David Cameron

What if David Cameron is an evil genius? Frankie Boyle

Aside Posted on

What if David Cameron is an evil genius?

The prime minister has successfully pursued an agenda more radical than Thatcher’s – and has managed it without anybody being terribly worried by him

The Moriarty of Downing Street? Illustration: Mary Evans Picture Library/Alamy

     The Moriarty of Downing Street? Illustration: Mary Evans Picture Library/Alamy

They abolished the Human Rights Act” sounds like the first sentence of an Aldous Huxley novel. The Conservatives actually campaigned on a manifesto pledge to get rid of human rights and people voted for it. As electoral choices go, it’s not far off choosing to be ruled by a dry, whispering voice taunting you from an antique mirror.

Here, in what may well be the final years of our civilisation, I would like to ask a question that has been worrying me for some time. What if David Cameron is a genius? A shrewd and malevolent psychopath who thinks two moves deeper into the game than any of his opponents? What if there sits in Downing Street today a modern-day Moriarty, living in a world where his schemes are only kept in check by the deductive brilliance of Harriet Harman? As Holmes would say, look at the evidence. Cameron has managed to set England against Scotland, Scotland against Labour. He has given his enemies the referendums they asked for, and won. He has left Nick Clegg looking like one of those terrified mouse faces that you find in an owl pellet. He has successfully pursued an agenda more radical than Thatcher’s with less popular support than John Major.

Most impressively, Cameron has managed all this without anybody being terribly worried by him. Immediately after his re-election he announced: “For too long we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens so long as you obey the law we will leave you alone.” A statement so far to the right that it conceded the political centre ground to Judge Dredd.

We have an idea of Cameron as an empty suit – he’s remarkably forgettable for someone who has a face like a gammon travel iron. What if this is simply a character he chooses to play? We can see the mileage Boris Johnson has got out of playing the fairly simple character of a sort of pissed-up dandelion. What if Cameron’s persona is actually more crafted and insidious? He has a brisk, stiff air of wishing he was somewhere else. We imagine he would much rather be a few years in the future, heading up some foundation that’s advising Qatar on how to bid for the Winter Olympics. Perhaps that’s quite an effective manner to adopt when robbing a country. Announcing in a clipped voice that you’ll be out of our hair just as soon as you’ve privatised the NHS, terribly sorry for any inconvenience. Cameron having a down-to-business persona is not terribly unlike one of those gangs who do heists in high-vis jackets.

Read more here

David Cameron compares himself to a firefighter. He has no right

Aside Posted on

David Cameron compares himself to a firefighter. He has no right

When I was a little girl, I would sit near the front door after breakfast, waiting for my Dad to come home. A key in the lock, and I would run to hug a man who reeked of smoke and petrol and boot polish, a man who sometimes came home quiet and shaken, and didn’t often talk about his working days and nights.

I overheard glimpses of conversation; tiny babies carried lifeless down ladders, a mum found dead in bed with her children cuddled in close and an ashtray on the bedroom floor. A man trapped in a burning caravan, his charred corpse found huddled and clawing at the door. The burning buildings loomed large in fitful nightmares, and to me, my dad was a hero. As were his watch, a loud group of muscular men who we would visit on weekends.

Read more

 

Mark Steel : So, the people who always support the Tories… are supporting the Tories? Has the world gone mad?

Aside Posted on

 Mark Steel  Wednesday 1 April 2015

So, the people who always support the Tories… are supporting the Tories? Has the world gone mad?

Tomorrow the news will probably start: ‘The Labour Party was rocked today by a letter supporting David Cameron, signed by David Cameron’

What an important and potentially decisive moment that was in the election, when 100 wealthy business people came out in support of the party that’s controlled and funded by wealthy business people, and was founded by wealthy business people, and always promises to cut taxes for wealthy business people.

So it’s reasonable that it was the main item all day on the news, as this completely neutral group surprised everyone by supporting the side they always support. Tomorrow the news will start: “The Labour Party was rocked today by a letter supporting David Cameron signed by David Cameron. David Cameron said the letter proves he’s supported by people across the community. Even more damaging for Labour, the letter was signed by Mr Cameron three times, including once diagonally near the top.”

The unbiased Stuart Rose, a Tory peer worth £34m, explained on Radio 4 that the Conservatives have cut corporation tax for businesses, which will give Britain the strong economy it needs to increase benefits for the disabled. So that’s why wealthy businessmen want to pay less tax, it’s to help the disabled. When Amazon or Vodafone go to all that trouble to dodge making payments, it’s because they’re saving up to buy all the disabled a solid gold wheelchair, and replace guide dogs with more efficient but much more expensive guide pandas.

This is why it’s been essential to cut disability benefits, and pay Atos to declare the disabled fit for work even if they can barely move. Because unless those cuts are made, the economy will never become strong and then we won’t be able to help the disabled. If the disabled really cared about the disabled they’d melt their crutches down for scrap and let themselves be poked with thistles for a pound, then send all the money they’d made to Stuart Rose so he could give it to wealthy businessmen who can make the economy strong so they can help the disabled.

Similarly there will almost certainly be a letter complaining about the mansion tax, written by people with mansions and starting, “We the undersigned oppose the mansion tax because the people it will hurt most are children with cerebral palsy”.

More here

Big Society or a Big Load of Old Boll&*ks ?: David Cameron’s Big Society Network Investigated By The Charity Commission For ‘Cronyism’

Posted on

David Cameron’s Big Society Network Investigated By The Charity Commission For ‘Cronyism’

Posted: 26/07/2014 10:30 BST Updated: 2 hours ago
DAVID CAMERON
A regulator is investigating the awarding and use of taxpayer-funded grants by the charity set up to lead the Prime Minister’s Big Society initiative amid Labour calls for an investigation into political influence.

The Charity Commission is examining whether Cabinet Office funding for a childhood obesity project was used to pay down the debts of a linked company, the Independent reported.

It is also seeking more information on payments allegedly made for consultancy services to two directors of the charity and its chair Martyn Rose, a Conservative Party donor, it said.

News of the probe came days after a public spending watchdog issued a critical report about how National Lottery and Government funds were handed over to and used by the Big Society Network.

A former trustee of one grants body has claimed it was “forced” to award sums to the project totalling £480,000 without undertaking the usual checks.

Shadow civil society minister Lisa Nandy said she was now asking the Cabinet Secretary to investigate whether “political pressure” was exerted to secure money for ministers’ “pet projects”.

The Big Society Network was launched by David Cameron at 10 Downing Street two months after winning power in 2010, with the aim of encouraging the kind of community work and volunteering he had put at the heart of the Conservative manifesto for that year’s election.

More here

The NHS is being taken over by Wall Street. And Cameron won’t stop it

Posted on

The NHS is being taken over by Wall Street. And Cameron won’t stop it

The prime minister’s refusal to exempt our health service from a deal that will make it impossible to reverse privatisation really is a matter of life and death
Brighton TTIP demo
‘From Dorset to Dumfriesshire there are growing numbers of people getting angry when they learn about Cameron’s continued refusal to protect the NHS from TTIP.’ Photograph: Kate Nye/Kate Nye/Demotix/Corbis

Will David Cameron go down in history as the man who gave away this country’s greatest achievement to Wall Street, the man who enabled big American healthcare access to our hospital wards? The answer will be yes – unless the prime minister makes it clear once and for all that he will protect the NHS from the world’s largest bilateral trade negotiations, happening right now in Brussels.

Make no mistake, we are in the fight of our lives to save the NHS from being sold off lock, stock and barrel. But to make matters even worse a trade deal called TTIP (the transatlantic trade and investment partnership) will mean that reversing the damage done by this government could be impossible unless Cameron acts.

This week faceless bureaucrats from Brussels and Washington are negotiating behind the closed doors of the European commission. You may well ask what trade negotiations in Brussels have got to do with the NHS. But these talks matter to every man, woman and child in the UK. In fact people across the country are campaigning up and down the high streets of our towns to raise awareness of the danger. From Dorset to Dumfriesshire there are growing numbers of people getting angry when they learn about Cameron’s continued refusal to use his veto to protect the NHS from TTIP.

The trade deal would create a single market between the European Union and the United States, and the British government has given the negotiators a free hand to negotiate away our rights to control our health system.

The government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012 opened the floodgates to the NHS sell-off. The act has massively increased the number of private providers in the NHS. Since this act came in to force, 70% of health services put out to tender have gone to the private sector.

Many of these companies are US-based or have Wall Street investors. Serco, for example, is involved in the provision of health services within the NHS and is owned by big Wall Street investment firms such as Invesco, Fidelity and BlackRock. Now Cameron is set on giving these US investors new powers to sue any future UK government if it makes changes to health policy that might stop the dollars rolling in.

The deal will mean that American investors will be able to haul any UK government that tries to reverse privatisation to a tribunal – the “investor state dispute settlement” that would operate outside the law of this land. These tribunals will have the power to award billions in damages and compensation for lost profits and the loss of projected future profits, with no right of appeal. Yes, that is right – no right of appeal.

In short, the British public would face massive costs to bring NHS services back into public hands, making it nigh on impossible.

More here

What is Drip and how, precisely, will it help the government ruin your life?

Posted on Updated on

What is Drip and how, precisely, will it help the government ruin your life?

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers bill is the most tedious outrage ever, right down to the dreary acronym. But oh, the horrors it will bring …
Dripping tap

The drip bill … Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are backing a bill too boring for human beings to comprehend or care about. Photograph: Comstock/Getty Images

David Cameron cares about your safety. It’s all he ever thinks about. It’s his passion. He’s passionate about it. Every time David Cameron thinks about how safe he’d like to keep you, passion overcomes him and he has to have a lie down. With his eyes shut. A bit like he’s having a nap and doesn’t care about your safety at all.

Right now he’s so committed to keeping you safe, he’s rushing something called the Drip bill through the House of Commons. Drip stands for Data Retention and Investigatory Powers and critics are calling it yet another erosion of civil liberties and … see, I’ve lost you because it’s just so bloody boring. Maybe it’s just me, but whenever I hear about some fresh internet privacy outrage my brain enters screensaver mode and displays that looped news footage of mumblin’ Edward Snowden and I automatically nod off only to be awoken shortly afterwards by the sound of my forehead colliding sharply with the table.

The cross-party line is that the Drip bill will make life harder for terrorists and paedophiles, coincidentally the only two sectors of society less popular than politicians. The only thing worse than a paedophile or a terrorist is a paedophile terrorist, and it won’t be long till they’re dangling that threat over our heads, introducing fresh legislation to thwart Carlos the Savile.

Of course, all this stuff about keeping tabs on child molesters is a bit rich coming from an establishment that apparently can’t keep hold of an accusatory dossier for five minutes without accidentally ripping it up and eating the shreds, so they’ve cleverly headed off charges of hypocrisy by making the bill too boring for human beings to comprehend or care about.

Drip is the most tedious outrage ever, right down to the dreary acronym, which is why they’ll get away with shoving it through the Commons. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are in cahoots with Cameron on this. All three men are, I assume, pretending to have read and understood the bill, which seems unlikely given its dry impenetrability. Siri would fall asleep halfway through. You could swap it with the technical specifications documentation for a Netgear AV 500 Powerline Adapter and no one would notice.

More here

Why won’t the Tories tell us who their best friends are?

Posted on

Why won’t the Tories tell us who their best friends are?

They held two parties last week. Nothing intriguing about the first, but the second…

The business of government, you might have thought last week, is a social affair, and getting elected mostly beneficial as a way to meet interesting people. Prime ministers weren’t always so much fun. They glowered from behind a desk, and if they worried about things such as likeability it didn’t much show. The job was to lead, to set a direction of travel for the country and sweep us along.

Today, David Cameron is more interested in listening. He seems like a chat show host, with a rotating cast of the great and the good visiting his sofa, staying for a scripted chat, and then trotting off again. The difference is: with Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton, we get to assess the interaction. With Mr Cameron, it’s all off the record. And so, attentive though he may be, it seems important that he is listening to the right people.

Last week the Tories threw not just one party, but two. The first, for those in the creative industries, was held at the Foreign Office, and Mr Cameron wanted everyone to know about it. The phrase “Cool Britannia”, which felt fresh and funny for at least 15 or 20 seconds after it was first trotted out in 1997, was invoked again; as the guests arrived, though, it began to feel a bit misplaced. It is a strange world in which this lot are the cream of our “creative industries”, a world in which England is a footballing powerhouse, and a Harvester deserves a Michelin star.

Instead of Noel Gallagher and Helen Mirren, we had Danielle Lineker and John Barrowman, the Poundland Tom Cruise; the stars on show were relentlessly lame, and, whether by accident or design, no one was present who might conceivably have rocked the boat. It was Good Morning Britain with a glass of bubbly, and it made you think: if politics is showbusiness for ugly people, perhaps showbusiness is politics for unthinking people.

Danielle Lineker at the Creative Industries party

Danielle Lineker at the Creative Industries party Apparently a lot of bigger names stayed away, afraid of the association. As those who did turn up cocked a hip on the steps of the FCO, they all seemed to make the same uneasy calculation: could it really be that I’m the coolest person here? And if so, isn’t that really bad news? Noel Gallagher said he took coke in the Queen’s toilet; if Michael McIntyre or Katherine Jenkins had had the chance, the limits of their rebellion, one assumes, would have been to tweet a selfie with a royalist hashtag.

It’s been suggested that this tells us something about the Tories’ relative lack of street cred, but to me there’s another, slightly uglier conclusion to draw: one that describes how a large segment of our cultural elite has cosied up to its political counterpart. It’s come about as the provenance of the Conservative party’s leadership has narrowed to an ever smaller chunk of Notting Hill; as social liberalism has become an almost universal value among metropolitan elitists of all stripes, the healthy thing that kept those worlds apart has been eroded.

Kirstie Allsopp, who has wedded her conservatism neatly to the acquisitive model of home ownership that she has made her personal brand, was of course invited; David Cameron’s biographer is the editor of GQ; the creator of Downton Abbey is a Tory peer; Gary Barlow is a Conservative supporter and tax-avoider. If, in the days of Tony Blair, politics became obsessed with being cool, perhaps – far more depressingly – in the Cameron era culture has become just another branch of capitalism.

Eliza Doolittle was also there

Eliza Doolittle was also there Barlow, shunned since the revelation of his little problem with the Revenue, wasn’t there, loyal though he is. The party was, in any case, not the main event. A little later, a group of 60 “media business executives” were invited to a private meal with William Hague and David Cameron. Aled Jones did not make the cut.

It’s easy to find something sinister in this sort of dinner-table hobnobbing, but the conspiracy theories aren’t always right. It’s reasonable for our leaders to keep in touch with captains of industry so long as whatever representations they make aren’t backed up by money. Move along, nothing to see here.

Move along, in fact, to Wednesday night, which, if you want to compose a sinister conspiracy theory, provides you with much stronger material. It was the night of the Tories’ annual summer fundraiser, held at the Hurlingham Club in London. This time there were no celebrities. The Conservatives didn’t release the invitation list for the first party because they didn’t want us to know who didn’t come; they didn’t release the list for the second because they didn’t want us to know who did.

Lubov Chernukhin, a banker and the wife of a former finance minister in Putin’s Russia paid £160,000 for a tennis match with Boris Johnson and David Cameron

Lubov Chernukhin, a banker and the wife of a former finance minister in Putin’s Russia paid £160,000 for a tennis match with Boris Johnson and David Cameron Still, we can identify at least one guest: Lubov Chernukhin, a banker and the wife of a former finance minister in Putin’s Russia, was named by The Guardian and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism (BIJ) as the bidder who secured a game of tennis with David Cameron and Boris Johnson for a mere £160,000. And if we go back to last year’s summer fundraiser, a clearer picture emerges, courtesy of a guest list leaked to the BIJ last week. Peter Stringfellow aside, the names are much less familiar than those at the Foreign Office do; but they wield a rather heavier sort of influence.

Does any of this break any laws? No, absolutely not. Is it corrupt? Judge for yourself.

There was the Earl of Clanwilliam; a PR adviser for the government of Bahrain, who sat on the same table as Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary; there was the investment banker Howard Shore, who has donated £450,000 to the Conservative party – he shared a table with the Prime Minister; there was the aviation magnate Constantine Logothetis, who sat, conveniently enough, with Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary. And there was James Henderson, chief executive of the public affairs firm Bell Pottinger, who explained hotly: “We do not go there to lobby ministers in any form. We go there to support the Party. Apart from shaking a hand, I don’t believe I have ever spoken to a minister at any of these events.”

Game of Thrones actress Natalie Dormer arrives at the Creative Industries party

Game of Thrones actress Natalie Dormer arrives at the Creative Industries party

If I was a client of Bell Pottinger, I would want to know why on earth he wasn’t doing a bit of light lobbying, given such a golden opportunity. The truth, of course, is that his analysis misunderstands – perhaps wilfully – the real nature of influence. It reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson’s defence of the cosy Chipping Norton Christmas dinner that he attended at Rebekah Brooks’s house, where Mr Cameron was also present: all the politician and the media executive talked about, he insisted, was sausage rolls.

What Mr Henderson and Mr Clarkson ignore is that it’s the conversation about sausage rolls, the lobbying-free support for the Party, that makes the next conversation about policy just that little bit easier. Consider Mr Henderson’s phrase “any of these events”. Exactly how many is he talking about? Shaking a hand may not be the same as having a chat about your client’s interests, but do it often enough and you may begin to notice that those conversations become a little easier.

Shake hands often enough, and you might even come to consider yourself friends. And you can tell a lot about today’s Conservative Party from its friends. Whether inanely preening on the steps of the Foreign Office, or hiding their faces behind their invitations, they have one thing in common: they all, without exception, have something to sell.

More Here

PM must exclude NHS from EU-US trade deal or it could be sued, union warns

Posted on

PM must exclude NHS from EU-US trade deal or it could be sued, union warns

 Unite has called on David Cameron to negotiate an exclusion of the health service from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement

Healthcare workers, patients’ groups and the country’s biggest union are urging the Prime Minister to exclude the NHS from a “monster” new EU-US free trade deal they claim could make it impossible for botched privatisations ever to be renationalised.

Campaigners claim the  agreement would mean the NHS could be sued by US healthcare multinationals if the Government attempted to return services back to the state. US healthcare companies could argue that such renationalisations interfered with their “potential profits” in breach of the trade agreement and get them overturned in what campaigners term “secret courts”.

The NHS is particularly vulnerable, campaigners claim, because of the way the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has significantly increased the size and scale of clinical services now being run by private multinationals.

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey called on Mr Cameron to negotiate an exclusion of the NHS from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement, which is the biggest bilateral trade deal ever to be negotiated.

He said: “David Cameron has shown that he’s willing to go to Europe to defend bankers’ bonuses and use his veto, now he must use his powers to defend our cherished NHS.”

The trade deal was a key plank of Britain’s presidency of the G8 last year and is seen by the government as bringing huge potential economic benefits with the opening of lucrative US markets.

The Government has so far been relaxed about the potential for litigation by big US corporations. Business Secretary Vince Cable toldThe Independent: “There is no suggestion whatever that the TTIP negotiations could be used to undermine the fundamental principles of the NHS or advancing privatisation. Our focus for health is to enable our world-class pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors to benefit from improved access to the US market.”

However, activists point out that big multinationals have sued countries elsewhere in similar deals. A Dutch insurer sued Slovakia and seized state assets when the country opted to move to a state insurance scheme, in what the insurer declared was a breach of a bilateral trade agreement.

More from the Independent here

 

Mentally ill people need to be helped, not hounded

Posted on

Mentally ill people need to be helped, not hounded

Ministers promise ‘parity of esteem’ for mental and physical health services. Instead the reality is scandalous cruelty
People waiting outside a jobcentre

‘A jobcentre manager … told me how the sick are treated and what harsh targets she is under to push them off benefits.’ Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

Once upon a time, David Cameron said that general wellbeing matters as much GDP. What’s it all for if a country grows richer but its people feel no better? A genuine attempt at prioritising wellbeing would be revolutionary, because the happiest people live in more equal societies, are less ridden by anxiety, enjoy good employment, are well housed and more trusting. Yet in Britain all those fundamentals indices of wellbeing are in retreat.

If aiming for happiness is beyond this government, minimising extreme pain could be within reach, if it began by prioritising scarce NHS resources entirely according to suffering. If pain was measured in a Benthamite way – the relief of the greatest suffering for the greatest number of patients – mental illness would trump most other conditions. One sufferer describes getting his broken leg slammed in a door as less excruciating than the agony caused by his depression. Yet an ingrowing toenail gets treated within a mandatory 18 weeks, while there is no waiting limit at all for treating mental illness. More than half of those referred by GPs never get any treatment, and of those who do, some wait for over a year in the deepest despair. It’s even more shocking that so often children get no help.

Professors Richard Layard, an economist, and David Clark, a clinical psychologist, ratchet up their campaign for better mental treatment with their new book, Thrive. These champions of cognitive behavioural therapy have done more to turn mental health into practical politics than anyone before, though progress is slow. Their skill has been to produce evidence that a course of CBT, costing £650, can permanently rescue half of those who take the course from disabling mental illnesses. For politicians, their evidence shows that a highly systemised treatment with specifically trained therapists saves lives and money. Nice guidelines say everyone with depression and anxiety should referred for CBT – but that’s not binding, so most are not. The mechanised approach invites criticism, but this strictly evidence-based therapy has the best chance of gaining political traction.

The coalition promised that mental health would get “parity of esteem” with physical health, but so far there is little sign of it. Instead the government has just cut the tariff paid for mental healthcare by more than it cut the tariff for physical treatments. Norman Lamb spoke at the launch of the Layard and Clark campaign in the Commons, protesting that mental health “was first to be cut and isn’t getting a fair share of attention”. Had he forgotten that he is himself a health minister who could say no?

On some other planet, Nick Clegg made an eye-catching announcement in December that all mental patients could choose where they go for treatment – NHS or private – but most wait for anything, anywhere, and many get nothing. A shortage of beds means in-patients are now often sent hundreds of miles from home, certainly not by choice. NHS England’s website claims “parity of esteem” but only promises that 15% will get CBT by 2015.

As it is, cancer and heart disease rule the roost, surgeons are king and psychiatry is low in the pecking order. Politicians are not entirely to blame; they know that mental and community services, where 90% of patients are treated, should get priority, but NHS politics is governed by front-page demands for every new drug, and for intensive care to prolong the miserable last six months of life. Oppositions protest at rising waiting lists or ambulance waiting times. Jeremy Hunt doesn’t call community mental services to ask who they’re neglecting, he calls A&E to bellow at them for overstepping a four-hour wait. Can mental health be made as politically sensitive?

Neglect of the mentally ill is bad enough, but now consider how the Department for Work and Pensions deliberately torments them. I just met a jobcentre manager. It had to be in secret, in a Midlands hotel, several train stops away from where she works. She told me how the sick are treated and what harsh targets she is under to push them off benefits. A high proportion on employment and support allowance have mental illnesses or learning difficulties. The department denies there are targets, but she showed me a printed sheet of what are called “spinning plates”, red for missed, green for hit. They just missed their 50.5% target for “off flows”, getting people off ESA. They have been told to “disrupt and upset” them – in other words, bullying. That’s officially described, in Orwellian fashion, as “offering further support”. As all ESA claimants approach the target deadline of 65 weeks on benefits – advisers are told to report them all to the fraud department for maximum pressure. In this manager’s area 16% are “sanctioned” or cut off benefits.

Of course it’s not written down anywhere, but it’s in the development plans of individual advisers or “work coaches”. Managers repeatedly question them on why more people haven’t been sanctioned. Letters are sent to the vulnerable who don’t legally have to come in, but in such ambiguous wording that they look like an order to attend. Tricks are played: those ending their contributory entitlement to a year on ESA need to fill in a form for income-based ESA. But jobcentres are forbidden to stock those forms. These ill people’s benefits are suddenly stopped without explanation: if they call, they’re told to collect a form from the jobcentre, which doesn’t stock them either. If someone calls to query an appointment they are told they will be sanctioned if they don’t turn up, whatever. She said: “The DWP’s hope is they won’t pursue the claim.”

Good advisers genuinely try to help the mentally ill left marooned on sickness benefit for years. The manager spoke of a woman with acute agoraphobia who hadn’t left home for 20 years: “With tiny steps, we were getting her out, helping her see how her life could be better – a long process.” But here’s another perversity: if someone passes the 65-week deadline, they are abandoned. All further help is a dead loss to “spinning plates” success rates. That woman was sent back to her life of isolation: she certainly wasn’t referred for CBT. For all this bullying, the work programme finds few jobs for those on ESA.

Failing to treat the mentally ill is bad enough, but this is maltreatment. There has been much outrage about lack of kindness and care in hospitals. Neglect of mental patients is every bit as bad, but deliberate cruelty by the DWP defies any concern for the wellbeing for the most vulnerable, let alone “parity of esteem”.

More Here