Skip to main content

Thoughts on the BBC Programme (ongoing)

This is an open entry regarding the recent Future of Welfare programme presented by John Humphreys and broadcast on 27/10. I'm cautiously dipping into this programme, but it does warrant examination.

So I'm watching the sequence with our man as he goes to an American jobcentre. Here he seems surprised that the jobcentre would ask claimants to look for work as a condition of their benefit. But if he's been researching this for a year in the UK he'll know that's always been the case, not just in America, but here. So why is this 'foreign' process being sold as some welfare revolution? This is just spurious nonsense. Again with the idea that up until now there's been a sense of entitlement.
Well hang on, people pay taxes and make contributions are entitled to make a claim for JSA. Even then that doesn't guarantee their claim will succeed and, for as long as the claim runs, the individual must meet the requirements as notarised in the Jobseeker's Agreement which is countersigned by the DWP. So why is there allowed to exist this twisting of the word 'entitlement' into something uglier, like a spoilt child wanting a bigger toy?
I don't understand why people should feel resentment toward welfare or guilt for claiming it? Where does the money come from - taxes and insurance. We all pay at least one of those two. If claimants aren't entitled to claim then why are the government entitled to it.
Now I'm watching as a jolly big black bloke running a (presumably, correct me if I'm wrong) Work Programme class. Again the curriculum wouldn't seem out of place in Royston Vasey, though perhaps presented with a less ugly sneer. But the conditionality is clear: a two year course of 30 hours weekly sitting in front of a whiteboard making primary school pictures, collages and even cupcakes. All with the idea that you will believe work, however it is defined (and they didn't define it at all), is the best thing for you. Those participants spoken to seemed cautiously unimpressed (and probably mindful they were being filmed). A one size happily clapper fits all approach the centre manager seemed oblivious to, even when she admitted there were half a million jobs (as of April) available.
Interestingly most of the people in the footage of the WP were previously employed - so why is there this bizarre focus on indoctrinating them with the belief that 'work' is better than 'not work'. But again, no definition of terms. Washing up and hoovering the house is work, but I don't get paid for that.
Then Humph is talking to a Tower Hamlets GP with a south African accent who claims, even though she deals with some of them, it's unbelievable that 2million people are genuine sick benefit recipients. She of course presents no evidence to back this up and would probably balk at a charge of being complicit in benefit fraud, but if she does, as was claimed, deal with such people, she or her surgery colleagues must be colluding in benefit fraud.
The idea that if all these millions, sick or scrounging, were in work that society would benefit in many ways, financially, emotionally, whatever, is just pie in the sky when placed in the context of the recent riots. 60% of those rioting were working. Is that the symptom of a hard working society?


Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

I Hate James Bartholomew

Know the Tory mindset: according to these creatures welfare breeds dependency. Meanwhile they do not want to set a minimum wage, they do not want to create legislation to protect the un - and under - employed from the predations of the system they benefit from. That word is chosen deliberately, because they like benefits for themselves - the ability to sack whom they like, when they like and how they like. In this UKIP are the same. This is the febrile heart of the right wing.
Yesterday on 5 Live's laughable morning phone in - bigots drink for free - another right wing excuse for a human, James Bartholomew, revealed another aspect of their nasty prejudice and staggering ignorance. Not surprisingly this vile creature was once a banker. He writes (if one can call it that) for the Telegraph and though I don't know the content of his ballot paper, I dare say I can guess. He props up every tory myth about the unemployed and welfare with dull witted aplomb.
He believes people have …

Still Going

I started this blog thinking I could do something useful, provide some decent citizen journalism, or at the very least offer something credible for, at the risk of stroking my own ego, posterity. But in truth I have found it very difficult to keep up with my own standards. This is true of all the writing I engage in. It isn't that I don't enjoy it, or that I don't know how (YMMV), but that I just struggle to maintain the concentration. This is part of the problem, mental health-wise, that I have tried to address in recent years; all to no avail. Unfortunately it is simply perceived as an excuse by our society. In response to that, I offer none. I am what I am, and if that means I'm lazy then lazy I must be.

I was due to have a WCA on the 7th; instead I rang and said I couldn't go through with it and that they could pursue whatever consequences they saw fit. Curiously they offered me the opportunity to postpone the interview, which I did, though I'm not sure why…