Tales from the front line: public-sector workers speak out

In this week’s New Statesman, six key workers speak out about their fears for 2011.

This is the year that the full force of the coalition's austerity budget will be felt. In a major feature in this week's issue of the New Statesman, a teacher, GP, lawyer, social worker, postman and policeman reveal their concerns about the seismic change that 2011 will bring.

You can read their testmonials in the magazine, which hits news-stands tomorrow. In the meantime, here is a taster of what they have to say.

 

The Teacher

Gove's English Baccalaureate has the potential to send Britain's education system back 50 years.

The teacher is Peter Hyman, No 10 strategist (for Tony Blair) turned deputy head teacher.

 

The Postman

The Royal Mail is being slashed back, and it breaks this old postie's heart.

The postman works in the south-east of England and writes under the pseudonym Roy Mayall. He is the author of Dear Granny Smith (Short Books, £4.99).

 

The Doctor

The way to stop GPs using resources, it seems, is to bombard them with so much admin, they give up.

The writer works in a GP consortium in the south-west of England.

 

The Supported Housing Officer

Instead of cutting front-line staff, why not cut the bloated bureaucracy?

The blog by the social worker Winston Smith won last year's Orwell Prize. His book Generation F will be published by Monday Books later this year.

 

The Policeman

Already, in big towns, there can be just half a dozen uniformed cops on duty at any one time.

The writer is the blogger Inspector Gadget, author of Perverting the Course of Justice, published by Monday Books (£7.99).

 

The Legal Aid Worker

They say our work could be done by volunteers – but filing cabinets of complex cases tell me otherwise.

Nick Dilworth is a legal aid casework supervisor in Devon. To find out more about the Justice for All campaign, visit: justice-for-all.org.uk.

 

Are you affected by the cuts? We will be collecting testimonials from the front line over the course of the next year, so tell us your stories.

You can do this by writing in the comment box below, by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk, or sending a letter to:

New Statesman
7th Floor
John Carpenter House
7 Carmelite Street
Blackfriars
London EC4Y 0BS

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's threats give North Korea every reason it needs to keep nuclear weapons

The US president's warning that he may “totally destroy” the country is a gift to Kim Jong-un's regime. 

Even by Donald Trump's undiplomatic standards, his speech at the UN general assembly was remarkably reckless. To gasps from his audience, Trump vowed to "totally destroy" North Korea if it persisted with its threats and branded Kim Jong-un "rocket man". In an apparent resurrection of George W Bush's "axis of evil", the US president also declared: “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph". 

For North Korea, Trump's words merely provide further justification for its nuclear weapons programme. Though the regime is typically depicted as crazed (and in some respects it is), its nuclear project rests on rational foundations. For Kim, the lesson from the fall of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi was that tyrants pay a price for relinquishing their arms. The persistent threats from the US strengthen the regime's domestic position and reinforce a siege mentality. Though North Korea must be deterred from a pre-emptive strike, it must also be offered incentives to pursue a different path. 

As Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson remarked last month: "We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek a collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula, we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the 38th Parallel. We are not your enemy... but you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and we have to respond. And we hope that at some point they will begin to understand that and we would like to sit and have a dialogue with them."

The present nadir reflects the failures of the past. In 1994, the Clinton administration persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear programme in return for economic and diplomatic concessions. A communique declared that neither state had "hostile intent" towards the other. But this progress was undone by the Bush administration, which branded North Korea a member of the "axis of evil" and refused to renew the communique.

The subsequent six-party talks (also including China, Russia South Korea and Japan) were similarly undermined by the US. As Korea expert Mike Chinoy records in the Washington Post in 2005, the Bush administration provocatively "designated Macau's Banco Delta Asia, where North Korea maintained dozens of accounts, as a 'suspected money-laundering concern.'" When a new agreement was reached in 2007, "Washington hard-liners demanded that Pyongyang accept inspections of its nuclear facilities so intrusive one American official described them a 'national proctologic exam'".

For North Korea, the benefits of nuclear weapons (a "treasured sword of justice" in Kim's words) continue to outweigh the costs. Even the toughened UN sanctions (which will ban one third of the country's $3bn exports) will not deter Pyongyang from this course. As Tillerson recognised, diplomacy may succeed where punishment has failed. But Trump's apocalyptic rhetoric will merely inflate North Korea's self-righteousness. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.