Doublethink

By Mark Crutchley

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.... to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies", George Orwell, 1984.

Last Thursday the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper came to London and was accorded the honour of addressing both Houses of Parliament. One of the key aspects of the recent relationship between Britain and Canada has been the support our government has been giving to Canada's lobbying against the EU Fuel Quality Directive. This would see Canadian tar sands oil recognised as being more polluting than conventional oil and would make it much harder, if not impossible, for it to be imported into the EU; a move which the UK has steadfastly opposed.

Harper was met with three protests, two outside Parliament and another on top of it as we added British voices to those of Canadian environmentalists and indigenous people whose land would be destroyed by tar sands development. In all, an area the size of England could be laid waste to extract the oil if it is fully developed.

However with the difficulties Canada is having in establishing pipelines both to its own West coast and into America (KXL) to export tar sands oil, the EU directive could deal another body-blow to the development of this most dirty and polluting fuel. This is important for all of us because there is so much oil locked up in these sands, that exploiting it all would make it virtually impossible for us to avoid pushing temperatures well beyond the 2C which has been defined as the threshold for dangerous climate change.

I'm highlighting this, not just because it is one of the most critical climate issues we face, but also because of the way it exposes the hypocrisy of our politicians. World leaders have for years signed up to statements of their commitment to preventing dangerous climate change, yet at the same time they apparently have no qualms about supporting developments which would make that threat a reality. George Orwell would recognise this as a classic case of doublethink. Similarly oil companies devote pages of their annual reports to  sustainability, while simultaneously following a business plan based on the unsustainable exploitation of fossil fuel reserves.

We have a government which still professes itself committed to the legally enshrined 80% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, yet which votes down an amendment to its Energy Bill which set a necessary decarbonisation target for 2030. A chancellor pushing a new dash for gas through fracking partly because of the jobs it will create and in so doing  driving investment in renewable energy - which delivers far more jobs than gas fracking ever will - to a seven year low.

All of this doublethink goes unchallenged by the majority of our mainstream media which has neither the wit, nor the will to highlight the glaring contradictions. Somehow we have to hold our politicians to account, but how? I wish I knew.

The New Slave Labour

Who would think that in 2013, the situation of domestic workers would be no better  than in Victorian times? The UN Agency The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has just produced a report entitled Domestic Workers, which is the first of its kind looking in depth at working conditions and the extent of legal protection enjoyed by domestic workers worldwide.  At least 52 million domestic workers worldwide experience poor working conditions and insufficient legal protection, according to the report.

The report also reveals that these domestic workers (a person who is employed in a private household carrying out domestic work such as cleaner, gardener and elderly carer) of whom 83% are female, account for 7.5% of women’s wage employment worldwide - and a far greater share in some regions, particularly Asia, the Pacific region, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Despite the size of the sector, many domestic workers experience poor working conditions and insufficient legal protection.  Sandra Polaski, ILO deputy Director General, said: “Domestic workers are frequently expected to work longer hours than other workers and in many countries do not have the same rights to weekly rest that are enjoyed by other workers - combined with the lack of rights, the extreme dependency on the employer and the isolated and unprotected nature of domestic work can render them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.”

The ILO report showed that only 10% of all domestic workers are covered by general labour legislation to the same extent as other workers. More than a quarter are completely excluded from national labour organisation.

More than half of all domestic workers have no limitation on their weekly normal hours under national law and approximately 45% have no entitlement to weekly rest periods.  Just over half of all domestic workers are entitled to a minimum wage equivalent to that of other workers.  Lack of legal protection increases domestic workers vulnerability and makes it difficult for them to seek remedies. As a result they are often paid less than workers in comparable occupations and work longer hours.

The report showed that live-in domestic workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation since they are often paid a flat weekly or monthly rate irrespective of hours worked. In practice, that means a domestic worker is available whenever needed.

Sandra Polaski added: “ The large disparities between wages and working conditions of domestic workers compared to other workers in the same country underline the need for action at the national level by governments, employers and workers to improve the working lives of these vulnerable but hardworking individuals.”

The report also showed that between the mid-1990s and 2010, there was an increase of more than 19 million domestic workers worldwide.  Many migrate to other countries to find work.  The ILO suggests it is likely that the figures contained in the report underestimate the true numbers of domestic workers worldwide, which may in reality be tens of millions more.

The figures also exclude child domestic workers below the age of 15 that are not included in the surveys used by the report.  Their number was estimated by the ILO at 7.4 million in 2008. 

The report, published recently by the ILO covered 117 countries and had an employment coverage of 88.7% within those countries.

A little bit of history of this very effective UN agency: The ILO was founded in 1919, in the wake of a destructive war, to pursue a vision based on the premise that universal, lasting peace can be established only if it is based on social justice. The ILO became the specialized agency of the UN in 1946.  It is now the international organisation responsible for drawing up and overseeing international labour standards.

One of the great strengths of the United Nations is its global reach.  No other organisation could conduct such a wide-ranging survey with authority. It is also in a position to put pressure on national governments to make sure that they introduce humane laws to protect workers in their country. 

The position of the British Government on the issue of domestic workers is interesting.  On 12^th December 2012, the Kate Willingham of Anti-Slavery International wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills as follows: “Today, 12 December 2012, is being marked globally as a day of action for ratification of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 189 on Decent Work for Domestic Workers, which has now entered into force following its formal adoption by four countries. On this occasion, we urge you and your colleagues to promote and protect the rights of domestic workers by ratifying the Convention and its accompanying Recommendation, as well as restoring essential protections for migrant domestic workers in the UK.” 

Convention No. 189 is a ground breaking treaty which establishes the first global standards for the estimated 50 to 100 million domestic workers worldwide, the vast majority of whom are women and girls, who clean, cook, and care for children and the elderly in private households. Despite their contributions to the global economy, domestic workers are vulnerable to a wide range of abuses. These include excessive hours of work with no rest, non-payment of wages, forced confinement, physical and sexual abuse, forced labour and trafficking.  Convention No. 189 provides desperately needed and long overdue protections, including special protections for child domestic workers and migrant domestic workers.

Despite this the UK Government has publically stated in an explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament on 27 April 2012, that whilst the UK supports the principles behind the Domestic Workers Convention, it does not think that ratification of the Convention is appropriate for the UK because of the burdens that implementing the health and safety provisions would impose on UK business and citizens.

This very short-term view will store up future trouble for the UK Border Agency, the Home Office and most of all for thousands of UK domestic workers themselves.

Don't cry for Clueless Chloe

by Trevor Phillips

The recent BBC Newsnight interview of Norwich North MP Chloe Smith, considered government plans to cut £500 million of fuel duty income - while it continues to slash vital public services “due to funding shortages”. The interview has ‘gone viral’ on You-tube and in other media. Some responses shoot the interviewer: that nasty Jeremy Paxman is such a bully, intimidating a young woman like that. And that Chancellor, George Osborne - 'Orrible Ozzy' hereafter, surely – is a coward for putting such an innocent into the ring with Paxo instead of going there himself to explain the, erm, inexplicable government reversal on fuel duty.



And so the excuses and apologies rain in for the abysmal performance of Treasury Minister Chloe Smith, in her encounter with rottweiler Paxman. An Eastern Daily Press (EDP) columnist was swiftly into print by Thursday 28 June, describing Paxman's methods as 'like a grizzly beastie stalks its prey' and concluding: 'The interview does not change the fact that she is a capable minister and a good bet for a future cabinet position'. He probably does the lottery, too.

I don't much like Paxman's style. He is unnecessarily aggressive at times. But he is rude to almost everyone - and in the case of politicians, regardless of their party. To his credit he is particularly tough on government ministers or spokespeople, regardless of gender, age or other irrelevancies. And given the limitations of Prime Minister's Question Time and other Punch and Judy shows in the Commons, I welcome this minimal accountability of our national leaders.

The performance of Smith cannot be blamed on Paxman. Smith was just as appalling on Channel 4 News a few hours earlier.

Interestingly, both programmes asked the same questions, their producers knowing full well how to expose the chaotic reverses of a faltering government. It wasn't anti-Tory - they would just as soon stitch up a Labour or Lib-Dem minister.

Blame for Smith's denouement as a lightweight also hangs with Osborne and his senior Treasury team who avoided similar embarrassment or, some say, were double booked at a Bullingdon Club evening of Bunter cakes and ale. And where were the media managers and whips who ensure that spokespeople are found, scripted, rehearsed and delivered fresh faced and mantra perfect to make-up rooms and cameras? More than one head may yet roll for this debacle.

But let's not let any of this distract us from the contribution of Chloe Smith herself. Keen to be an MP, happily riding the fast escalator to promotion and willing to be groomed by party barons and have greatness thrust upon her. She did not decline to be interviewed and had enough self belief – she is not short of this - to imagine she could handle the task.

Chloe Smith and her media managers have worked hard to cultivate an image of business knowledge and community connection. She was apparently once a business consultant of some sort (but who would consult her now?) And a look at her website is like a trawl through the index of the Charities Commission, with pictures of visits to countless good causes. But do these images reflect any real grasp of the human impact of the policies she backs? 'Chloe's Gallery' deserves closer attention:

'Here is Chloe visiting care homes and raising awareness of Carers' Week'. This is while Conservative run Norfolk County Council implements Treasury dictated funding cuts, and has reduced funding to day centres for older and disabled people –which also give carers a break.

'Here is Chloe helping Norfolk Homemakers, providing affordable furniture for people in need and on low income'. Let's not ask why more people are now in need - that would be a bit like that nasty Paxman. With high unemployment and benefit cuts reducing family incomes and Tory plans to cut housing benefit expected to drive many families into greater poverty, Chloe may have to do a second shift at the warehouse.

'Here is Chloe helping to collect blankets for the elderly and vulnerable'. Let's not ask if there are more vulnerable people since Chloe was elected, it would be rude. But in Norfolk, support is being cut for people with mental health problems, sensory dysfunction and learning difficulties. Cuts in benefits for Norfolk's disabled people will reduce their living standards by a third over the next 3 years. More blankets, Chloe!

'Here is Chloe helping the local Samaritans'. I wonder if their case-load has increased or decreased since the last election? And why is free Legal Aid disappearing and the Citizens Advice Bureau being stripped to the bone?

'Here is Chloe getting on her bike for the British Heart Foundation'. But don't ask why the Tories allowed the junk-food and alcohol lobbies to fund government lifestyle adverts in return for a 'non-regulatory' approach.

'Here is Chloe visiting Remply'. That should be Remploy, Chloe, and let me remind you of your government’s plan to soon close 36 of 54 Remploy sites, with compulsory redundancy for1,752 people of whom 1,518 are disabled. And to close others, including Norwich, by the end of 2013.

'Here is Chloe helping the Norwich Foodbank'. Norwich Foodbank, which distributes donated food to desperate families, fed 361 people (257 adults; 104 children) in May this year - more than double all of May last year. Why is demand for this service expected to continue growing, Chloe?

'Here is Chloe... supporting apprenticeship week... and at a job seekers fair'. While she backs the slashing of Norfolk youth services and drives Treasury policies which have pushed youth unemployment to over 20%.

And so it goes on and on. Here is Chloe providing a few hours or a smile - and certainly a picture opportunity and a heart-warming story - while backing the very policies causing the pain and requiring more voluntary support. So much of this pain could be prevented by funds from £500 million fuel duty, or by greater government effort to collect the billions of pounds of unpaid taxes. There are alternatives.

I don't blame any of the fine charities and organisations mentioned here for inviting or accepting a visit from a local MP. This is vital for morale, to gain public profile and to have a chance to lobby on policy. Norfolk's voluntary organisations do excellent work. Why then is Norfolk County Council, backed by Chloe Smith and the Treasury, cutting funds for voluntary organisations and community groups, forcing many to close?

But let's be generous and presume that Chloe is big hearted and not cynical. She may not know of these contradictions or of the impact of Treasury policy. She may not understand that it is not really supportive to give people a collecting can while stealing their purse.

But if she is not cynical she is certainly not bright. You decide. Either way she is not fit to be an MP. Don't shed tears for Clueless Chloe.

And finally, returning to the fuel duty delay which began the controversy, the EDP suspects 'the main thing our readers care about is the fact that they will not have to pay so much to fill up their tank between now and January'.

I actually think the good people of Norfolk - many of them providing care or running voluntary organisations under increasing strain - care about much more than that. And some of them will be wondering if their MPs understand any of this.

Pictures from Chloe Smith’s website.