Is Loach’s latest film about working in the ‘gig economy’ hitting home once too often? Either state media has just not been mentioning it or the Google search engine has been tampered with.
For the first time yesterday I saw a brief review of Sorry we missed you, the latest Ken Loach film and today, in an email message from Pat Conaty (co-author of a report on the ‘precariat’) came the words:
“The Ken Loach film, Sorry we missed you has been so marginalised”.
An online search then revealed that there had been extensive coverage in social media and regional newspapers but just one excellent article/review in the i-news on the first page with the subtitle:
We need to wake up to the reality that, in this instance, “flexibility” is just another word for exploitation”
On the second page of the search engine George Osborne’s Standard offers a briefly mocking review: “a man makes a pact with the devil and a corporation turns humans into robots. Not literally” – but has the grace to present a video in which Loach (right) and the scriptwriter Paul Laverty (left) discuss the film.
The third page‘s only MSM review was the Financial Times’ sympathetic and straightforward article, opening with a summary:
“An unhappy Newcastle family is being trampled in the vineyards of the gig economy. Ricky (Kris Hitchen) is a parcel delivery driver coping, or trying to cope, with brutal schedules and inhuman work-protocols. Wife Abbie (Debbie Honeywood) is an overburdened NHS carer. Son Seb is a cellphone junkie hanging out with a graffiti gang and dipping his toe in petty crime. Daughter Lisa, 11, hardly knows what’s going on, yet seems at times the wisest head in the house”.
Pat Conaty, who is working with others on a Union Co-op manifesto to be released this spring, ends: “(Ken Loach’s latest film is) just as powerful as Kathy Come Home, but unlike the latter in that everyone saw it on the BBC over 50 years ago and talked about it. Hardly anybody has seen Ken’s latest film. So getting this counter movement underway is going to be a harder task. But we hope the manifesto will kickstart more aligned action and some coming together of solidarity economy action”.
MPs ask how ‘the other England’ can be strengthened so that fellow citizens are not “pushed into destitution”
A Bournville reader draws attention to an article about Heidi Allen, Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire, and former Labour MP Frank Field, now a backbencher. They are touring the poorest areas of Leicester Newcastle, Glasgow, Morecambe and Cornwall. Frank Field said they want to know “how the soft underbelly of our society – ‘the other England’ – can be strengthened so that none of our fellow citizens are pushed into destitution”.
Robert Booth, Social Affairs correspondent for the Guardian, reports that their widely publicised inquiry began in London where testimonials from those with first-hand experience of food poverty exposed the barriers that people face in securing support from the government, when faced with extreme life hardships and personal difficulties.
“Unless we blow the lid off it, my lot are not going to listen”
He explains that Heidi Allen had asked Frank Field if he would join her on a tour of the UK to show the government the “other England” shaped by the austerity policies pioneered by Allen’s party. She added: “Unless we blow the lid off it, my lot are not going to listen.” This is not a new concern: in her 2015 maiden speech Heidi Allen gave a detailed criticism of proposed cuts to tax credits, saying, ‘today I can sit on my hands no longer’.
Evidence from Leicester which they will be presenting includes accounts of:
- an illiterate man sanctioned so often under universal credit that he lives on £5 a week;
- a man who had sold all but the clothes he was wearing;
- someone told to walk 44 miles to attend a job interview, despite having had a stroke, to save the state the cost of a £15 bus ticket;
- a surge in referrals to food banks from 5% since the introduction of universal credit in June, to 29%;
- an elderly person – after her son, who had suffered a stroke, had been sanctioned 15 times – said, “The system needs more caring people. They are like little Hitlers”;
- another was expecting the bailiffs to take back her two-bed council house because she was in arrears, including on bedroom tax. Her second bedroom is used by her granddaughter five nights a week, so her son can work, but that doesn’t count – only children qualify’
The bureaucratic struggle to claim benefits is a big problem, carefully and accurately portrayed in Ken Loach’s internationally acclaimed award-winning film, I Daniel Blake (snapshot and link to brief video below). 65% of the most vulnerable people who come to Leicester council for help have never used a computer and don’t have a smart phone or an email address, needed to fill out forms.
A brief extract from the film – those who have seen it will remember that the computer session becomes far more stressful and eventually – as often happens – aborts for no fault of the ‘client’.
According to Feeding Britain, a charity set up by Field which now includes Allen among its trustees, after housing costs, 41% of children in Leicester – more than 34,000 – are living in poverty. The Leicester South parliamentary constituency was in the poorest 2% of constituencies in the UK in 2018. Over the last two summer holidays, in the most deprived parts of the city, over 15,000 meals were served to almost 1,650 children, using government funds.
In the Leicester Mercury, Leicester South MP Jon Ashworth said after reading the latest research findings: “These shocking statistics show high levels of child poverty in Leicester South. It is clear that the Government is failing working families, and cuts to Universal Credit will make child poverty even worse. It is appalling that since 2010 the number of children living in poverty has reached four million under this Government, and the Government is still maintaining the benefit freeze.”
How can MPs earning more than double the national average – plus allowances, directorships and expenses – find it in their heart to vote to sentence the poor and disabled (without influence) to increased hardship?
The relatively prosperous look on aghast as support for those who have least is cut but the prosperous are voted tax breaks and other concessions. How far will this government be allowed to go?
It is no coincidence that around the country groups are gathering to promote showings of the latest Ken Loach film and citing his Question Time video clip:
A Bournville reader points out that “the tragedy is that (the long-term homeless) are going to be joined by many more who have had a home. See what is going to come into play with effect from Monday 7th November” and sends a link to an article about a cut in housing benefit from Nov 7th.
He asks: “Where are all these extra homeless people and families to go? And at what cost?”
Tomorrow more than 100,000 households will be materially worse off. Some households will lose as much as £115 a week.
The idea of tightening their belt and reducing household spending assumes that energy and food are expendable luxuries.
In the Guardian, Aditya Chakrabortty stresses the costs of the lost income, the long-term psychological harm to tenants, the deteriorating health of households in temporary accommodation and the exorbitant cost of temporary accommodation for those evicted.
Every day in England and Wales, 170 tenants are evicted.
Evictions have increased by 53% in the past five years. Around 80% of these are carried out by social landlords, and a further 20% by private landlords.
Those who are being swayed by the PM’s rhetoric should look at her previous actions in office as Minister for Women and Equality, when her edicts downgraded the provision for carers, children in need and vulnerable people. She:
- suspended the registration scheme for carers of children and vulnerable people.
- scrapped the former Labour Government’s proposed “go orders” scheme to protect women from domestic violence by banning abusers from the victim’s home.
- closed the previous Government’s “ContactPoint” database of 11 million under-18-year olds designed to protect children in the wake of the Victoria Climbié child abuse scandal and
- removed a clause from the Equality Act which would have required public bodies to consider how they can reduce socio-economic inequalities when making decisions about spending and services.
Welfare payments are designed to act as a safety net to stop people in the fifth-richest economy in the world being hungry or homeless.
Where will the cuts inflicted on the poorest end, and wherever is Ms May’s compassionate conservatism in action?