lucky in that she made that statement in the week Harvey Weinstein did what he did. When Ash and her friends see people distressed, harmed, they usually do what Ash is demonstrating today. This is how power and abuse works. Begging them to stop, letting them know it’s caused harm, distress, is a direct attack on self image so they will escalate.
Added later: solution.  I think its important these emails are available so you can easily see how Ash responded to the information within them ‘I have an inbox of emails from a serial harasser’. So if you wish to read the ‘serial harasser’ and what Ash was being ‘harassed’ with, just message in the comments box and I will give you the password to read the emails.


Dear Ash Sarkar

I emailed you to give you context to the sustained and brutal harrassment of me over 7 years, because you offered your solidarity to abuse victims and I thought you may not be aware of the full context. It was a direct consequence and often orchestrated and encouraged by your colleagues at Novara or te social circle it emerged from. Which you know. I have reproduced the emails exactly, redacting for mentions of the legal proceedings impacted by your friends. I will not contact you again and fully understand that you believe the behaviour of your friends to be normal and within your right and understand that you perceive being given the context and the consequences of this behaviour to be an attack on you. I accept you must already have been aware of the abuse and intimidation that Novara is based on. You will receive no more correspondence. I will leave these emails there so people see you consider someone telling you how much distress has been caused in the hope of ending it, as serial harassment. I emailed because I didn’t want to share stuff about malnutrition, poverty., the family courts, publicly, and I assumed normal rational people would look at that and be at least shocked. But you saw it differently. THat’s fine.

You will receive no more correspondence from me and I will leave this up here. I think it’s useful for people to see what people in your class consider acceptable and normal. It goes some way to explaining the Sam Kriss’s of your world. Its also useful for people to see how Novara came into being and how reliant it has been on intimidation, abuse, and behaviour that to normal people is shocking. It’s also useful for you to demonstrate how you respond to evidenced allegations of abuse and harm by your colleagues of those you claim voice for, including your response to hearing the impact of that behaviour on a child already living in poverty.

I paid a heavy price for being invited by James and his friends to speak about austerity at OXford, I apologise that your movement was impaired by the reality of the austerity we lived.

To describe someone making you aware of the physical, emotional and material consequences of the behaviour of your colleagues as harassing you is an interesting response to hearing that. Thankfully all claims can be amply evidenced and most of it was done openly.

FYI The reason I keep the blog is that the only way to deal with the behaviour you demonstrate is observation and chronology. Unfortunately people who have engaged in such shocking behaviour end up in a position where their identity is threatened by hearing the reality of it. It leads to reflexes which reabuse. Its quite common.

Ash Sarkar

You gave your solidarity to victims of abuse and harassment, I wondered if that included me and my daughter? At what point do we count? Cos when your colleagues incite violent harassment of people, and when you take part in pile ons on behalf of your peers, because you identify as having that right, that’s actually abuse. Was it abuse and harassment when my five year old daughter was scared of the police because James and his friends thought a social worker going to an adoption hearing was ‘scabbing’? Was the 8 hour pile on you were part of on behalf of Matt Zarb the other week, not harassment and abuse? Was it abuse when I sat in tears because the police had just left for the third time that week, in a campaign that went on for a month, and they informed me they couldn’t be sure that some of the threats we ha received because I was a scab wouldn’t be carried out. The last thing I ever said to James Butler as he stood back a n enjoyed it, was ‘I can’t protect us from this’. That was day 2 of a campaign that seemed to go on forever. Would it have been abuse if the people taking part in that had carried out those threats te police couldn’t disregard as empty?

Or is it only harassment and abuse when the peers you already know are like this, are exposed the way Sam Kriss was? I think we all know the answer to that. I hope noone ever does to you what your colleagues did to me and my daughter while the Tories hammered us.

I understand completely Ash. its not abuse when a single mother on 140 a week cant protect her daughter from Oxbridge post graduates and has to send her away cos its not a safe. Its not abuse when its someone you identify as the representative of, if you picked up that identity at Oxford or Cambridge, and its not abuse when you need austerity for your media career. Am sure 7 years of sustained abuse is what I deserve for threatening the right of your colleagues to exploit austerity, after they invited me to Oxford to say this. It’s what austerity was for wasn’t it? Me remaining focused on austerity was surely about competing with your peers, right?

You already knew what Sam was, you took part in the same pile ons with him, watched him abuse women. You know the same about some other peers. I only know your names because you participate in abuse of me with your peers, and if you pop up, Sam does. Its generally a sign am in for a long day.

You watch your peers abuse women, you watch them harass and you watch them do it cos its in your interests when they abuse people and you take part. You feel ashamed now Sam is exposed and want to distance yourself. You take part, you uphold it, you do so openly. That’s power. When you can abuse someone openly and not be challenged, that’s what power is. The damage it does is not the names called, its when you realise that there is a group bonding over causing you distress and its the realisation of what they would do to you, and it could be done openly. That’s what abuse is. It’s when someone is experiencing that and they have to understand that everything around that person will uphold their right to do that.

Am sure I’m the only victim of your peers and am sure Sam only sexually assaulted one women….Oh wait that’s not likely is it.

Does it feel liberating watching your colleagues an peers do this? Is it exhilarating to be part of it when they target someone, when they start to show distress, their timeline looks like they are crazy because they are actually fending off your peers? It’s actually normal to be exhilarated by it, that’s why it’s so dangerous, and why power is addictive. Does it make you feel powerful when people are distressed? The realisation you can do that in broad daylight because of Novara and because your peers are from elite universities and you have media validation? Sam’ says he can’t perceive signals that indicate boundaries and distress, is it the same for you? Do you debrief each other, via messages you can take full pleasure in it or is it more organic? Do you ever worry that the pleasure they take in abusing women in front of you an online might translate to assaults, and rape offine?

I don’t want your solidarity Ash, I don’t even understand why I have to know who you are, I want you to stop participating in, upholing and reinforcing the abuse and intimidation that your peers rely on. I want you to take a second to understand that when you are getting a rush abusing people online, the peers taking pleasure in it may also be doing the same offline and in private and in much more brutal ways, safe in the knowledge you’ll back them up. Last time I was abused your peers asked me why I was still on the same record as 2010, and then I remembered you didn’t know we didn’t choose austerity and can’t make it go away. Did you know the welfare cuts we get abused for discussing actually had a material impact that we have no choice but to challenge, because there literally is NO alternative? Do you know what it meant that your peers made discussing that something that would put your kid at risk? Do you think that might be connecte to how gendered austerity became the Absolute Boys vs Centrist Dads movement?

Do you ever think about the women who died, don’t eat, lost their kids, can’t escape abuse, or the price they pay for a movement which replicates an Oxford kitchen table from 2010? You  never look round and wonder if someone paid a price so Oxford brats could use austerity as media springboard?(cos there are no other routes to media from Oxford and Cambridge…). You don’t think it’s odd your peers have spent seven years abusing someone because she needed to discuss political consensus on social care, child protection and our benefit system and the symbiosis of left and right, Labour and Tory that upheld the entire neo liberal consensus? You don’t think it’s odd that your peers needed to abuse women and welfare claimants so they wouldn’t discuss political consensus, to get a movement ‘challenging’ austerity?

Harvey Weinstein means this week you have to admit Sam is a dangerous misogynist, he must feel so aggrieved that what he can usually do openly is now a problem. I suppose at least we know what your line is. You won’t uphold abuse when it is clear it may damage your reputation to be associated with it.  She didn’t do the description of the assault for her, she did it because she watches the abuse online to others and yet you don’t think it’s odd at all. She shared a deeply personal trauma and putherself at risk to object to what you and your friends do, you don’t even think your abuse of people is abnormal. Because it costs to challenge your friends, you end up with your kid at risk, wilting under te sheer weight of the sustained abuse you whip up because your elite positions are not enough cookies for you. You don’t think it’s odd that challenging your friends puts someone at physical risk? You haven’t noticed you are part of a class protecting their boundaries from the poor that way? You seem intelligent and yet can’t put two and two togeter to realise Oxbridge graduates competing with welfare claimants and using physical abuse, harassment and intimidation is directly subordinating the marginalised and making it dangerous for them to challenge austerity carried out by the same class? Of course you don’t, you know full well what it is and don’t care.

Sam Kriss, Heathcote Ruthven, Charlie Gilmore…

These aren’t really names I should know. I only know these names because the kids of rock stars and earls and lairds, decide austerity was their opportunity. I have been on the receiving end of James Butler, Adam Ramsay, Laurie Penny and Stavvers as they incited abuse of women. Have watched this culture use intimidation, abuse, and targeted harassment of people so they could use austerity, I saw them do it while people begged. The thing that struck me about these people was how little connection they had with the world, not even aware of the basic codes of behaviour that define those of us who live within the rule of law, under their glass floor. THey want violent misogyny turned into feminism and am going to explain their purpose re: austerity.

Austerity was subject to political consensus. It was largely about institutions subject to absolute consensus, eroded over years, and the ONLY way to discuss austerity was to discuss that consensus and the symbiosis of left and right.Their job was to stop anyone discussing that consensus, and toextract value for themselves. They didn’t have the walls of elite institutions to hide behind so had to resort to actual abuse. They bond over abuse of women online. I have seen the level of sexual predation in the young men of this social circle. This is young men bred not to hear no and to believe they are entitled to what they choose. This is a culture very dangerous to women. The reason Sam’s peers are now using anonymous accounts to abuse people who have noticed their friend is a serial sexual predator who just admitted he should probably be in prison. They don’t know this is not ok. Not bred for it yah.

It’s interesting having a seven year record of them doing this, while system failure built in those systems. Universal Credit is the culmination, but they’d rather we didn’t discuss Universal Credit.

Elite cultures using actual intimidation and abuse when they no longer have the privilege of a sealed off world is not surprising, that they were dumb enough to provide historian with a 7 year record to read at leisure, hilarious. Who knows, when historians are looking at how we were prevented from addressing the actions that led to this, this violent, misogynist friendship group of elite brats may actually get their footnote in history.

The men inspired by the courage of #metoo

The man who wanted writing career, and demanded everyone retweet his articles, who abused me and encouraged others to abuse me  when I said I couldnt retweet a magazine who were selling those policies. The man who invited me to lunch, and sat his chair next to mine while stroking my leg out of concern for my future. The man who validated a violent stalker, knowing he lived near my house because he thought we were competing over austerity I was living and he wanted a career from. The editor who made that stalker the centre of a campaign about online abuse, in an effort to smear me because I kept discussing political consensus on welfare policy. The man who invited me to speak at Oxford university and set his elite mates on me for being a ‘scab’ because a social worker going to a court hearing for a child is scabbing in the world of the Oxbridge proletariat. The man who saw that the media interest in me would fade as soon as I was clear I don’t do Labour shilling, who pretended to be my friend until there was nothing in it for him and there were cookies to be earned from his mates by being disgusting about me. The man with the violent porn habit, who used to joke about what he wanted to do to. All these men were inspired by the courage shown by women on #metoo and wondered what to do about this terrible problem they were horrified to hear of.

Class and Britain’s decline.

In 1942 the government were starting to get scared we would stop chucking our kids into the blender of World War 2, and it was decided that far from the poppys and unemployment that met returning Great War veterans, this time we understood what citizenship was. That we lived in a democracy, with the vote, and the rule of law.

But it turned out that was a lie. And Oxford, Cambridge, the LSE, and the elite who send their children to be networked there, knew it was a lie. So they carried on as if it hadn’t happened, and used our welfare system to undo citizenship completely. Turns out we have a mediating class, and because this is their reflex, they didn’t know they were doing it and don’t like being reminded, cos who wants to examine a reflex?

We used media and policy making cultures to centralise power around a tiny culture who weren’t even aware 1945 happened, and missed most of the twentieth century.

They don’t know rule of law evolved and noone ever told them that you couldn’t inherit the right to be someone’s representative cos they have to want you. That’s why we got Brexit, it’s why we just destroyed the country, and its why so many people have been harmed. What’s really funny is the reflex that protects this. Its not malice. Its protection of identity. Protection of profession, protection of self image from the fear of not being infallible, defensive reflexes that our elite have shown they will now back up with actual abuse and intimidation.

Our elite institutions are pretty adamant that we are rolling back te clock to 1945. I dont think they understand you can attempt to wind an institutin back but you only expose how rule of law has evolved since and you generate crisis. These crisis are bad.

Brexit, system failure, this country is a busted flush and a tiny group of people from a tiny group of institutions did it, because they were bred to see citizens in a democracy as their property and just never got over enfranchisement.

Request that I set up a new twitter account

No. If they suspend my account I don’t want to use the platform, it was only ever a chatroom for me, its not my fault media moved in and made it their future, was never why I was there.

Feel free to ask twitter to unsuspend my account but I won’t be setting up another. Its one thing to be the target of organised abuse on behalf of a politial party, its another for twitter to actively enable abuse of women.

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.