Weeping Clouds

Only weeping clouds create rainbows and they share them with us all.

The first half of this revelation came to me a month or so ago. As I pondered those I loved who experienced depression. You cannot open yourself up to loving this world deeply without opening yourself up to great sorrow and yet we pathologise, blame and marginalise those who's emotions are in align with the reality of the pain of life.

The last few days I've been thinking about those weeping clouds sharing those rainbows. 

For the majority of my life I have deeply cared about people who were blue. I have learnt and benefited so much from them. What you gain from living closely to people who live in colder emotional climates is hard to pin down. But recently I have started to realize how deep my debt is to them. Like any diversity issue we all stand to gain by a more inclusive culture.

I am humbled by their courage to get up each day and face the world. It teaches me about the strength of human character resolve and will. I have never done anything close to approaching that much overcoming. I give up at the first hurdle and take one of the many other options available to the privileged emotionally typical.

I am grounded by their different energies. The slowness of movement, thought and communication forces me to slow down to consider more deeply what I'm saying to reach out further and therefore to reach deeper into myself, my motives, it causes me to pause, to reflect.

The turmoil of anxiety sharpens me stops me running away from things I've thrown aside as unimportant, skiped over neglected.

The fear of social engagement checks the frivolous interactions I have with people without the care and thought due in the sacred moment of engaging with another human being.

So from a constantly energetic, self-assured, extrovert to those who have been told their emotions are invalid.

Thank you. 

I have no desire for your suffering but don't for a moment think you don't contribute huge amounts to those around you. You do.

At Risk of Significant Harm

On Friday the Guardian reported that the Department of Education is consulting on privatising children's services including Child Protection. I am not sleeping so well.

Now the bottom line of privatisation is that individuals will profit financially. Personally I'd like to re-nationalise everything, however I feel there is a very fundamental difference between privatising services such as the railway and privatising public services. There are private sector companies already running sexual assault referral centers, just pause on that a moment shareholders are therefore making money because rape exists. If you privatise Child Protection...

If the consultation is a consultation maybe I don't have to worry as the companies likely to be involved are massively unpopular. But as a letter from senior social workers said 'We are very concerned that the government consultation, launched with a very short period of only six weeks,'

The companies who are likely to bid for these services include some currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. The Howard League have done a good job of summarising some of the appalling things that have happened under their watch you can read them hear.

Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on Local Authorities to investigate and  make inquiries into the circumstances of children considered to be at risk of ‘significant harm’. Privatising out Child Protection particularly to the likes of G4S and Serco will on the balance of probability be putting our children at risk of significant harm.

A parent who left their child in the care of someone they new to have a track record of abuse, or who did not provide their child with enough food, or who deliberately let them watch porn would probably find their children where subject to a child protection plan.

The government however is concidering handing over its children to the watch of capitalists, 
has cut support to in and out of work families to the extent that many cannot afford to provide their children with the basics, and are ok with page 3. 

You can sign a petition set up by Children and Families England here and you can respond to the consultation by 30th May.

And if anyone can think of a creative way were we can make a referral to social services for all children because of a risk posed by the state or the media (without causeing them havoc cause they are massively overworked) then your brain has got there before mine. 

The Center for Victim Blamming

I generally try to avoid any contact with the Center for Social Justice because the shear force of its victim blaming, patronising and fact denying seems to overwhelming to counter. I'm often left totally unsure where to start and feel it needs someone with a greater insight to write about it.

However this is my blog and one of its main functions is for me to spit and his about things that annoy me without forcing anyone to listen. So here is me setting out some of my main concerns with the CSJ.

1. The Appropriation of the term Social Justice

Social Justice means something. As a blog form the CSJ points out the concept of Social Justice 'has long been owned by those on the left' and adds 'of British politics'. Social Justice is a concept that is both ancient and global it doesn't belong to Britain but has in the main belonged to progressives. Now that doesn't mean people on the right have nothing to contribute but what is most helpful in debate is for people to critique views they don't agree with and present alternative arguments. What the CSJ has done is simply come up with their own understanding of social justice and then act as though it is the dominant understanding.

2. Lack of clarity and transparency

The CSJ describes itself as independent, the BBC often describes it as right leaning which is far more accurate though I think still not the whole picture. I don't understand why it doesn't formalise and declare its exact link to the conservative party. The Fabian society for example clearly describes itself as being affiliated to the Labour Party. Why couldn't the CSJ do an equivalent? 

The second transparency issue is the lack of definition of Social Justice as a concept. Given that they are clearly using an understanding different from the most commonly held agreed understandings it would be very useful if they could define what they mean.

3. Policy Suggestions or Research 

I asked this question specifically in regards to the Girls and Gangs report. I was told it was research and given an answer about methodology but that answer only really addressed data collection not how it was coded or analysed. You can ask front line workers, but how you collate and interpret what they say can impact massively on the final message.

4. Origins of Poverty

Though its never directly stated my impression of the overarching narrative of CSJ is that the cause of poverty is decision and behaviors made by poor people themselves. Though they acknowledge the cyclical nature of things they consistently refer to social breakdown as causing poverty while most Social Justice activists would see poverty and inequality as the cause for social breakdown. Infact I find much of their narrative victim blaming. They state that:

'Social justice is not achieved by focussing on the poverty line or tweaking the benefits budget.  Instead, it requires unleashing the work of change in people’s lives to create in them opportunities and hopes for the future, as well as a level playing field for positive choices.'

In this framework we must work to persaude or punitively pursue people to change themselves because they are the origin of the problem. They are responsible not only for their own poverty and inequality but also for the fact that they don't experience life as a level playing-field. If only they were better and more um I don't know 'like us'. 

The reality is that we live in a desperately unequal society where wealth, resources, voice and power are more and more exclusively in the hands of the minority. The cause of poverty quiet frankly is wealth. 

None of this would concern me so much if a.) they where more upfront about their underlying assumptions and b.) I didn't have the sneaky suspicion they where hugely influential. I've decided I am going to watch the CSJ more closely. 
Here are some other articles I found that are much more eloquent: 


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/tory-vilification-poor-child-poverty

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/duncan-smith-poverty-benefit-sanctions-easterhouse

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/manufacturing_ignorance_the_centre_for_social_justice_and_welfare_reform_in

Childcare - some Mummy suggestions.

My heart lifted as I heard Ed Balls announce labour would commit to 25 hours of free childcare, while I stood at the Fabian conference bouncing up and down trying to keep my baby asleep. Immediately I wanted to know from what age. I got chatting latter to a woman next to me about the complications of having a family and working. We both agreed we wanted more than a commitment to 25 hours free childcare (from I suspect 3 years) we wanted a comprehensive set of policies that would support families in work and address the competition so many people experience between caring responsibilities and paid employment.

In the lunchtime session with the Fabian Women’s society someone pointed out that the disproportionate effect of the cuts on women had not been mentioned in the main meetings so far and that we needed to mainstream feminist politics. I nearly shouted amen before remembering where I was and giving a polite clap instead. Another point made elsewhere was the rampant nature of individualism and the need to articulate the benefits of collectivist action.

I wonder if these two things contribute significantly to the lack of value we place on caring and nurturing those who are dependent on others. This lack of value strikes me as odd since every single one of us has at some point in our lives been entirely dependent on others. However much people have made their own way and their own money there was a point in their life where they were unable to do anything and would have died had not someone lifted them to bottle or breast. And for most of us there will come again a time where we are greatly dependent on the care of others. I think there is a great opportunity for Labour to fill the gap and come up with a comprehensive set of policies that value family.

Now the phrase ‘valuing family’ from a Christian is going to send many people into a state of panic and with good reason. But rather than shying away from discussing it let’s meet the challenge with a deeper solution than the right can offer.

Firstly my Christian and socialist world I understand family in much broader terms than the ‘traditional’ right view. I put traditional in quotation marks because I’m not sure the nuclear family is all that traditional. Since complete dependence is such a universal  experience lets value it and celebrate it.

So in my nappy changing buggy pushing day dreaming a comprehensive set of policies would look something like this:

·       Joined up thinking from birth to school. At the moment you have to go back to work at year 1 free childcare kicks in at 3 or sometimes 2 what are you meant to do in between.

A universally available community service allowance. This would be an increase of your tax free allowance dependent on you doing at least 5 hours of community service a week. Parents would automatically be entitled and could nominate one other person (relative or friend) who also cares for their child for free for at least 5 hours a week.  Where only one person has parental responsibility for the child they will be able to nominate 2 other people. Adults in need of additional support would also be able to nominate individuals to receive this tax free allowance. People who gave 5 hours a week of their time to a voluntary organisation could get a simple form stamped by the voluntary agency, which they give to their payroll department to receive the tax free allowance. This would be a great answer to the announcement of giving married/civil partners a tax break. Mostly couples save by economies of scale so we must reply with something fairer and deeper.

Childcare vouchers should be changed from a weekly rate to an hourly rate and should be generously set so as to cover at least 80% of likely childcare costs. This would stop it from becoming more expensive to work more hours and allow parents to decide how much to work based on the needs of the child and family. The amount of childcare vouchers available should be increased between the ages of one and three rather than at present where you can get the same for a 3 and 15 year old.

Deal with the lack of nursery places. Deal with term time only issue.

People and companies should be actively dissuaded from people working regularly weeks over 40 hours.  If you’re doing 70 hours someone is missing you and your doing 2 peoples job. If you are just earning enough you are being exploited if you are earning lots per hour than you are also taking someone else salary. 

All jobs should be advertised as optional number of hours unless there is very good reason why the job cannot be done by several people. People should be able to state on application how many hours they wish to do. The selected candidate will get the hours they requested and the next best candidate offered what is left ect.

Workplaces should where reasonably possible be required to make provision for parents to bring infants under one into work. (Most babies are very amiable and it’s a time many parents could work)

These are just a few thoughts after 31/2 years of juggling babies, volunteering and work. They all need thrashing out but are enough I think to provide a little hope that the left could offer something radical and deep that not only would help parents but change the way we value one another and engage with society. 

Ask the Left questions

'Just because someone was born and raised in Islington does it give them the right to have housing in Islington?'

This question through me slightly it was one of those situations where I felt unease in my gut but have taken a number of weeks to ponder it and unearth the exact reason for my unease.

Islington's house prices are staggering and rents rocket along with them. Overcrowding, poor quality accommodation, isolation and families being moved out of the borough are common problems. There are 1.3 jobs for every resident in Islington yet as a borough we have higher than national average unemployment. It is a borough of huge inequalities.

And the question being asked by someone on the left is loaded in a way that requires the poor to justify themselves. And there is reason for that. It was one incident that got me thinking but it was reflective of a theme. The dominant questions being asked are in the main being asked by the right. But should we be asking them or attempting to answer them at all? When I look at the housing problems in Islington I see a whole load of questions that have been left out of the asking. 

Lets stop answering the rights questions with long convoluted arguments that are straining to move the discussion leftwards at glacial pace -lets just ask the left out questions. Like should a small group of people with no long term commitment to an area be aloud to extract profit from its housing market, contribute nothing to the local community and move out leaving a greater number of its local residents in poverty? 

Perhaps many of us who like to consider ourselves leftist activists cant confront theses things and ask those questions until we have come to turns with our own hypocrisy. I live in an ex-local that I own. 

Perhaps neo-liberalism and capitalism has won out so much that only the fringes and outliers will ever be brave enough to ask questions about private ownership but I hope not. I hope questions about who has the right to own resources and space will become mainstream. Asking the questions doesn't mean we have to offer the answers of the past but it does acknowledge they where good questions to ask.

Why are we teaching children to be fascist?

I had a conversation with my three year old recently that went something like this:

Her: Let's build a castle.

Me: OK

Her: you build it and I do this

She starts to pretend to preen herself in an imaginary mirror. I pile up six pillows 

Her: Do I look pretty mummy?

Me: I think you are pretty intelligent, pretty creative, pretty amazing. You going to climb up?

She eagerly clambers atop the pile

Her: You need to climb my hair cause I can't get down 

Me: Why can't you climb down? 

Her: You need to climb up my hair though.

Me: But that would hurt you, don't you think. I reckon you are clever enough to climb down on your own. 

She climbs down looking pleased with herself

Me: Well done. See you can do it.

Her: Now you be stuck in the tower and I climb up your hair.

Me: But that would hurt if you climbed up my hair.

Her (Stroking my hair) : But it's ok now it's yellow.

Me: Come on let's both climb up

Silliness ensued.

I moved on from the yellow comment because it threw me so much. I would love to know where my daughter picked up in so much detail the story of Rapunzel. I was very glad to have the opportunity to present an alternative reading of the story and as she get's older I'll continue to offer a critique.

But it saddened my soul that we are clearly teaching fascism to three year olds. My three year old thinks it is preferable to have blond hair. Just reflect upon that. Can we please stop telling children these horrific tales of violence and prejudice.

Dear World

Dear World,

I am writing to you because you are a very dear friend and I am under the impression you are not 100% at ease and really quiet worried about us. We are very grateful for your concern but feel it is quiet misplaced. 

When I was going on maternity leave with my first child with no job to return too due to lack of funding, I didn't get the overwhelming impression that you were concerned about 'what I would do'. It seemed it was a for-gone conclusion. I was now a 'mother' that was work enough.

My best friend was concerned, but we quickly learned not to discus it around you world, lest we be chastised for not considering devoting yourself to your children as important. (Something we never said or thought)

Now that same best friend is going on paternity leave which I am gathering world is making you extremely anxious. It would seem that you are deeply concerned about him 'not working' and taking time to devote to his children possibly a 'waste' of his talents and skills.

Do you see the contradiction?

It would seem to us dear world that you are defining us in a way we do not wish to be defined. You are defining me by my relational status and aforementioned best friend by what he does. Neither of us wish to be defined by either of these things. It will be messier and less simple but we think you will be richly rewarded if you get to know us as we are with all our contradictions and frailties. 

And instead of becoming anxious by the choices we are making why not use them to catalyse your own imagination of what might be possible.

In deepest love

Me :)

A New Year

Inspired by Hannah Mudge's blog here are some reflections and some looking forward to 2014.

2013 was an odd year. I was mostly pregnant which drained me of energy. Life was pretty stressful for a number of reasons and mostly I was glad to see the back of it. It did have some redeeming features, a new baby and some fabulous lodgers. Like Hannah I also found little time to write and when I did found myself getting into probably pointless discussions about gender differences.

2014 feels like a very new year and I am getting increasingly energetic about it. There is so much to be done. 

Today I began to read the news again - depressing. 

First thing I read yet another suggestion we are in danger of heading to a police state. 

Then for one reason or another I ended up on the Center For Social Justice Website which caused me to become so irritated I overcame years of deliberating and waiting for them to swing to the left and joined the labor party.

So first blog of the year, hear are my thoughts on the Center for Social Justice. I am too depressed to deal with 'ipnas'.

Center for Social Justice - sounds like the sort of thing I should love. I do not I find it incredibly problematic. 

My first problem is its name. Social Justice means something in common understanding. the Center has taken the phrase and appropriated it for their own purpose. Social Justice in most people's understanding, would involve changing the social structures in which people are oppressed. 

CSJ narrative seems to be that social breakdown causes poverty. Reading between the lines would suggest they think people chose to be poor. Most social justice activists and organisations would probably argue that poverty caused by economic inequality causes much 'social breakdown'.

I could get over all this if the they described  themselves as a right of center think tank on social issues. But they don't they describe themselves as 'independent'. They have pictures of Cameron all over their website and most crucially they were set up by Ian Duncan Smith. Are they really trying to convince me they are free to critique government policy? All this explains the 'social breakdown' rhetoric though.

Bllur!!!

Then I read that Cameron's barber got given an MBE. 

I imagine I will be blogging quiet a lot of grump this year and hopefully seeing some collectivist action against ridiculousness.  

I was given a red beret for Christmas. Wearing it definitely makes me feel revolutionary. To the non-violent resistant barricade and lets all get an ipnas.