Tag Archives: British Politics

Types of Face Masks – Re-Useable Masks You Can Purchase

09 Tuesday Jun 2020

Posted by in British Politics, Covid-19, Face Masks

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This is Part Three of a set of posts called ‘Wearing a Face Mask During a Pandemic’.
Re-Useable Masks Available to Purchase:

Anti Pollution/Sports Masks:

4-motorbike-cycling-mask-1-500

Colourful cycling mask with vents and valves.

Anti pollution masks have been growing in popularity for some time. They are worn by cyclists and bikers and by those doing sports or jogging in polluted conditions.

These masks vary from basic mouth, nose and chin covers, to bandana style scarves, to ‘tube’ scarves, to balaclavas and to full face coverings.

1-full-face-cycling-mask-500

Full Face Cycling Mask

Many are ornate, with pictures of animals, superheroes, skulls, and fantasy designs.

None of these masks were designed to deal with a virus and some (the scarves in particular) may be too thin/porous to be much help in providing protection. However, they should, by differing degrees depending upon material used, prevent the wearer spreading the virus when in contact with others.

2-half-face-mask-1-500

Half face ‘skull’ mask/tube scarf

Anti-pollution masks can be made in a variety of materials, from cotton to velvet or suede, leather and sometimes plastic.

But some of the most popular are made with a material called Neoprene.

Neoprene is waterproof. It comes in a range of thicknesses and can be used to make a variety of fashion items as well as scuba diving equipment.

But in cycle/motorbike masks and face covers, neoprene really comes into its own as you will see if you study the many designs.

Because neoprene is not breathable, all neoprene masks should have a respirator valve (most will have 2) and many have ventilator slits (on the outside layer only).

A good anti pollution mask has an outer ‘shielding’ layer (which has valves and ventilators), plus a sturdy inner filter pad in the shape of the inner mask.

3-cycling-mask-1-500

Popular price cycling mask with fitted, changeable inner filter

A good inner filter will contain around 5 layers to filter out harmful particles, allergins and smells from the atmosphere, keeping you safe from the vast majority of pollutants.

However, the manufacturers of these masks do not usually make any claims about keeping specific virus particles out.

Nevertheless, some, like the manufacturers of the top quality Respro masks, will say that their filter system will filter out large particles and some smaller ones. And this is important, because a cough or sneeze from someone with Covid-19 will contain large and medium as well as micro particles and some of these may well be filtered out by these masks. But (probably as a result of this statement on their facts page, and a rush to buy), the Respro website was temporarily closed to further orders as I typed this…

5-respro-sportsta-mask-529

Respro Sportsta™ Mask

Scientists are researching the effect of ‘viral load’ on a person’s reaction to the Covid-19 virus. Some say there is evidence that a lower viral load may mean the likelehood of a milder case of the illness. However, there is much research to be done on this and there is disagreement as to the findings (see Note 2). Nevertheless, for those concerned about viral load, it could be suggested that the wearer of any anti-pollution mask which filters larger particles might not get such a viral overload if coughed or sneezed on by a virus carrier.

But because of the growing claims that facemasks with valves can expel virus particles into the atmosphere (see Note 1), sports and anti-pollution masks of this nature may in future not be considered suitable for wearing by the general public.

I will admit that I am still looking at anti pollution/sports masks, mainly because I love the designs. I also love that if you purchase a reasonable quality design from one of the better manufacturers, you can get a mask which will fit you well.

Another factor that I like is that these masks are mostly waterproof so they do give defence from moist particles, unlike cloth masks which are more likely to soak moist particles into the top layer.

However, manufacturer’s recomendations to use the inner filter for several times before changing is something I’m not sure about for pandemic use.

But I will research some more over time 🙂

Stretch Masks:

Neoprene is one of a range of stretchable fabrics used to make the style of face masks some are calling ‘shark masks’. These are washable masks where the stretchable fabric used extends into the ear loops also, giving a pointed ‘shark’ look from the side.

These basic stretch masks are quick to use, light to wear, and washable. They are usually made with just one layer of material and in a very basic shape. As they are very stretchy but also moldable, they often provide a good fit to a whole range of face shapes and head sizes.

6-polyurethane-face-masks-529

A range of stretch face masks

Because they are usually one layer and have no pocket for a filter, it is debateable how much virus the ‘shark’ masks will keep out. But in their defence, the material used is usually dense (if you hold it up to the light, you should not be able to see through it). And, as with most other face coverings, they should keep virus particles in, so will help to prevent virus spread.

Dust Masks

Dust masks come in a range of shapes and sizes and resemble many different medical masks.

Dust masks were never designed to keep out virus particles. They were designed specifically to protect the wearer from dust, powders and other dangerous particles when at work.

7-dust-mask-basic-fabric-500

Basic cotton dust mask

The most basic dust masks are for wearing literally when dusting or creating a dusty atmosphere. They are often made with two layers of fabric and in the same shape as surgical masks. They provide a comfortable mask, but will not filter out minute particles.

Dust Masks With Filters:

With the surge in interest in cycling wear, a number of manufacturers have produced face masks in cotton, polyester, or other light materials which are classed as dust masks, but are also advertised as light cycling wear.

Many of these masks have 2 layers of fabric, plus an inner pocket where a filter can be placed.

8-anti-dust-cotton-masks-with-filters

Dust/cycling mask with respirator valve plus example of inner filters used

Masks may or may not have a respirator valve on the outside (Personally, I have found that a respirator valve on these particular masks makes little difference, as the material used to make the masks is usually breathable. However, the valve may prevent heat and moisture accumulating in the mask when worn for an extended period).

9-pm2-5-dust-masks-carbon-filter

Dust/Cycling Masks without respirator valve, showing carbon filters

Filters used in dust masks are usually PM2.5 filters (often called ‘carbon filters’ because an inner layer contains carbon). PM2.5 filters are designed to filter out particles in the atmosphere which have a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. These are light particles found within polluted atmospheres which can invade the lungs, so PM2.5 filters are considered effective in protecting us from many allergies and harmful atmospheric substances.

It must be noted that these filters cannot fully protect us from virus particles with a size of 0.3 microns. Nevertheless, it could be suggested that the filters could prevent large virus droplets entering the inner mask, along with part of the viral load. As with many things face mask, the scientific jury is still out on this, Covid-19 being such a new and fairly unpredictable virus.

And in any case, if these dust masks are worn correctly (ie: from bridge of nose to under the chin and fitting snuggly), they should prevent virus particles being expelled into the atmosphere when the wearer coughs or sneezes (or even talks). So they can be worn as an effective part of preventing the spread of Covid-19.

Heavy Duty Dust Masks:

Dust masks used in more particle-intensive workplaces are marked according to protection levels – from FFP1 to FFP3:

ffp1-and-ffp2-dust-masks

FFP1 and FFP2 Dust Masks

  • FFP1 dust masks provide reasonable protection from dust and paint sprays.
  • FFP2 dust masks provide excellent protection from paint, chemicals, sprays, etc, and some small particles too. These work very similarly to N95 masks and are said to provide some protection against virus particles.
  • FFP3 dust masks provide excellent protection against particles of all types, including some tiny particles of the type found within virus droplets. They are usually considered to be of N95+ standard.
12--ffp3-dust-mask-500

FFP3 Dust Mask

Some, particularly FFP2 and FFP3 level dust masks, will have breathing filter valves.

High level dust masks provide a very good level of protection, and as a result these masks are sometimes being used by health care workers who are unable to obtain FFP3 Medical Respirators.

However, the vast majority of dust masks were never made to fit the face as well as a medical mask and they were not designed specifically to filter micro particles of the size found in virus spread.

This is why, although your works mask may give you a lot of protection when worn out in public, it will never give you full protection.

But it has to be said that it is still a whole lot better individual protection than many will have.

Cloth Face Masks To Purchase:

With the sharp rise in public interest in face masks, Many clothing manufacturers, large and small, plus a range of other companies, have turned their focus to making and selling face masks.

The majority of these will be made from cotton, although some will have a special outer finish which the manufacturer claims will make them water resistant.

13-pleated-cotton-face-masks-500

Pleated Cotton Face Masks – Etsy

Cotton masks to buy are made predominantly in one of two shapes: rectangular with pleats (surgical mask shape); or shaped to fit the face. Many will have a pocket for a filter (usually a PM2.5 filter, although some manufacturers make their own filters to fit their particular masks).

Cotton masks to purchase can be found on Etsy, Amazon, eBay, Craftsy, and on manufacturer’s own sites, plus you will find adverts for them all over Facebook. Online prices for this type of mask range from £5 upwards, with more exclusive fabric designs, or perhaps extras like extra filters, a bag for the mask, etc, commanding a higher outlay.

14-fitted-cotton-mask-christy-dawn-500

Fitted Cotton Face Masks – The Sustainable Mask – Christy Dawn

With such a wide and growing range of cotton masks available to purchase online, it would be easy to get carried away and perhaps spend money you cannot really afford on a whole range of new masks.

I will talk more about cotton masks in my next post about making your own masks and ‘face covers’, but for now, I would recommend this:

Before you spend a lot of money on a variety of cotton masks (or any mask come to that), make sure that the mask you want is:

  • made in your size (face sizes vary considerably but masks not so much);
  • fits well, but will give you room around your mouth and nose to breath (a tight mask you cannot breath in will soon be thrown in the bin);
  • can be washed on a normal washing machine cycle (you will soon get fed up hand washing a mask which requires delicate treatment).
  • With a cotton mask, I personally would also go for a mask which has at least 3 layers (one can be an insertable filter).

More on cotton masks later…

Of course to many of us, purchasing a face mask of any description may be an unattainable wish, given that a lot of us have been unable to work or obtain a full wage for some time.

So, along with the fact that our Government is telling us not to use up masks suitable for use in hospitals and social care and we are all being asked to wear a ‘cloth face covering’ when in crowded public spaces, many of us are considering making our own face masks.

The use of home-made cloth face masks is a whole other topic and I will write about it in my next post on face masks.

In the meantime, I hope that this piece has helped to clear up a few queries about the varying types of face masks you will encounter once you start looking.

But whatever type of face mask you buy, please do wear them if you possibly can. It could help us all.

Note 1: Why your N95 mask could endanger others: https://www.sfgate.com/living-in-sf/article/Why-your-N95-mask-could-endanger-others-15246318.php

Note 2: Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30232-2/fulltext

Advertisement

Wearing a Face Mask During a Pandemic – Introduction

07 Sunday Jun 2020

Posted by in British Politics, Covid-19, Face Masks

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

face-masks-in-shjop-the-local-de-529

Shopping wearing face masks in Germany – The Local de

Introduction:

When we all saw that a dangerous epidemic was happening in Wuhan, China, many of us feared that the Coronavirus would go worldwide and with dreadful consequences.

Sadly, not only were we correct, but the spread of the virus (now called Covid-19) was much faster and frightening than we had even imagined.

So when, in February, the UK Government was still telling its citizens that this country was low/moderate risk from Covid-19, some of us did our own research, because we knew by then that our Government would be unable to protect us.

We watched the spread of the virus in Wuhan and in China as a whole, and we watched the way the authorities fought to control it.

We watched as South Korea appeared to be on the verge of a total catastrophe from the virus, but then pulled back from the brink with excellent tracking, tracing and isolation measures.

Then we saw the virus enter Northern Italy and the truly dreadful suffering and death which entailed. We watched Italian health workers as they begged us to learn from their suffering before it was too late for us.

Well we, as a population, did learn, but sadly our Government did not.

And the people of the UK suffered terrible losses of loved ones as a result.

Face Masks at last:

should-you-wear-face-mask-lincolnshire-live-529

‘Should you wear a face mask’ – Lincolnshire Live

Another thing our Government failed to learn about was the use of face masks.

In almost every country that the virus had entered, citizens took to wearing face masks for protection when they had to go out.

And, as the spread of the virus eased in different countries, face masks were used as part of a regime of safety measures for coming out of lockdown.

But our government still insisted that face masks were unnecessary and stated that in some cases they were dangerous.

Even when the WHO advised that face masks were a recommended part of ending lockdown, and when the (at first very reluctant) US Government told citizens they should be using face masks, most members of our UK Government ignored the whole thing or mumbled in a disgruntled and confused fashion about ‘face coverings’ as if the term ‘face mask’ was forbidden.

But then it finally hit the Government that the reluctance of many British people to go out after lockdown was because they were afraid of doing so, despite (or perhaps because of) all the insincere assurances from Government spokespersons that things were getting a lot better.

And who could blame people for being afraid and not listening to Government assurances, when evidence showed that the UK had such a dreadfully high death count from Covid-19 and one which was totally in opposition to the ‘moderate’ risk they had been assured of a few weeks earlier by those same Government spokespersons.

So finally the UK Government gave in (and as is now customary they gave in much later than necessary) and advised that ‘face covering’ should be used on public transport, in hospitals, and in other public spaces where it was difficult to social distance.

wear-masks-on-transport-business-insider

Masks on public transport – Business Insider

And many UK citizens were left in confusion. From being told that face masks were unnecessary or even dangerous, they now had to find a suitable ‘face covering’ for upcoming hospital visits, for catching the bus to work, etc.

The result is that a large number of people living in the UK, who never thought they would have to wear a face mask, now either resent this new ‘advice’, or fear it, or are simply confused because they don’t know where to begin, how to find something suitable, or simply what the hell the term ‘face covering’ actually means.

How to find out more:

Well, there is a lot of help out there:

  • There are Facebook groups with members offering to make masks for others.
  • There are loads of articles about face masks and the different types and how they work.
  • There are hundreds of YouTube videos showing you how to make a face mask.
  • And for those who can afford to buy a face mask or two, there are sellers on Amazon, eBay, Etsy, etc, selling all types of face masks at often very reasonable prices.

But perhaps that is all too much at once?

Since early March, I’ve been researching the making and wearing of face masks.

I’ve looked at all the different types of mask; at the range of materials used; at different types of filters; at mask fitting; at how to wear a mask and remove a mask; and loads more.

So I’ve decided to put all this together in a series of posts.

There is quite a lot of typing, but I’ll add plenty of pictures too 🙂

express-and-star-529

Facemasks in public – Express and Star

If I can help someone make some choices about face masks and wearing them, then I’m happy.

And all that information accumulated since March had to come out somewhere after all 🙂

The next piece will be on types of face mask and I’ll post it soon.

Labour is Missing Out in The Search Engines

09 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in British Politics, General Election, Labour Party, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

UK Labour Needs To Use More Search Engine Optimisation Skills

labour-summer-of-smears-aav

Labour Summer of Smears – Another Angry Voice. See link at end of article

Newspapers are losing sales and TV channels are losing credibility (not fast enough though, it has to be said).
So where do most voters turn to now when they want to find out about a political party?

They go online.

They may go to Facebook and Twitter, maybe Instagram too. But many do not.
They simply put a search term into Google (or occasionally Bing) and look at the results that turn up.

But the Labour Party is missing out in the search engines.

When I search Google for ‘Labour Policies‘, I get the Labour Party ‘Where we stand’, followed by ‘Manifesto’.
That’s good.
But, underneath those and still, on the Google front page, I then find:

  • “Investors fear Labour policies ahead of the election” – Financial times
  • “What Labour and Conservative policies really mean for immigration” – The Times
  • “What Jeremy Corbyn’s tax plan means for you and what you’ll pay” – The Telegraph

And you can imagine the anti-Labour spin in those above three articles alone…

Next I get the Google ‘question box’ with:
“What does the Labour party believe in?”
And a link going to a Wikipedia article by the Australian Labor Party!
Give me strength! 🙄

Google Page 2:

  • “Labour Party latest news, pictures, policies and campaigns …” – The Daily Express…
  • “What is Labour’s Brexit plan?” – BBC News asks its usual question even though it knows the answer full well.

Okay, then there’s an article from the Guardian (?) and one from Labour List.
We also get: “Labour for a Green New Deal—Policy” – but the page hasn’t been updated since conference…

And that’s it for anything really positive about Labour Policy and those links are between other non-positive links. And we are at the end of the 2nd page.

Most people don’t search any further than that…

Now at this point, some may say “well what can you expect – search engines are biased”.

And I would say, Wake up!

Search engines are biased towards making money. That means selling advertising spots.
They are not going to be able to do that if their searches are seen to be skewed. Because if that is the case, people won’t use them and advertisers will go elsewhere.

(I’m not saying that there are no problems with the large search engines – there obviously are. But that would take a whole other article and we need to put that aside and get some positive posts on Labour UK up the top of the search engines now!).

Now, I’m old school SEO (search engine optimisation). I learned SEO in the late 90s and carried on learning and using it in the noughties.

I know how to get a post to the top of the search engines using keywords, links and trusted sites.

But I haven’t the up-to-date knowledge, the time (and certainly not the money) to learn how to counter bot impressions on such a large scale as employed by some political parties.

I also do not have access to making headway on ‘trusted sites’ in the political category – Large print newspapers, well-known magazines, etc.

But I’m sure that there must be a whole load of talented people in the Labour Party who could work on this.

So this is a plea:

PLEASE, to help UK Labour:

If you haven’t got one already, set up a blog (wordpress.com would be a good start, or blogger, or open a free Medium account)

  • Start writing positive articles on UK Labour using great keywords and keep on doing so.
  • Share all your positive posts all over social media.
  • Share links with other UK Labour writers and share their posts too.
  • Comment on any Labour positive post.
  • Share articles from Labour-positive Newspapers and write about them too.

This is not about brilliant writing – SEO isn’t about that (sadly).
It’s just about getting good, hopeful, positive, voteable articles about UK Labour all over the front pages of the search engines.

And here’s another plea:

If you are up-to-date on SEO and have the resources to help.
Please get in touch with Labour or Momentum and offer your services.

This is from me. I’m in no way speaking for UK Labour or Momentum, but I’m pretty sure they’d appreciate the offer.

Labour is Missing Out in the Search Engines. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
So please do what you can to change this quickly!

PS:
The Image used at the beginning of this post is from:
How many of these Labour Party policies did you actually hear about this summer?

Things are even worse now in the run up to the 12th December 2019 General Election.

The article, by Another Angry Voice, is correct and excellent, but I’m sure that the writer would prefer not to have to write a similar one after December this year.

Why Labour Is Right to Listen to Leavers as well as Remainers

27 Friday Sep 2019

Posted by in Brexit, British Politics, General Election, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party, Politics, Socialism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The EU Referendum of 2016 was an event which changed politics in the UK forever.  And one of the changes which took place was that many of the people who voted in the Referendum were not regular voters. In fact, it appears that a significant proportion of referendum voters were voting for the first time.

And many of those ‘not very often’ or first time voters voted Leave.

After years, in some cases, of feeling that there was no point in voting, because: ‘it didn’t matter; they would be shafted whoever they voted for’, for many people the Referendum, appears to have been a means of expressing their disgust with what they saw as ‘the self-serving political establishment’.

The morning that the result became clear, many Leave voters were jubilant that at last it seemed that their vote had actually achieved something, and that was ‘one in the eye for the establishment’.

And it’s not surprising that they felt this way.

The Effect of Austerity:

After years of suffering the effects of cruel austerity measures and of having their cries for help seemingly ignored, people were then told by the Remain Campaign, without a trace of irony, that they ‘must’ vote Remain ‘for their own sakes’.

This message was pushed by ‘establishment’ figures, including Prime Minister, ex-Etonian Cameron. And was then pressed home by none less than the President of the US, arriving in the UK it seemed, just to tell us all that we must vote Remain ‘for the good of our country’.

Now, this would have been all well and good, if people had been feeling happy and secure in their daily lives and wanting to preserve that situation, but many people were not (and are still not) feeling happy or secure. So, they had every right to ask themselves what did they have to lose?

The ‘Immigration’ debate:

At this point you could argue that people’s fears and unhappiness was stoked up more by Farage, with his racist and thoroughly misleading message on immigration, and tales of the ‘corruption of the EU’. Setting these Farage-defined ‘issues’ side by side as an ‘other’ which ‘the Brits’ needed to repel.

Farage certainly gave many unhappy people a mythical range of scapegoats to blame. And he was definitely aided and abetted by the mass media in getting his divisive message across.

I am certain that the encouragement of Farage and his disgusting message led to the overt racism and violence that now threatens the very core of our society (and that’s even before you count all the dangerous rhetoric spewing from the mouth of our current PM and some who support him).

And back in 2016, as a 7/10 Remainer (sometimes 5.5 out of 10), what made me decide to vote Remain and even be very upset on the day that Leave won, was that at the time it appeared to me that much of the Leave vote was based upon reactions to messages filled with racism and bigotry. I could not be a part of that. I also feared that the result would be seen by the racists and bigots almost as ‘justification’ for their prejudice. And on this latter point I think I was proved correct.

However, with the experience of three years of ever more heated discussion on Brexit, while more and more families sink into poverty, ever more people are homeless, and while our NHS and welfare services are being run down ever more swiftly, I do understand why many ordinary people who are not racist or bigots voted Leave.

I think it was in the hope of political change: and even if that change wasn’t perfect, at least it would send a clear message that people had had enough of politicians not taking their needs seriously.

So, from being someone who calls herself ‘a Remainer’, I have come to the viewpoint that we really do need to take seriously those who voted to Leave the EU. Because:

1:  Not to do so would be dangerous – the longer this Brexit shambles has gone on, the more angry and frustrated people have become. Okay, we should never give in to threats or fears of violence by extremists who want to force their views upon others. But the Referendum campaign and the following years have allowed the rise of a violent minority of extreme right wingers, who like nothing better than to build a mob (in the old days they would have been handing out pitchforks to villagers). They have sensed victory (however fleeting). Revoking Article 50 (as the LibDems and some other Remainers want to happen) would give these thugs perceived ‘justification’ to stir up violent protest. and that would be a protest where anyone who doesn’t fit their warped views on ‘Britishness’  and ‘Patriotism’ would certainly not be safe.

2:  To ignore Leave voters would be the death knell of any hope of involving ordinary people in politics. Our representive democratic system is not perfect by any means. It is skewed towards supporting the priviledged, purely because it operates within a class-riven society. But, if used correctly (rather than being ‘played’ as it is at the moment by Boris Johnson), it is a way for ordinary people to at least get a say in how the country is run. If people who voted only occasionally, but voted in the Referendum, feel that even when they ‘win’ they will be ignored, how can the UK ever again even try to hold itself up as ‘a pillar of democracy’. And with complete distrust in democracy, on the one hand we have people feeling they are considered worthless by the leaders of the society they live in (and that will include distrust of the political left as well as the right); and worst case scenario, we could then drift into situation 1.

On the democracy note: yes, I know that the Leave campaign cheated big time with the message they put across (and possibly the funds they used to do it). But people don’t want you telling them that they ‘fell for cheats’. How patronising and short-sighted is that?

It’s my belief that whatever the cheating, whatever the messages from both sides, many of those who voted Leave didn’t care about any of that. If you believe that the political system is skewed against you anyway, you will not be surprised if there is cheating. You are more likely to shrug your shoulders and move on to think about what matters to you and your family.  For many who voted Leave, their vote was an angry cry for help – or at least to be acknowledged.

And to ignore that cry now would not only be wrong; it would be ‘proving’ that those ordinary people were correct – the political establishment really doesn’t give a sh*t about them.

Now, I’m a member of the Labour Party. Like most things in life, it’s not perfect. But I truly believe that most Labour members and politicians do care about ordinary people (however much that message gets lost now and again with infighting among different party factions). They want to help those who are struggling and they want to achieve a fairer society for the many, not the rich and greedy few. And that society will listen to everyone – not just those who were educated at Eton.

So by that philosophy, Labour has to be the party that listens to Leavers and Remainers. It cannot ignore what still seems like half of the population.

I’ve come a long way in my views since June 2016. I’m still a Remainer (Remain and reform though, at the very least), but I do believe it is correct for Jeremy Corbyn to argue that if Labour wins the next General Election, he and his Brexit team will do their best to negotiate a good deal with the EU, and then that deal will be put to the people alongside the Remain option.

Like several points I’ve mentioned here, Labour’s Brexit strategy is not a perfect solution, but it’s one which, having acknowledged the god-awful mess that the Tories have got us into with their incompetent Brexit negotiations, is the only sensible option left. And it’s the only hope of bringing this fractured country together and fending off the rise and further influence of right-wing extremists.

And when all put together like that, Labour’s Brexit policy seems pretty damn reasonable!

NHS Crisis We Saw It Coming And Now Labour Must Stop It.

08 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by in British Politics, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party, NHS, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

May 2015 seems an awful long way away now, so much has happened.
But I remember making a blog post near the General Election saying that, despite some misgivings on some of the policies put forward by the Labour Party that year (and set out on that terrible ‘headstone’…), I would be voting Labour with one main objective in mind – to Save Our NHS.

I truly feared for our NHS under a Tory government and I just couldn’t understand why so many people couldn’t see this too.

Well, my fears about the Tories have come true – they are deliberately dismantling our NHS and allowing it to fail.
I would guess that their solution would be to sell it all off (or give it away as they have done recently) to private investors, while assuring us that this will be best for us and ‘the only way’, and that plans will be set up so that we can all get private insurance…

So I have to agree with Devutopia here:

should-have-voted-labour

And I could just say ‘I told you so’ at this point, to all those Tory voters (or those whose votes split the left of centre vote) who are now complaining about not being able to see a GP or about ever longer waiting lists and waits at A&E.

But that would be pointless and would solve nothing.

Especially when the Labour Party, of late, has been struggling within itself rather than getting on and opposing the Tories and UKIP and exposing them for the parasites they are at every opportunity.

Now I’m a member of the Labour Party (and have been since summer 2015) and I am looking to my party to hold this government to account – to show the public the Tory lies and to offer us all a solution that will not involve further privatisation (in fact, ideally the only way this will work is if the whole lot comes back completely into public ownership).

And I’m looking for everyone in the Labour Party to get over their back stabbing and petty squabbles and to concentrate on doing something which is absolutely vital for all of us – that the Labour Party as a whole gets together and fights with everything its got to save our Free and public NHS.

I know it won’t be easy. I would be a fool if I didn’t realise that the establishment in general will do everything it can to belittle and denigrate Labour now that it has a true democratic socialist as leader.

But Labour brought us the NHS and Labour needs to be getting this across at every opportunity and demonstrating that they have real solutions and alternatives for Tory deliberate mismanagement.

So, I guess this is not so much sad remembrance of why this is happening now and why we have a true Humanitarian #NHSCrisis, but a plea to everyone in the Labour Party – left, centre and right (and all bits in between) to come together for the sake of Our NHS.

Because if Labour cannot do this then there really is no hope for any of us.

Labour and ‘the snoopers charter’

09 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in British Politics, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Mass surveillance came in under the Tories, with ‘state of the art’ CCTV footage on the streets, but it was embraced with open arms under Blair and strengthened after 9/11, when the US ‘anti-terrorism policies’ led to snooping on a grand scale. It was like Blair’s Government not only watched with envy, but attempted to do even better with their surveillance on British citizens.
Today, and even after local authority cuts, I believe that the UK is still covered with more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the World. They can track our every move. And even when the cameras are unavailable, the GPS on our mobiles does the job for them.

Mass surveillance is something that you imagine a totalitarian right wing government subscribing to, but that isn’t necessarily so.

The authoritarian nature of government in the Blair years was one of the reasons I, as a socialist, felt increasingly disenfranchised.

A PM who insists on taking the country to war, despite huge public outcry and strong evidence contrary to the reasons for the war in the first place, affirmed my misgivings.
Couple this with the strengthening (rather than abolition) of Thatcher’s trade union laws and the post-9/11 strengthening of the forces of the state against public assemblies, together with the loss of clause 4, plus the many measures put in place to tell families what to do, rather than actually helping them, and it seemed to me that Blair’s government was in no way supporting working class people and their rights to speak out and organise against injustice. Rather, it was seeking to control them.

To me, it seemed that a government that insisted on controlling the very class who historically supported them was not to be trusted to support their voters when it came to fair treatment in the workplace, or when it came to peaceful protests of any description.

But the ‘importance of surveillance’ argument carried on, and there were further discussions on how to ‘control’ information on the internet (always given as ‘ways to ensure public/family safety’).

I believe it was during Brown’s short premiership that laptops were given to poor families so that they too could have access to the world-wide web. These were the laptops given to school children whose parents were on a low-income and, on the surface, it seemed like a great idea. However, these laptops came with many blocks to places you were not ‘allowed’ to browse (not just ‘adult’ sites – many students were unable to access sites they needed to complete their homework and their parents couldn’t use these laptops to pay a bill, or visit their bank account, and FB and Twitter were definitely out).
Savvy parents found an ‘IT friend’ to help them permanently delete the blocking software; others simply threw the laptop away, or sold it on eBay to another unlucky customer.
This was a short-lived and not very successful attempt to control internet access under the guise of ‘safety’, but, some might say that suspicions about the ideas behind the ‘free laptops’ may have been correct….

And, although by now more and more people were getting worried about the implications of mass surveillance and the way it could be used against ordinary people, this implication that ‘we need strong surveillance for our own security and safety’ has prevailed as the overriding argument to oppose anyone who objects.

And even today, if anyone raises their head above the parapet and complains about increases in surveillance, they are likely to be met with the argument: ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about’, and if you go on complaining, you can be made to feel like ‘the enemy’ – ‘what have you got to hide then?’ is likely to be the (sometimes unsaid) question. So many prefer not to complain at all.

Of course, the Tory Government, returned in 2010, was never going to cut back on mass surveillance, despite some ‘libertarian’ claims from a few in their midst. No, what the Tories had (in coalition and now on their own) was a ready-made system of population control, backed up with laws passed and experiments already undertaken.
It fitted right in to their plans to make things even harder for the majority, with new bills on trade unions to control them completely, and with legislation they could put in place in case of mass public protest.

But what the present government still struggles with is control of information via the internet. They can certainly try to monitor individuals and group suspects, but when they carry out legislation that will leave most of the population extremely angry, they face the prospect that all these people could be suspects! And it is not that easy to monitor everyone!

So, on 7th June ‘the Snoopers charter’ was placed before Parliament…
This is a description of the bill by The Canary:

‘On 7 June a bill passed in parliament that threatens the fundamental rights of everyone in the UK. But it seems that only around 25% of the population is aware of its existence, giving MPs the opportunity to take an axe to our autonomy largely without our knowledge.

‘The Investigatory Powers (IP) bill, more commonly known as the Snoopers Charter, passed through its latest stage in the commons by 444 to 69 votes.
….
‘Privacy is indeed at the heart of the IP bill, but it will destroy privacy rather than protect it. It is designed to secure immense surveillance powers for the UK’s security services, and other public bodies. The proposals include allowing bulk interception of communications, bulk collection of communications data – meaning ‘metadata’ which is essentially the data about data – and bulk equipment interference – aka hacking.

‘Indeed, ‘bulk’ gathering of information seems to be a major point of the IP bill. As Bella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty, explains:

This Bill would create a detailed profile on each of us which could be made available to hundreds of organisations to speculatively trawl and analyse. It will all but end online privacy, put our personal security at risk and swamp law enforcement with swathes of useless information.

‘As The Intercept has recently reported, even the UK spies themselves have warned that collecting too much information is dangerous. The publication released a secret report from the UK’s security service, which stated that MI5:

can currently collect (whether itself or through partners …) significantly more than it is able to exploit fully… This creates a real risk of ‘intelligence failure’ i.e. from the Service being unable to access potentially life-saving intelligence from data that it has already collected.

‘The IP bill aims to put these deficient data practices on a statutory footing, to legitimise them. But many argue that targeting specific communications, rather than scooping up information on everyone, is a better way to fight crime. It would also ensure that most individuals retain the liberties afforded to them under multiple human rights conventions.’
See the full article by the Canary here.

Now, you may think that Labour Members of Parliament would oppose this bill. It is not only extremely flawed, it also attacks our human rights on several levels.

And after all, isn’t the Labour Party opposing the Tories’ attempts to change our access to human rights, by opposing the extremely suspect Tory-proposed ‘British Bill of Rights’?

But of course, you only have to look back at the recent history of the Labour Party to realise that this wouldn’t necessarily be the case…

However, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, with his strong belief in human rights, I was hoping that there would at least have been a virulent opposition to ‘the snooper’s charter’ and a good debate among Labour MPs about whether or not to support it.

But this didn’t appear to be the case…

Three parties did vote against the bill: the SNP, the Green party and the Liberal Democrats.

But many Labour MPs appeared reasonably happy to vote for the bill as long as concessions were made, including ‘a privacy clause’ and protection for trade unions from being targetted. They also received assurance that there would be a ‘double lock’ on warrant approvals.

However, they did not challenge the ‘mass surveillance’ part of the bill, and yet that is at the bill’s core.

Knowing the history of recent mass surveillance in the UK and the strong support from recent Labour Governments for this, although I am dismayed to learn that Labour MPs allowed this bill to pass ‘in principle’, I am sadly not surprised.

Now, I know that the Labour Party are deeply involved in getting a ‘Remain’ vote right now in the EU referendum, but that can be no excuse for taking their eye off the ball with this bill.

It is draconian. It will be used to target individuals, even if trade unions are considered ‘safe’, and it will be used to target protest groups and protest posts.

And that’s not even to mention the way that mass surveillance of the UK population, once a shady business or the work of commercial search engine ‘algorithms’ with ‘privacy clauses’, is now being legitimised for state use.

Surely, as a Corbyn supporter I should be dismayed, not to mention disappointed….?

 

Why We Must Support Junior Doctors And Student Nurses In Their Struggle

17 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in British Politics, Jeremy Corbyn, NHS

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

It was good to see that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell gave their full support to the Junior Doctors’ Strike last Tuesday. Not only was this the first time in my memory that a Labour Leader and Labour Shadow Chancellor had openly and unequivocally supported a strike, but it was, without doubt, the correct thing to do.

The fight by Junior Doctors for fair treatment at work and by nurses and all NHS workers to retain their bursaries is not only their fight; it is ours too.

Of course, this is about wages, and working hours, and payment for training, but it is also very much about patient safety. And at the heart of the struggle is the fight for something we all hold dear: our Free National Health Service.

Without doctors and nurses we would not have a health service, and without the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and all health support workers and practitioners, our NHS would certainly not be free.

And the issue of ‘free’ is important when we look at the creeping privatisation of our NHS and how it affects not only doctors and nurses, but all of us.

The NHS Privatisation plan:

There are 3 main factors to this:

Devolution
Soon there will no longer be a ‘national’ health service.
This has already happened in Manchester, and very soon we will have ‘regional health services’ all over the UK, with NHS funding subsumed within local authority funding. And we all know what has happened to local authority funding…it has been cut, and cut again!

Privatisation
The Private Finance Initiative or ‘PFI’:
Since 1992, most large scale public capital investment in the UK has used PFI procurement, whereby a consortium of investment banks, builders, and service contractors raises the finance, and designs, builds, and operates the facilities for the public authority through a project company

Now on the surface, this sounds good – after all, it appears that nothing has been sold off and that the private sector is contributing to the NHS.

But that of course is not the case….

Through the PFI scheme private companies have built NHS hospitals and leased them back to the NHS. They also run support services as part of these contracts. This has of course been highly profitable for the companies involved, otherwise the scheme would not have worked, but it is now becoming crystal clear that the PFI model offers very poor value and is, in fact, draining our NHS of desperately-needed funds.

A number of NHS hospitals are struggling to cope with the cost of meeting their PFI debts. South London Healthcare Trust was the first to be put into administration after being put on a growing list of trusts burdened with PFI debt.

In the early 1990s, hospitals paid no charge on their land, buildings and assets, but today many PFI-run hospitals are paying a substantial percentage to PFI investers just to keep going. And the percentage they pay is rising all the time. At the moment, when new government money is injected into the NHS, most of it goes directly to private investors because of PFI.

We are told that we can no longer afford to pay for universal healthcare, but that simply wouldn’t be true, if only we stopped using NHS funds to pay back the banks and other financiers who control the PFIs.

The Five Year Forward View:
On 1st April 2014, NHS England’s new chief executive, Simon Stevens, laid out his plans for the NHS, and on the surface they sounded positive enough. For example, he talked about:

“Unleashing the passion and drive of the million plus frontline NHS staff who are devoting their professional lives to caring.”

The problem was, that Stevens had a different idea of how to ‘unleash that passion’ than most users of the NHS would have wanted to hear.

By October, 2014, Stevens had published his ‘5 Year forward Plan’; a 39-page report which sets out ways the NHS in England needs to change over the next five years to ensure (and I quote) “it remains affordable in the face of increasing demand and finance pressures.”

On the surface, this ‘plan’ was welcomed by members of the NHS, as it outlined a way of dealing with patient care to fit a more modern age.

However, it has now become apparent that the ‘5 year forward plan’ was based more on business strategy than on patient need (In fact, when talking about his plan, Stevens described it as ‘NHS England’s Business plan’, first and foremost).

One of Steven’s most controversial measures is the call for more ‘super hospitals’, which are, no doubt, more cost-effective in a business sense, but are in actual fact dangerous for some patients living in rural areas, whose access to hospital emergency care and follow-on care will be severely restricted (especially when we take note of cuts to our ambulance services).

But that’s just one example of the problems with this ‘5 year plan’.

The main problem is that it has been designed with profitabilty in mind, rather than patient need.

Now, when you combine these 3 strategies – Devolution, Privatisation, and the ‘5 year forward plan’, you begin to see how much our Free and Public National Health Service is being put under pressure and is already being privatised.

Add to that the ‘profitability factor’, so beloved by PFI investers and by Stevens, and you see where the perceived need to change Junior Doctors’ contracts and to end Nurse’s Bursaries come in. Wages and personel costs being a huge part of the cost of any large ‘enterprise’, something has to be done about them to make them more ‘affordable’ for private investors.

The present scheme of work and pay for Junior doctors is not profitable enough when considered as part of a business plan for investors, and neither of course are bursaries for training NHS staff.

When you take all these things together, it becomes clear that our NHS is not only under threat of privatisation; it is already being privatised.

And this is why it is so important that we all support the junior doctors, student nurses, and in fact all NHS and health care workers.

We may not have access to the boardrooms of private companies, or be able to take part in meetings of private investment consortiums. But we can sure as hell let this government know that we know what they are doing, and that we intend to make them stop doing it!

So, we need to support our Junior Doctors and we need to support our Student Nurses and all NHS workers hoping to train within a free NHS.

Their fight is a fight that all workers and students are having to make – for fair treatment at work; for a living wage; and for free education.

If we as workers let Jeremy Hunt force the junior doctors to sign up to a new contract, how can we expect this Government to be fair to us when we call for decent wages and safe working conditions?

If we as students let this government force all health care workers to pay for their training, we are effectively saying that it is okay to pay for education, and we are therefore giving up the right to call for an end to student loans and for the right to free education for all.

And, if we, as users of the NHS, do not support Junior Doctors and Student Nurses in their fight for fair treatment by Mr Hunt, we are effectively saying “It’s okay Mr Hunt – you go ahead and make their services more profitable to the private sector.” And by doing that we would be giving up our right to demand that our NHS is saved from privatisation.

So we must support our junior doctors, our student nurses and all of our NHS workers.

And as for the Tories, we need to tell them in no uncertain terms “get your thieving hands off of our Free and National Health Service!”

Why I Will Be Voting Labour

08 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by in British Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

People who read the first posts on this blog will be wondering where all of my thoughts on writing have gone. Well, they will be coming back soon. But for now there is something that I am finding to be much more pressing to write about and that is Politics, and British Politics in particular at this point in time.

And the reason why I feel this way is because I am thinking about the future for my children. However successful I am (or perhaps am not) at writing, it will make no difference if my children grow up into an uncaring World.

I don’t want them to live in fear of losing a job or being sick and having nowhere to go for help. I don’t want them to grow up thinking that the only thing that matters is money: not hard work; not being a caring person; not even being a creative and thoughtful person; but being someone who is valued by society by the amount of money they can amass.

I want my children to grow up feeling that they matter, whether they are rich or poor; healthy or disabled. And I don’t want them thinking that there is no point in caring: that only the wealthy 1% matter and that there is nothing they can do about it.

And that is why I am doing everything I can to ensure that the next UK Government will be a Labour one.

I have been a Socialist since even before I was old enough to vote. Over the years I have felt marginalised by all the leading political parties. I was just old enough to vote when Blair came to power, but I hadn’t voted for him. To me, he was not a Socialist; he was a Centrist with Tory leanings. And for a long time I felt disenfranchised because no one I could vote for in my political ward spoke for the values I held dear.

So what has changed? Why will I be voting Labour in the upcoming General Election?

Because to ignore what is happening to our society would be a crime. All over the World, it is the small percentage of wealthy people who hold the power. These people are rapidly skimming off our money to fill their own pockets. In Britain, our Welfare State is being decimated by so-called ‘austerity reforms; our NHS is being sold off into private hands under the guise of ‘reorganisation’; and our Education system is being taken over by money-making ‘enterprises’.

To be unemployed or sick is something to be dreaded unless you are very rich, because, even if you think you are just getting by now, there will come a time when you discover that all help has run out.

Ed Miliband’s Labour Party is not perfect. But it is the best option we have right now and, I truly believe that a strongly-supported Labour Government will be able to bring in changes that will set us on the way to being a more caring society.

Even though I consider myself to the left of the current Labour Party, I still feel that my vote for them counts. And it is the only vote that will get us anywhere near to kicking this current uncaring government to the sidelines.

So, there will most likely be a few more political writings on this blog leading up to the General Election, and probably afterwards too. But if you feel as I do about the current state of British Society and you want a better future for your children like I do, I’m sure you’ll understand.

Labour’s Dilemma: How To Appeal To Enough Voters To Gain Political Victory

01 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by in British Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The Labour Party appears to have a dilemma with who they appeal to, and on what platforms it is best to appeal in order to win the upcoming General Election.

The Tories assume they have the majority of ‘the grey vote’ and Labour appear to be taking them at their word.

So Labour are going after the younger person’s vote.

Will this work?

On the one hand, appealing to Tory-voting pensioners would probably be a waste of time as it would fall on deaf ears.

But on the other hand, many younger people are refusing to vote, as they feel that not only have they been marginalised by all parties, but that all MPs are sleazebags and don’t deserve their vote.

Appealing to either of these groups is going to take a real onslaught just to get the attention of closed minds, and then the likelihood of persuasion is low.

And time is running out.

Labour needs to convince hearts and minds NOW and continue to add more hearts and minds to the list right up to and beyond the impending General Election.

So, as well as going all out to convince new voters and fight off the conditioning of Tory voters, they need to be concentrating on the middle ground. And by that I don’t mean middle classes alone, or middle-aged voters alone (although these groups certainly come into it), but those voters who feel ‘in the middle’ of the political debates: those who can see good bits from both sides of the political argument.

It is voters like these that Blair persuaded back in the 90s, and kept on persuading for a relatively long time.

These are people who value The NHS and Education; who want the best for their children and grandchildren; who care about the unemployed and homeless, but are not among their number. People who, at the moment, feel reasonably secure, but are getting a sinking feeling that they could be next to feel the burden of austerity measures.

In the 90s, after years of a left-of-centre Labour finding themselves in the political wilderness under Neil Kinnock, new leader Tony Blair took a more centrist approach to help New Labour win the General Election. There were, quite rightly, strong misgivings from the left, but in 1997, most left-of-centre (and even centrist) voters, many having lived through Thatcher’s years of ideological ‘reasoning’, knew that there must be change. So, despite misgivings from both sides of the political field, Blair’s centrist approach guaranteed him a landslide victory. He even had a significant proportion of the media on his side – previously unheard of for the Labour Party – and this helped him gain victory.

But Blair’s approach was flawed. Not only did it rely upon courting big business to an unreasonable scale, but when the ‘WMD report’ emerged and Blair supported the findings, it also exposed Blair’s political inadequacies. The latter left New Labour badly tainted and Labour as a whole, deeply mistrusted.

Now Labour is in the same boat as they were before Blair, and they have Blair’s legacy as a further pit to climb out of.

Labour is proposing policies that would work and their campaign for saving the NHS has a majority of the electorate on their side. But they have a leader who is vilified and scorned in the media. It is like history from the Kinnock Labour years is repeating itself all over again.

So what can Labour do in the short time they have left to win hearts and minds?

Miliband will never be a Blair, and more power to him. But by the same token, he is not liked in the media. Like Brown before him, he is ridiculed in ways which make him appear an embarrassment as a leader.

Is that a problem? Surely people will see through the ridicule and vote for policies they feel are better for them, and by extension for their communities?

Well that depends on the thought processes of the electorate and how much they are affected by the issues, or by the facade.  And sadly I think that we still have a long way to go before the facade does not hold sway.

One good thing about all this is that Tory leader, Cameron, is not being projected at his best either.  And the scandal about rich Tory backers and Tory MPs’ links with wealthy businesses interests is definitely doing him no favours right now.

So the balance between ridicule on one side and corruption on the other appears to be holding out…at the moment.

It is now that Labour needs to go on the onslaught. While appealing to new voters, they also need to be emphasising the corruption infiltrating this Tory Government and how it is affecting ALL OF US.  Not just the poor or the unemployed, because many voters will still have the attitude that ‘we would never get like that’. Labour needs to be spelling out to all of us that any of us could be the next unemployed; that any of us could be the next long-term sick, or need the services of the NHS; that any of us could have children or grandchildren joining the unemployed, through no fault of their own; and that any of us could be put into the position where we lose our homes.

Blair used the politics of ‘charisma’. He courted business and he wooed the electorate. With a hostile media, Miliband can’t do this. But that doesn’t have to be an insurmountable problem.

People are fearful. They feel that the Government is out of their control and there is little they can do about it.

Labour needs to find a way to (dare I say it?) use that fear and feelings of lack of control. And at the same time, it needs to show that people matter: that their lives are important; that their health and their well being comes above the needs of Capital; and to show them they can make a positive difference to their and their families’ futures by voting Labour.

It will be a hard struggle, but Miliband can lead Labour to victory at the polls.
If he and Labour as a whole, get their priorities right.