The Canary is excited to share the latest edition of our letters page. This is where we publish people’s responses to the news and politics, or anything else they want to get off their chest. We’ve now opened the letters page up so anyone can submit a contribution. As always, if you’d like to subscribe to the Canary – starting from £2 a month – to support truly radical and independent media, then you can do that here:
This week’s letters
This week we have people’s thoughts on “Starmer’s McCarthyite Junta” (not our words, but not not endorsed by us either), two issues of BBC bias, and concerns from the Social Workers Union.
‘Starmer’s McCarthyite Junta’: why would you vote for it?
Pollyanna Keir Starmer supporters chide us ex-Labour members like Owen Jones for saying we can’t vote Labour and will vote Greens or independents; accusing us of splitting the left vote. So be it.
I am sure that Liberals in the early 1920’s would have made similar arguments against voting for nascent parties.
If people had listened there would have been no Labour Govt in 1924. Sometimes you just have to vote for what you believe in and Starmer’s McCarthyite Junta is beyond belief.
It goes without saying that voting Tory is not an option.
Alan Marsden, via email
BBC rampant bias on display again
The BBC has published another biased article on 1 April. [ED: surely an April fool? The BBC couldn’t possibly be biased…]
Even the title, “Minimum wage increase a concern for NI businesses“, is biased – it frames the increase in the minimum wage entirely from business owners’ self-serving perspective (for instance, contrast with: minimum wage increase slightly eases poverty for millions).
This amounts to seeing staff pay simply as a business cost, and the business owner as placed in a quandary about how to pay for this, which is itself revealing: do they “absorb” the cost, or “pass it on” to the customer.
Here, the BBC is guilty not only of bias in its framing, but also of bias in favour of business owners’ self-serving perspectives on themselves, and their actions and choices – these are not questioned or opposed. For instance, business owners never pay people from their own pocket (unless their business is a vanity project), though the article implies that they do in the business owner’s dilemma: to “absorb” or “pass on” costs. However, this is a self-serving, and obfuscatory view, since businesses derive all of their money from customers (excluding govt freebies), hence all business costs are passed on to customers, since businesses charge people a price (I cannot overstate how obvious this point is).
Crucially, when a cost increases, that doesn’t change the source of a business’s income, it just changes what happens to some of that income (much to the chagrin of the owner). Here, the BBC article isn’t just showing bias, it is also showing utter ignorance and an inability to seemingly even think.
So, when paying staff, owners use not their own money, but that of the business (obtained from customers), this money itself being entirely generated by the staff (it is their work that the business owner charges for). From this we can see, then, that staff pay their own wages through the work that they do.
Unfortunately for staff, decisions about how much of the money they get from their work are not theirs to make. This situation is determined by legislation and the contracts it underpins and allows – legislation ensures that business income belongs to the business (and hence the owner, a neat sleight of hand) rather than those who made it happen (this is unarguably unjust, but the law and justice are separate domains).
This is self-evidently the direct cause of low pay, which is mentioned in the article, but framed, abstractly, as “an issue”, which remains undeveloped as the horrific problem that it is. It’s noteworthy that no individual voices are quoted on behalf of people deliberately paid a pittance with govt complicity.
We can contrast this with the anguished, plaintive lament and accompanying professional photograph of business owner with concerned expression Michael Stewart (he of the dilemma about “absorbing” or not “his” costs). No, poverty gets no individual mention, it is simply acknowledged that some people are “classified as low paid” (they’re one step removed from being actually low paid, the word “classified” is being deliberately deployed to create uncertainty about the fact of low pay).
The article also fails to say who is responsible for low pay or how it comes about. It doesn’t, for instance, tell us about how much or how little Michael Stewart pays his staff (a serious, biased omission), but it does tell us that he faces the burden of finding an extra £23,000 per year for pay, and of his concerns for those with much bigger businesses. He doesn’t express concern for those on low pay (instead, he says that “everyone deserves a fair wage”).
Low pay, presumably, is like the weather – it somehow just happens. Yet all the elements for that analysis are there in the article, the truth can barely be contained. For instance, poor old Michael Stewart lists “high energy costs” and price “increases from breweries and suppliers” amongst his woes. This point is missed by the article’s author – suppliers are falling over themselves to pass their costs on, no actual cost-absorption dilemma exists (again the article’s implication is that costs simply rise, without human cause).
We are also not informed as to why business owners’ rising costs are worthy of our heartfelt concern, but not those of the mass noun “staff”. Neither does the author seem to realise that staff, from another perspective, are customers, and customers need money, unless I’m missing something. Maybe we could try driving all wages down to zero, so that business owners are liberated from these heinous expenses, and see how that works for them.
Since the minimum wage is being increased by government, who is responsible for low pay becomes glaringly obvious – government is, alongside business owners. Even with the minimum wage increase pay remains shit (and age discriminatory – once again, nothing to see here).
There is an obvious solution to Michael Stewart’s anguish, which again remains unmentioned – he is not obliged to employ anyone. The option is always available to him and others, to dispense entirely with the cost of staff at any time. He could then keep for himself all of the money his business magically generates, and thus liberate himself from his dilemma and the headache of how to pay the increase. Problem solved.
Or, he could turn his business into a co-operative, in which case all of those costs would be shared by everyone in the business, and he would be passing on the onerous burden of the increases to his staff. Again, problem solved. Or, the article’s author could just be honest: business owners are whining because their desire to exploit people for their own gain will be a tiny bit less lucrative.
David Willetts, via email
Social workers’ concerns
In the last 18 months two-fifths (40%) of social workers have raised concerns about cases where they don’t believe appropriate action was taken. Of these, almost a third 29% have highlighted more than five cases in that time.
The findings come in an exclusive report published in the Independent which commissioned research among members of the Social Workers Union (SWU).
The figures show a slight decrease from the last time SWU ran the survey in 2022 (when 48% reported raising concerns without then seeing action from bosses), the numbers of social workers who reported more than five cases has remained the same.
58% of social workers say their caseloads are unmanageable, with almost all (92%) saying that the vulnerable would be better protected if case loads were lighter.
Both figures are almost identical to 2022 showing no improvement in social worker caseloads in the last two years.
Most social workers expected to see referrals increase over the next 12 months (86%), with 52% expecting to be inundated. While this is a reduction from the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, it still shows social work services will continue to be stretched until well after the next General Election (in 2022 94% expected to see an increase, with 71% inundated).
Meanwhile, the mental health and recruitment crisis in social work continues.
Eight out of ten (86%) social workers suffer from stress at work (up from 82% in 2022) and two-thirds (62%) say their mental health is suffering because of work (65% in 2022).
One in five (19%) find themselves suffering an emotional response to their work (crying / feeling unwell) at least once a week (down from 24% in 2022).
Around half are considering leaving social work (similar numbers to 2024), although 8% of social workers who were considering leaving have agreed to stay on and help those people they support.
John McGowan, General Secretary of the Social Workers Union, commented:
“The everyday struggles of social workers trying to do their best for the vulnerable people they support are clear to see in this shocking research.
“The data highlights a profession on the brink of a collective breakdown. Working conditions are not improving, the mental health of social workers is suffering and the resources and support for them to do their jobs properly are missing.
“Social workers go above and beyond to help those at most risk in the country and are highlighting safeguarding concerns on a regular basis. However, the consistent reports from respondents to the survey are that the resources to help those most in need are just not there.
“Helping vulnerable adults and young people is only possible if a full range of public services are available and well funded.
“Ministers must own up to the fact that more than a decade of austerity has led to this situation. It is only the Government that can provide the funding to reverse the decline in public services and ensure the most vulnerable get the support they need.
“Social workers speak out and speak up for the people they support, but if they are not listened to, then the risks to children, young people and adults in need are dangerous and severe.”
Social Workers Union, via email
BBC rampant bias on display again – episode two
Why does the BBC continue to accept, at face value, whatever Israel says?
Jeremy Bowen should be cynical, as every reporter on Israeli statements should be. When they say that the slaying of the seven aid workers and the occupants of the clearly marked ‘World Central Kitchen’ was an accident – why is this statement not questioned. Every statement should be regarded as propaganda and held up to the light as a lie. The ‘World Central Kitchen’ is a unique and well-known provider of food across the strip and is now brought to a halt.
As we have seen over the past six months, Israel is ruthless and bloodthirsty in its mission to eliminate Gaza, its people, and its infrastructure. It is seen to use the immoral and inhumane weapon of food deprivation as a weapon of war in their genocide.
It was no accident, as you and the US and UK governments would wish us to believe. The vehicles were clearly marked and the IDF notified in advance of their presence in their assistance in unloading and distributing this new source of sea-borne food aid. They slow down all other food entry to a trickle and this new supply had to be halted.
Israel has become a terrorist state, with no mercy for any form of human life, other than their own. They are succeeding – with the connivance of the BBC and our own government – have you and your reporters no shame or compassion?
Ted from Liverpool, via email
Want to get involved? Email membership(at)thecanary.co and we’ll publish your letters, too! Terms and conditions of publication apply.
