Who Benefits?

I mentioned before that I was given a job to apply for last time I signed on (last week). Ignoring that it was not advertised correctly (there are two jobs and both are permanent, not temporary), I really do not see how pursuing them benefits me. Of course I was compelled into this, in my opinion, by the adviser. This is one of the biggest problems with the jobcentre: the pervasive air of disapproval that makes you feel you should agree. That and the threat of sanctions, explicit or otherwise. The adviser was pretty adamant I should apply for this. Of course they cannot articulate this beyond a vague belief that it will somehow do me some good. But will it? Let's explore this.

Firstly the job is 12 hours (the other position is 6 hours, so we'll ignore that straight off). I will financially be about £7-8 better off than on the dole. That's not really much of a difference. There are no expenses incurred through working as the job is within walking distance. But of course if I signed off (see below) I would not get any of the extra benefits involved, such as optician costs, dental costs, free prescriptions etc. This is part of the safety net.

More importantly I don't get my stamp paid. This means that I will have to make up the difference from the money I get paid, which is hardly fair. I'm working, but not enough to pay income tax nor NI - but that cost still has to be paid or I don't get a pension. So who is really benefiting if I take this position? The employer gets a much cheaper labour force by taking people on part time in this way because he doesn't have to pay NI for his staff. But that cost must still be paid.

Could I remain signed on? If I did I certainly wouldn't get any money for it. I might still get my stamp paid, but I would still have to abide by the terms of the Jobseekers Agreement, which defeats the point of getting the job. So as well as having to avoid working when I need to sign on (which unless they changed the day would be impossible) I'd have to pay to get there to sign on and still be seen to be looking for work. Is this really the best way to help the unemployed?

I find this a crazy situation. I'm contributuing nothing toward society for doing this job - which isn't even something I aspire to anyway. I don't need to be given work by a shop in order to have meaning in my life, so I find the Tory ideology very suspect (it's about compliance let's be honest), I'm not 'paying my way', I'm not even providing for my future. I'll be either forced to work against my own interests if I somehow managed to keep signing on, or I'll be stuck in a monthly paid job for a pittance. Not only that but if I don't keep signing on (and frankly I don't want to - that's the whole point) then I'm cast adrift from the support that's supposed to be there, through the JC, to help people back into work. The Work Programme is meant to be tailored to help people into proper sustainable work (as opposed to a 12 hour NMW job), but that will not be available to me if I'm cut off from the DWP by working. Of course whether the support programmes such as the WP are any good is another matter entirely, but let's assume for the sake of argument they are.

Then there are also health issues, even in a part time job. When I first visited the doctor regarding my hypoglycemia (or whatever the fuck it is, some kind of metabolic nonsense) I asked him how I would manage this condition while in work. To that day I have not received an adequate response. People, including doctors, just cannot take this seriously. You are told things like 'other people manage', and that, because they do not see this as a serious condition, you are fobbed off. This of course only makes things worse. I still don't know how I'd manage even a 6 hour day without more than a 30 minute break throughout. Of course noone is going to let me take breaks every two minutes, especially in a part time job, but like it or not (and believe me I'd rather not have to deal with this condition) it's a reality I have to deal with.
The fact there is no support, I feel, is actually a factor that works against me. It's not taken seriously enough and so I'm left lingering with no help. All I was ever told was 'take a packet of biscuits with you'; yeah because employers like staff that stand at the till stuffing jaffa cakes in their face.

The final argument is of course the moral one: the 'rightness' of getting people working, even if only for a few hours. That's what I will be told; in fact that's the argument that persuaded me to go through with this even though I knew better. Two 6 hour days is nothing - and that you aren't doing any of the things people value about work (ie paying your way and contributing to society) I'm just cheap labour for a clothing retailer. It's not even as if I'll be working for a good cause - a charity or something that tangibly helps people. It's just selling shirts and shoes!

Jaffa cakes, I'm reliably informed, are not technically biscuits. Life is just too uncertain.

That Shrinking Feeling

Walking back from Tesco, two awkward shaped big bags of quality product in hand, I see a local women's clothing shop with the 'closing down sale' signage in the window. Always sad to see that happen, even as an anti-capitalist progressive liberal scrounger, though to be honest I have to admit that I can't see how such a place could have had much of a future as a boutique in a village. That aside (I'm not an expert on such things) it is sad. I always feel a little tug on the old heartstrings at such sights. They've only been there a few months. You get the impression, with such enterprises, that they are someone's dream venture. That carries with it a certain sense of naive charm (which of course may be completely unfair), so when the shop is seen to be at the end of it's life there's a feeling of sympathy. Besides I take no pleasure in seeing the owner left in debt either, which is always a possibility in such cases.

Returning home I see the headlines about a double dip recession threatening. Another quarter of contraction in the economy. This includes the Christmas period that I seem to recall (not so long ago!) was meant to have been pretty good all things considered; certainly no adverse weather affecting sales. If that quarter is in the mire, then I can't see how the next quarter, which I believe to be the determinant for the double dip status, will be any better.

Another quarter of failure to add to Osbourne's list of incompetence. Businesses such as the aforementioned boutique not getting support and people going out of work. All week we've had the welfare reform bill passing through parliament like a bad curry. There have been defeats along the way, but I doubt that will stop them. not when the likes of Lord (how the fuck he's a lord I do not know) Freud stoop to after hours shenanigans to get his amendments through. It's shameless.

Meanwhile the Work Programme and it's arch-zealot, Chris Grayling, continue unabated. Here is a man who will look at a blue sky and believe it to be yellow if it serves his own, poisonous, interests. Despite stinging criticism from almost everywhere, including all but 2 callers to Victoria Derbyshire's phone in on Tuesday, he simply refuses to believe that the WP is not delivering. The man is an ass. One of those 2 callers was a prisoner and, with due respect, he will find it easier on these schemes because his situation ticks certain boxes that open up doors and funding that aren't available for others. Another caller commented on how his wife's workplace was cutting her hours precisely because of the Work Programme sending essentially free staff to do her job. The government's own statistics estimate an average success rate of around 40-50% while the National Audit Office place it as just under 30%! So where does that leave the other 60+ % that won't be helped by a scheme Grayling and his masters have talked up to the heavens? Well they'll be fast tracked into unpaid work via the Community Action Programme (synonymous with Community Service I should think).

Frankly I see little to hope for right now. This government is conniving and plain evil. I don't see how cutting people's benefits to £26,000 makes for a better society. There are even concerns it's not going to save any money given the costs involved. How does cutting someone's income improve their chances of finding work and their 'employability' (another happy clappy corporate buzzword)? Yet we reward Stephen Hester, of RBS, by giving him a king's ransom! Shouldn't we cut his salary instead? Of course the government will laugh that right out of town.

Meanwhile Ed Merelybland continues his colourless ranting against the government. Come on man, it's an open goal! Even a slumbering idiot couldn't fail to point out that the government is completely wrong on all counts. Yet what happens in response? Cameron, a man I find to be incredibly calculating and snide, plays to the gallery by continuing to harp on about Labour borrowing it all, spending it all and breaking the bank. But here's the rub: in response to the news of a further contraction Osbourne puts it down to international factors. Unfortunately he can't quite bring himself to concede to Labour the same courtesy by admitting that the banking crisis was similarly international.

That's what we're dealing with: a coalition of liars and enablers. The Libdems sit back and enable the Tory government (that's what it really is) to get away with extraordinary policies that threaten thousands. Meanwhile the lying coalition are happy to take credit for labour policies they benefit from (such as Labour's own harsh welfare reforms - they introduced us to both David Freud and ATOS) while blaming them for all our current economic woes while using the same excuses as Labour. Anyone that cannot see Tory hypocrisy and the dissembling true nature of the right wing deserves all they get. I see no future in this country right now. None at all. Stay safe.

Welfare Reform Makes No Sense To Me

IDS is plaguing my ears as I type; this silly bitter little man is certainly and unfortunately no longer quiet. He's a dog with a bone and his attitude; over the last couple of years he's become ever more short tempered and ideologically driven. Now he's on my radio banging the drum again in light of the welfare reform bill and the benefits cap - and he's making it clear, in my opinion, that this cap (and i would assume the rest of these changes), are being punished. This is because, to use his language, those that are not 'doing the right thing', don't deserve to have as much money. I find this obscene. Welfare, in the mind of this awful creature, is a tool for social engineering. A tool of the most odious Tory ideology.

Surely welfare is a function of capitalism. I happen to think it's moral to pay people, living in our system, to have access to food etc, in lieu of a job. But surely the alternative, if you examine this objectively, is chaos. Two and a half (and growing) people out of work, thousands more joining that number last week as well, all without access to welfare beyond perhaps their own savings? Wouldn't that be a recipe for social disaster: in other words increased costs in terms of policing, prison, insurance costs, etc? These people wouldn't just give up and fade away into the background. Their survival instincts would kick in; those unable to get support from friends or family would end up in criminality; be it theft, or even drugs or perhaps even prostitution. I've heard it said that welfare is the price paid for order in society.

It seems to me that welfare reform consists of two things: intervention, in the form of the Work Programme, and cuts, such as the benefits cap, HB caps and everything including sanctions. I've even heard IDS refer to paying benefits as him personally writing cheques for people (ie, he doesn't want to, which is why I describe him as bitter). I find this appalling.

Aside from the obviously failing (good!) Work Programme, the bulk of Tory ideology seems to revolve around the idea that cutting people's welfare income is a good thing. Somehow, thinks IDS, if we gie people less, regardless of the consequence, they will be less dependent on welfare. This makes no sense to me. How does giving someone less of an income than before ever help them move off of it. Also we are ALL dependent on our income; cut the pay of someone in work, like say a public sector worker, and see what happens. Well we've seen what happens: people take to the streets, and quite rightly. Welfare, in the eyes of IDS, is akin to drug dependency. At least that's the language he favours; in reality this is just about making his corporate friends richer (the WP providers) and cutting money. In a capitalist society we are all slaves to our income; we lack the means to be independent and our share of land and resources do not belong to us.

Wouldn't the best solution be to reintroduce rent control? That way people don't need to apply for rents that the likes of IDS don't approve of? Of course that isn't the point: IDS doesn't want people to charge obscene rents, he just doesn't want the people paying them to be on HB. Also these high HB costs (not rents, of course) are the fault of labour as well: people were given all this 'free' money during the last 13 years by bad old Gordon Brown. So we ignore the fact that rents go up over time and at the discretion of landlords and then blame the person claiming for that rent (who won't see the money, it's paid direct to the landlord) for being dependent. These are likely people with kids (they are the ones most likely to be affected by benefit caps) who will then have to up sticks, relocate, make a new HB claim, find a new school, possibly even a new job (most HB claimants are in work). What help will they get for this?

Make no mistake this is purely ideological: this is about cutting money for the poor so the rich can get richer, either profiting from welfare or further money for the likes of The City. IDS claims those that do the right thing (attend the WP or find work, presumably) won't be affected. Therefore he's singling out long term unemployed, people with the least self esteem, self worth and confidence, and publicly hurting them. All for the 'crime' of unemployment. I find IDS and his breed a stain on our society. I think his ideology is holding us back as a society. Like the WP, he champions as the cure for 'welfare dependency' (what about politician dependency?), he fails to explain how cutting people's incomes will actually create work opportunities. I can find no causal connection between the two. But then I'm not a Tory.

Signing on 20/1/2012

Just signed on (I'm in the local library). Gave a whole load of blather about the test I've had with The Psychologist and the doctor. I'm sure it means nothing, but it makes me look 'good', I suppose. It's all a game really: one has to be seen to be doing something. Unfortunately, in the process, I found myself agreeing to apply for a job that I'm not remotely interesting that is also both very low hours (I'd be much better off on JSA) and temporary.

Of course the argument is that it's better than nothing, helps get you 'back into work', and all the usual silly cliches. I wish there was a way out of the system. The job advertised 6-12 hours (they can't even be sure which). Splitting the difference at the NMW gives me around £55 a week. The problem comes not from our 'something for nothing, too lazy to work' culture, but from the fact that there are extra benefits from signing on; it's not just financial. I get the cost of glasses/eye appointments and the like paid for. All of this goes beyond the mere £65 that people receive. While transport costs won't necessarily be an issue, as the job is local, it just seems to me a waste of time. The jobcentre machinery threw this position up, and it's temporary (though it doesn't say for how long), so while people may think it's better than nothing etc, it's just really keeping you in the same place. Anyway I'll ring up the contact number (recruitment line) and see what they say; they've probably had a ton of applicants anyway.

ADD

Thursday today (unless time has confused me again!), the day between yesterday's appointment with The Psychologist, and signing on tomorrow. A brief oasis for me to discuss said appointment as it was a test for 'neurodiverse tendencies'. I think that's the best way of putting it; it's all a bit vague really. When I first saw The Psychologist I mentioned that I was in the process of trying to get a diagnosis for Aspergers to which she replied she could do a test that, while not an official diagnosis, could count towards one - or something. Something official anyway, though bizarrely after the test was completed (took a couple of hours) she said she wasn't trained for Aspergers specifically.

The test itself was a kind of Krypton Factor lite (sans exercise course): a mix of recall, pattern recognition, problem solving, and questionnaire. I was asked to arrange coloured blocks into a prescribed pattern, to spot what was missing from a series of pictures, to guess from a selection of images the next in a given pattern. Some of these were timed. Other tests included answering what seemed like general knowledge questions (for example: who wrote Hamlet, who wrote Faust, name all the continents). Some questions demanded multiple answers including definitions of words and, perhaps oddly, almost moral questions, such as 'what is the purpose of parole?'. There were also tests involving recalling and ordering pattersn of numbers and letters to increasing levels of difficulty.
Following that was a conversation as to what all this means in the context of welfare. Unfortunately this is where The Psychologist becomes less helpful. I have a suspicion that she, through her job and her role within the DWP (as opposed to outside of it) hears what I ask as something slightly different to what I'm asking. At least that's how it seems. I ask what I'm meant to do with all this information, and a subsequent diagnosis pending collation of the results, and...? This seems to hit a wall.

I've asked a couple of times now just what she actually does: what the purpose of seeing her is. In fact I suspect it's slightly different than what the adviser at the Jobcentre thinks. I've no doubt the latter thinks The Psychologist is there to get me into a job ASAP, the same as every scheme or individual you are sent to see. So we talk about the Work Programme as well as couple of other schemes that are available, ostensibly (as far as I can tell), to people with disabilities, but they all sound the same. Moreover, what are these schemes meant to do: I raised the issue that these schemes are questionable, they can't manufacture jobs and there's a great deal of doubt surrounding the efficacy of the WP. But of course she can't give an answer to that. So what does it all mean? Beyond this test, what exactly am I seeing The Psychologist for?
What does she do?

Regarding the test she suspects I might have Attention Deficit Disorder. It is pleasing to see a specialist that is open to these, as she calls them, neuro diverse conditions. The populist press has gone a long way to downplay the existence of such conditions, even including conditions such as Dyslexia! She seems to know what she's talking about (I hope) even though where such a diagnosis, if confirmed, takes me in respect of the welfare system and work. Such a diagnosis doesn't also preclude the possibility of other conditions, such as Aspergers, either. We discuss what ADD means and how it effects people and it resonates a great deal. I point out that the reality is that people with these conditions (or indeed any condition) aren't really going to get special treatment at work: let's be honest, the average employer, faced with a candidate with and a candidate without ADD, is going to pick the one without. That to me seems indicative of the real world. Of course it can be argued that I should not mention this condition when applying, but that is not helpful to me in coping with it in a work environment - and why should I? These conditions aren't to be ashamed or frightened of surely?

This illustrates my fundamental problem with The Psychologist: she just doesn't understand these real world concerns. She doesn't seem able to offer any answer to that above problem and so, in the end, that means continuing to deal with the benefits system, and on JSA being refused for a job - for whatever reason - is always something that isn't looked favourably on. I have tried to explain to her that dealing with JSA/JC+ is just a nightmare; I mentioned that I'm pushing my GP for an ESA referral (ie a sicknote) and he, sort of, agrees that the ESA support group would be the best place, to that end the two of them will hopefully communicate. But that will take time. Again the wheels move slowly and in the meantime we come back to the one core question The Psychologist just can't deal with: how do I deal with the benefits system? They send me to see her and she doesn't seem to really have an answer.

Finally she - at the risk of blowing my own trumpet - comments, in regard of a possible ADD diagnosis, that I'm very capable and talented. This is all very nice to hear of course (and who's going to disagree with such praise when they receive it!), but it just sounds like the sort of rote statement you get when you're at school: "could do better, has a lot of potential, if only he could live up to it, blah di blah". So is there any value in it, especially if she can't actually provide any concrete assistance. I hardly think she's going to come out and say that the test indicates I'm incredibly stupid and untalented, though I suppose that's not a very fair thing to say. But surely, if someone - me - is indeed capable and talented, then what's the point of forcing me to apply for the sort of mundane crap the JC offers? if she can't ultimately help in that regard, where it counts, then what's the point?

Dr Maybe

Just returned from an appointment with the GP where I sputtered out my recent issues as well as discussing, with noticeable exasperation, the overall situation. It's a real uphill struggle for reasons I've probably mentioned before. Again the idea that writing sick note (sorry, fit note) is counter productive and tantamount to consigning me to a life on benefits. Frankly I find that a rather bizarre issue to be upset about: we don't complain when people come into life changing money from other means - inheritance, lottery, born into it (like our illustrious leaders). Noone says that such people, without paid work, are dooming themselves to unfulfilled lives. But when it comes those on the dole, that's seen as the worst thing society can do, hence IDS's current ideological crusade. Of course it's pish; i have interests that I could happily pursue without the need for paid work. We can have a discussion about community responsibilities, but that's another thing. It's a beautiful morning today, especially in the fields away from all the idiots, what more does a human being need?

My GP seems to think that I need to find the right kind of work and that would be the goal. But of course he's oblivious to the reality of the labour market where there are just no jobs around at the moment for even the fully capable and willing. He's ignorant of the capitalist system that creates the scarcity of resources and opportunity (by holding them back for those in charge) that lead people to bemoan the likes of me 'holding out for that special job', you might say. He's oblivious to the JSA system that doesn't allow people the opportunity to 'pick and choose'.
I've explained to him how ESA works and how either you are found totally fit and able (and therefore it's JSA for you), or you are not in which case it's likely the support group (unless you are really lucky enough to have your condition accepted). There's no middle ground for people that have some problems and need to find...the right kind of work.

Now the interesting thing is that he agrees that's what should happen, but the thought of wriing a sick note is anathema. Doctors have been conditioned to think this way for reasons above. Yet that is the only way to get onto the support group, to receive what ESA should offer (and that's no guarantee that it will help because in the end you just go onto the Work Programme the same as anyone claiming JSA regardless of health issues, but I felt it best not to point that out). In the end he's asked me to get my Work Psychologist to call him so maybe there's hope.

Interestingly he thought that, regarding how the system works versus how he thinks it works, he argues that if it's not doing what it should then something needs to be done. But the sad truth is he, understandably perhaps, just doesn't grasp the reality. Unfortunately pointing that reality out just gets you seen as being negative and unwilling to engage (which in many ways is the greatest sin you can commit in the eyes of the system). People like him really do need to open their eyes I'm afraid; if they don't then the rest of us, especially those with the really serious problems, are going to continue struggling. The more people can be made to see the reality of this system and it's iniquitous masters the better. I think, I think, maybe - just maybe - he's starting to get it.

Like Neo in the Matrix, he's beginning the believe. However he did comment that maybe I'm in the wrong surgery - that I should be talking to my local MP. Unfortunately that just points to the naivete of these doctors in their understanding of welfare and the surrounding politics/ideology; not only is my MP a bloody Tory, but he alone isn't going to be able to prescribe a solution. What can he do? Change the system there and then? Slowly turn the wheels and I fear they are grinding me down. I can only hope that The Psychologist can (and will) speak to him and agree that at least trying the ESA route (again) is the way forward. She did say that perhaps I should get another note, though I did point out that the doctor wasn't willing. Will she be willing to convince him? I have a suspicion that really she isn't there to help - at least not to 'get her hands dirty' so to speak. Hers is, I suspect, a superficial role. I will have to put that to the test.

The Supermarket Age

And so begins the golden age of the Supermarket Diploma. A society where this certificate of education is the highest anyone but the well monied ruling elite can aspire to. Don't expect the SD to cover anything beyond basic shop functions - shelf stacking, pricing, bagging, trolley collecting, etc, all that good stuff is surplus to requirements. There wont' be degress in geology for instance, we don't need those in the Supermarket.
Instead we train people to the level of supermarket staff. After all it's good honest work for idle hands.
Then of course the Supermarket expands: because it's staff earn the NMW (which means, to quote Chris Rock, 'if i could pay you less, I would') all they can afford is to shop at the Supermarket. Therefore more jobs become available as it expands like a cancer across the land. Local businesses are consumed, high streets become ghost towns and havens for drugs and alcohol and antisocial behaviour. There will be no entrepreneurship because only China can manufacture the stuff cheaply enough and noone can compete with that for a bottle of 'head and scalp' shampoo, for instance. So there's no need for skills and disciplines beyond working in a supermarket. Such levels of knowledge become the purview of the rich and the best that the young can aspire to is a couple of weeks seasonal work for the Supermarket knowing that they don't even have to offer a wage. The taxpayer foots the bill through benefits which aren't even half the NMW, and so the Supermarket, for a small fee (a bit like the way it avoids tax), gets around the wage laws.
Those that don't want to work for the Supermarket are maligned in the populist press, itself on sale in the Supermarket next to the booze and fags and scratch cards, they are to be feared by those working in the Supermarkets. Either you will become like them through moral incorrectness or through idleness. Then you get rehired for your benefit. Or sent to one the Supermarket's training camps where the same thing happens.
Meanwhile there's a sale on in the Supermarket's media section: you can buy a freeview digital TV for £20. It was made in China by people so desperate they'd rather commit suicide like a cult than be slaves to the capitalist dream, but the clock wont' strike 13 just yet, and people in England need their products. The TV only broadcasts one programme, on the Banker network: Deal or No Deal. Over and over, punctuated by adverts for the Supermarket because every little helps...

Fear is the Mind Killer

...To borrow a phrase from Dune. True though.

Tomorrow I've an appointment with my GP, thanks to a lucky cancellation (god knows when else I would have been able to get an appointment). When I first spoke to a doctor about the fear and anxiety that I'm currently experiencing (and considerably so) as a result of being targeted by idiots (and life in general, it sometimes seems) I was laughed at. The guy just sneered at me - I kid you not. His attitude was awful. Different doctor, to be fair. Same surgery though.

It is just so difficult trying to explain things like anxiety and stress and fear; either you find the doctor understands these issues or they simply reject it. I suspect I won't get anymore tomorrow. I'm fed up trying to explain these issues but the guy just seems to think that getting a job would solve all my problems. Just that. Simplistic and I think naive: 'getting a job would solve it all'. No thought as to what job and whether having a shitty job would only compound these problems. No consideration as to how I would get a job (because until i get one things don't change of course). So again we have this dismissive attitude: 'oh get a job', as if it's as simple as popping down the shop and buying today's paper - though even that has become difficult. I watch my back when I go even to the local shops, I take a different route and I'm mindful who's around. That's no way to live. But if I got a job all this would change - really? Ok, it might get me the money to move away (though on minimum wage that's not particularly likely is it). But still I would have to find a job, and what chance do I have right now?

It's so difficult explaining these issues. It's an entirely personal thing. Stress and anxiety as experienced by me isn't something I can show the doctor; it's not something he can understand so if he isn't sympathetic to these kinds of problem how can he help? This is exacerbated by the current ATOS-led environment where sickness, if you like, equals malingering and work is the great panacea. The puritan work ethic. Right now I feel like I'm on the edge. I certainly can't focus on searching for work. I don't consider myself 'job ready' as the industry describes it - but then I would say that, wouldn't I.

Dealing with the DWP on the other hand is equally difficult: without the official stamp of a proper GP what I say holds less credibility. You find that the advisers take one of two approaches. Either they think you are lazy and it's back to the puritan work ethic, or they respond in a rather cloying 'oh poor you' kind of way that's just patronising. Doubtless with the latter they think they are being understanding, but it's nothing of the kind, at least not as far as I'm concerned. I find it appalling and unbearable. I can't deal with that, it's pretending to a level of emotional attachment between us that isn't there or even appropriate. As someone with (possibly, I should say, we may find out soon enough though) Aspergers, I find it very very uncomfortable.

But the bottom line is you have to look for work. Work solves everything. Being sick, having problems emotionally, psychologically or even physically is all the more reason to get a job. Again this attitude accords to credence to the simple reality: for people without these issues there aren't enough jobs. It becomes something of a downward spiral. The last time I signed on I emailed about a job that could have been done, at least according to the advert, from home, but surprise surprise, no response. I don't even think the job existed. Typically it came from the DWP's own jobsearch site. Something they have yet to fix. Working from home would be a great option, but of course where is the support?

versus Radio Bristol

Good god, out I go for a quick run this morning (I'm not in the mood for it today) and to accompany me I usually listen to the radio. Unfortunately this morning, on BBC Middle Englandshire FM there's the most ignorant woman (I won't mention her name... for now) presiding over a 'discussion about welfare, specifically the legal case Cait Reilly (have I mentioned her case before?) is bringing regarding workfare. Prior to Christmas she had to work for a couple of weeks for a pound store, unpaid. Free seasonal work for said shop - the sort of work Hayley Taylor likes to champion (and the sort that her TV show doesn't tell you is season unpaid slavery)!

Of course the discussion is full of the usual curtain twitching suburbanites, mainly retired, that ring up to air their ignorance and in some cases prejudice of the unemployed. But what annoys me the most is that the presenter chose to not reveal the full facts until well into the discussion (such as the fact that the job wasn't paid). When called on this (finally) by one less ignorant caller, the sense of her indignation was palpable.
I rang up the station and have made a complaint. Apparently a manager is due to ring me back. I wonder what will happen, bugger all I should imagine. Watch this space.

No call back yet. Can't say I'm surprised. Factually ignorant shit stirrer given air time - who'd have thunk it?

Actually did get a call back, so fair does as they say. Programme manager lady type. She was friendly enough, though it was a predictable response 'range of views', 'people's opinions', etc. Yes, well that's all well and good, but it's the job of the presenter to correct people who phone in if they come on air talking guff ( for example, 'half the unemployed are scroungers'). This idea that all views are equal is not really viable; I have no problem with free speech or that people should be entitled to their views, but on a public forum there's a responsibility toward balance (remember the MMR scandal?), otherwise an inaccurate picture is formed. When this is exacerbated by a silly and obsequious presenter I have a problem.

Anyway, that's enough tough guy talk. The issue is going to be forwarded to their news team (not sure why, but whatever) and someone there will be contacting me in due course. I do love to argue.

Oh, and I note that Lord Fraud - sorry David Freud (former merchant banker, former labour welfare 'expert', and now Tory peer - the very definition of loyalty then) - has managed to scam the welfare reform bill and get an amendment through that, despite being voted against originally, affects disability benefits for kids. Apparently this was all done after the vote ended and people had retired for the night leaving him free to take the piss.

Update: someone did contact me in due course. They did admit, to be fair, that a few things slipped through what was a busy show that were not, shall we say, challenged. He seemed genuinely regretful about that. I don't know what his personal views are, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt so that's fair enough. I give credit where it's due though really the problem wasn't the producer or the manager or whomever, but really the presenter who didn't seem, in my most humble of opinions, to be on the ball enough and was a little to revealing of perhaps her own, unfortunate, views. I have no issue with radio phone ins, or even that they are usually dominated by a small cabal of regulars who are a little insular in their opinions shall we say, but when a caller presents a point of view it must be challenged where necessary. It wouldn't have been tolerated had the caller said something equally egregious about an ethnic minority, so why aren't the unemployed and the disabled accorded the same respect?

So I leave it there. I've made my feelings clear and that's good enough, and I'm not narcissistic enough to believe the BBC are going to change for me (though obviously they should). Interestingly he did actually mention the possibility of having me do a piece/talk to some people/talk about this issue in a more official capacity in the future. Not sure how that would pan out as I don't really want to be on the air (and certainly not get a profile as a scrounger - god bless Internet anonymity behind silly nicknames, i mean Ghost Whistler? What a stupid name!). Who knows, but anything that can dispel the constant populist bullshit about welfare is probably a good thing, if I feel up to it.

Some Thoughts

I haven't really felt much like looking for work these past few days. Fear is such a dreadful emotion; anxiety blunts one's sensitivity until all that remains is a cold fixation on the source thereof. You become withdrawn. Consequently arguments for looking for work are too far removed. It's like listening to someone trying to be heard behind double glazing; you can't hear them, and you can't relate to what they're saying. The problem is the outside world doesn't understand any of this. You are like a radio tuned to a completely alien channel.
There is a real lack of support in this society. A complete dearth of understanding, even a willingness to understand. For too long all I've heard is that work is the answer. Even The Psychologist says this. What hope is there? That's too easy an answer. It's the same with the Work Programme. The JC is too reliant on using them to be the panacea to any claimant's woes/lack of work. This, again, isn't helping.
So I looked through the JC jobsearch site as I do most days (it's about all I can do). It's the same poor effort: nothing is organised properly. The jobs are just bizarre: one moment you are looking at a part time cleaner job (too part time really, I've done cleaning before) the next there is a position that requires a ton of experience such as a research assistant or scientist! It seems entirely random. Again, I believe the programmers just grab whatever ads they can off other sites and stick them on.
What I see I just can't deal with. I really don't feel I can hold down a full time job right now. My Jobseekers Agreement is set at 20 hours a week, but the reality is that, with bus fare costs, that just won't be practical in most cases, and I'm not likely to find a job on my doorstep.
I hope 2012 is the year this sytem changes because I just cannot see a future except on the gravy train that is the Work Programme. More and more I'm hearing now about the work for welfare aspect thereof. That fills me with utter dread. At what point does a 30 hour a week ostensibly experiential placement that ends up lasting several months become exploitative? Why is no one asking this? How much experience does one need before people start realising there's something amiss.
Anyway that's all for now. I'd like to moan about Ed Miliband, but he's just hopeless. His speech was the usual wishy washy 'Middle England please vote for me!' cry it always is. He's a lost cause as far as I'm concerned and consequently so are Labour. I think the key to changing the government is to take the scales from the eyes of the LibDems. There must come a point, surely, at which they will wake up to themselves and think, to quote David Byrne, 'my god, what have i done!'. Well you'd hope.

Self Esteem

It shouldn't come as a surprise to hear my self esteem isn't what the government would like it to be. But then I wonder if it ever has. I'm not sure how one defines self esteem: how can I step outside of myself and objectively measure such a quality? I gather though that normally people feel pretty confident about their decisions and that second guessing oneself is not a good quality. Of course it's far too easy to say to another 'pull your socks up lad', or some other trite platitude. I've never found that helpful. To me such attitudes are either sink or swim: you either do as commanded, or you feel that bit more alienated. I've always been the latter.

For the past almost 6 years now I've had to tolerate abuse, furtive innuendo and generally be the unwilling victim of the local yobs. For some reason, and I have yet to understand why or how, I have become not only the local figure of fun (which, while bad enough, wouldn't be as much of an issue alone) but a target for their - and we're talking ignorant teenagers it seems - abuse. They think I've wronged them somehow. I won't go into details: not least of all because I don't have any. I don't know who these people are, I've had no dealings with them in any way fashion or form. Nor do I seek to. Consequently my self esteem, confidence and general mental health, has taken a nosedive. It's a major part of why I claimed ESA until last March. Unfortunately the emotional fallout isn't enough of a motivation for the doctors to do anything.

I don't have any answers to this, and it's still happening. I received the latest whispering and pointing this evening as i went to get some dinner from the shop. It's so easy to hurt others with this kind of ignorant crap. These kids have no clue and obviously don't care. Any attempt by me to deal with them would probably make things worse: I'd lose my cool one way or the other and become a joke to them. Certainly you aren't going to win them over against the words of their mates.

So i find myself, as i try to recover, wondering just how the likes of the Work Programme, with its cake baking courses and flowery pictures filled with positive words and action plans, can hope to address such deep seated issues. Especially in a group environment - something I dread. Do I really want to stand up and talk about this in front of complete strangers or, at the very least, a course provider? Are these people trained psychiatrists and therapists? I doubt it! It's one thing posting here about it (and I'm reluctant to do so even as I type - not least because it seems like self indulgence), but it's quite another to see the face of the person. What would the Jobcentre think if I expressed such doubts? I've tried talking about this to the doctor, but they aren't interested and there's next to no help. Perhaps my new best friend, The Psychologist, can help. If not, I'm going to have to ask some serious questions as to what it is The Psychologist is actually for!

New Year, New Appointment

First day back at the office! Fifteen minutes of the usual, including the predictable 'how was Christmas'. I can't tell if they are genuinely interested or concerned so I give a guarded reply, besides who wants to discuss personal issues in an open plan Jobcentre? No, I've found Christmas this season to be rather stressful; it wasn't enjoyable (are you allowed to say this about the festive season without coming off as self pitying? probably not).

Then I'm informed of a job that may or may not exist (I don't think it does) that the advisor has noticed and thinks I would be suitable for because it lists the possibility of working from home. I don't think the job is valid because the last time this exact employer advertised the job didn't exist then either. Anyway I saw the job on their website a few days ago and emailed anyway. That should earn me some brownie points.

Discussing this job brought up a quick check of my CV. I would rather not have given them my personal details, but I gave the CV in almost as soon as I started signing because, well, I was asked to. There's been much discussion of privacy, particularly around the issue of the Work Programme. However when you're on the spot, surrounded by the JC and talking to a flesh and blood adviser it gets a bit difficult. I didn't have the wherewithal to demand them remove my CV from their records or expunge contact details (which, if and when I get sent to the WP, they will surely pass over) and doing so would only have dragged the appointment on and probably made me look like a difficult customer. One of the golden rules of being a claimant is not rocking the boat - which I realise is a pathetic attitude, but...

So the adviser briefly looks over my CV (which includes the email address that gave Tesco fits in September, though I have changed that). Curiously she comments that I should perhaps remove my date of birth. Curiouser still she says that, not only does it prevent age discrimination, it gies potential fraudsters less to go on. OK that's fair comment, although given that my CV lists my work history etc, removing my age won't mean a damn thing without removing the dates from that as well. Seems like a waste of time, but maybe it's worth doing.

Quite honestly all this fussing over CV's seems to be one of the only things, now, the JC can actually do. Consequently fussing is exactly that; any reason to suggest editing it, changing it or reviewing it is an opportunity for this increasingly irrelevant and ineffectual organisation to do something now that this and the last government's push toward privatisation (which is certainly what the WP is about) has emasculated them.

I mention that I'm to have an appointment at the local surgery with the DWP psychologist (i saw last month) for a test to determine some propensity toward 'neuro diverse/learning difficulties': ie aspergers and such. Apparently she can take the results to the people that issue the official diagnosis to force their hand or some such. I learn that the psychologist has spoken with my adviser and seems to be thinking that I should go on the WP - or Remploy. Now Remploy seems to be the option for people that have some health issues.

I've been to Remploy before. I self referred for a couple of appointments while I was claiming ESA. A waste of time. It's basically the same thing as the Work Programme. Sit on computers doing jobsearches, engage in silly courses in 'employability', or any number of cheap unproductive and ineffectual exercises that don't create work but are easy money for these organisations. I remember telling them I was interested in music (that old chestnut - it's true though!) and they suggested I go work for HMV (who weren't hiring). I don't really see the difference: WP or Remploy, it's the same thing. The unemployment gravy train.

Anyway this is what I face, come March at the latest. One way or the other I'm going to be referred. Frankly the WP, specifically, sounds the lesser of two evils. Maybe I'll get the one instance of the WP that turns out to be helpful, who knows. Certainly I can't criticise it to my adviser without experiencing it. I am disappointed that the psychologist, who seemed to have something of a mind independent to the usual JC bullshit (though she is a DWP employee). Saying that the best thing for me is, basically, to do what the system and the government want anyway, isn't what I call helpful. It's all the more sad considering I said to her, when she asked me what I was interested in, that such was a pointless question considering that I have no say in the matter and that I'd end up on the WP anyway (and that it all sounds like bollocks). I will have to take this up with her when I have my appointment with her. It's time to make it clear just what being a subject of this awful system is really like (I thought I had).

Apropos of ? - Conspiracy Theories

Apropos of nothing (a lovely phrase that makes me seem smarter than I is) I wanted to elucidate further on the way I think. Quite why anyone should care, I know not, but I find conspiracy theories absolutely fascinating. I don't really believe that, for instance, the moon landings were faked, aliens live under New Mexico, shape shifting lizards control the monarchy, or that 9/11 was an inside job/the whole New World Order shebang. Though of course to say there aren't conspiracies would be disingenuous - the plot to fly planes into the twin towers was a terrorist conspiracy after all. Just not the same thing that the 'truthers' believe, who, I've noticed, tend to conflate a lot of ideas: new age and occult themes and symbols (the Tower card from the tarot i've seen used to 'predict' 9/11) for instance the Mayan prophecies concerning this year.

All this fascinates me. There's a channel, on Sky freesat (at least), devoted to all this stuff. Edge Media it's called. It's got an amateurish feel to a lot of the productions, but that lends it a particular charm which I find appealing. It seems earnest, even though it panders to all the usual suspects as well as new agey stuff like ghosthunting and lightwork. Perhaps it's cruel to say, but it's good viewing. They went off air for a while, lack of sponsors, but have managed over the last year, I gather, to reappear. Frankly I don't think they'll last again, but who knows maybe there are some big donors in the conspiracy movement willing to subsidise it all.

We live in deeply uncertain and unsettling times: just look at the headlines of the first few days of this year. Certainly the media colludes with the ruling elite to propagate a certain agenda. That agenda has the left and true liberal thinkers in an almost complete stranglehold. We are told that money is scarce, but we can also print it on demand to hand over to the banks for them to further gamble on things as intrinsic to human existence as food prices. We know that governments hide things - and sometimes with good reason (at least I can give that notion the benefit of the doubt). Curiously, many years ago, I saw a programme about the Bilderberger Group who are synonymous with conspiracy theories over the past century (some cabal of the rich, powerful and influential). There was a group of cameramen and conspiracy followers camped like paparazzi outside the hotel where the group was apparently holding it's latest meet. They managed to film members as they were shuffled onto waiting coaches to take them...somewhere, and there, in full view like a rabbit in the headlights, at the back of one of the coaches was Peter Mandelsson!

Whether that has any intrinsic meaning, I don't know. He meets people all the time (just as George Osbourne). He also seemed to have a curious influence, over the last decade, over the Labour party, rising like Dracula to his brides to do whatever it is he does. Makes you think at least.

So it's no wonder these views take root in people. being a member of the 'truth club' has all sorts of appeal: you are with like minded people and you are at the forefront or cutting edge of something ostensibly positive. But the bitter truth is that a lot of these people will refuse to countenance evidence simply because it comes from sources as mistrusted as the status quo. This is the legacy of our politics: liars and crooks have become the boys and girls that cried wolf once to often. They have forfeit their credibility through their own failings and so the truth about 9/11 is believed not to be the failing of US intelligence and the effectiveness of Jihadi terrorism, but a wholly implausible government conspiracy. All sorts of fallacious arguments are used as evidence for these theories while similar logic is criticised in the official line. The hypocrisy is unfortunate.

People need to belong. They want to feel they are doing something positive or at least living that way - or just saving a few bucks (after all, why spend money investing in solar panels, fancy lightbulbs etc when global warming is a conspiracy?). As I said, I don't believe these theories, by and large, but I wouldn't turn someone away if they wanted to show me evidence that disproved the official line. But then I wouldn't assume that, because they claimed to have evidence, it would be valid. If we lose trust completely, we might as well give up. Besides, I admire anyone that questions things. We must always question.

Byrne Out or Fade Away

So Liam Byrne, shiny headed note writer extraordinaire, has created a shitstorm of ignorance in the Guardian this week. This following on from Ed Milibland's comments in the Mail (hmmmn), it seems that Labour are eager to step into the ring with the coalition and talk tough on welfare. Just sounds like the same old Middle England propaganda to direct focus from where blame lies (the ruling rich) to the poor. Tough on benefits, unfortunately not tough on the causes of benefits; it's an article that seeks to do nothing more than to hide behind the spirit of William Beveridge and do little else. No solutions or suggestions are offered so the implication is as I've stated: scroungers are scumbags, let's get tough!

Byrne implies that he thinks, quoting the B Man (about whom I know admittedly little), that benefits should ultimately be conditional. After a time one should go to a...well it's the Work Programme isn't it. He's just parroting the Tory line, disappointingly. Worse he's doing what all these politicians, especially the coalition have done, criticise the benefits system then say we need to do x even though x is what's already happening. We need to get tough on 'something for nothing' even though that's how the system works. Claimants don't get 'something for nothing', they have to prove they are looking for work and satisfy the bean counters at the Jobcentre and their notoriously jobsworthian attitudes. Thus the implication is even that isn't enough to satisfy the state (and by that I mean the media manipulated masses), so they should do more - like work for their benefits. Increasingly the value of welfare is lowered in this race to the bottom. So welfare isn't a safety net, it's a means to subsidise dodgy employers, big business and low wages. None of this, like the Work Programme or places of education (low level education of course; there's no chance the government will fund university places, for example, for the out of work), will create decent work for people to actually do, in fact work fare does quite the opposite.

Byrne comments that the government's plans to axe disability benefits contravene the original spirit of the welfare state. He of course forgets his own government's part in the creation of the insidious Employment Support (it does neither) Allowance or the rise of the incompetent and iniquitous ATOS. The disabled - ie those particularly and specifically dependent on state provided incomes - are the current bogeymen. Adding these people to the JSA list has got to be nothing short of a fool's errand.

In the end Byrne is just playing in the mud of capitalism. I'm no expert on these systems, nor do I claim to be. But it just seems glaringly obvious that the current system, with it's aristocracies of wealth and privilege, are completely broken. They have failed us. We had more quantitative easing last year, it went straight to the banks. Will this year see the same thing again? I wouldn't bet against it.

I'm fed up with the increasing militancy of the anti-welfare sentiment. Time moves forward - it's 2012 - but attitudes (ie the PM's vaunted 'christian values) have regressed. Living on welfare is not a holiday and those that think it is will never understand things like the riots last year. They will never understand inequality and antisocial behaviour. Things will never change.

It's time to do away with these politicians: reject them en masse. We owe it to ourselves and our children to turn away from the scarcity economics and poverty thinking - the 'I'm alright jack, keep your hands off my stack' attitude - of modern capitalism.

Tomorrow is my first appointment of the new year at the Jobcentre. Again the fear and loathing settle in. Another day of getting little done out of anxiety. This is no way to live, but, on welfare, it's the only way to live; the only game in town. It's clear now that doctors aren't interested; mine don't seem to want to get their hands dirty. Fall through the cracks in this society and a dark bottomless pit awaits you. The worst thing is that many people know it exists, but just shrug in lieu of an alternative. That pit and those cracks are only going to widen over the course of this year.

Nom, Nom, Nom!

Tuck in Britain, your friends in Government (friendship not included) have provided the means for you lazy poor shmucks to eat proper like.
Unfortunately that doesn't mean fois gras, duck a l'orange, or truffles. What it does mean is that it's going to publish some healthy recipes for us all to eat on the cheap. To that end, it's going to 'encourage' three supermarket chains (Aldi, Asda and The Coop) to offer discounts. What will be discounted and for how much? Er, well that's down to the supermarkets.
A lean idea for a leaner Britain that Diane Abbot correctly identifies as grotesque. She points out that the government could issue vouchers people could use specifically. Instead it's big business as usual.
Every day I wake and wonder just how the government can trump itself, and every day it does. What's next, bully beef, powdered eggs and ration books? Dig for victory Britain - we might give you a few pence off a spade!

New Day, New Year

Happy new year.
Was 2011 the starting course? Will this coming year be the main feast? I think it will. Change is so desperately needed in our society, deep and fundamental change. We can't go on limping along using the same tired platitudes and values as a sticking plaster. Things have got to be different.
Hopefully the Occupy Britain protests will evolve into something positive and bigger. I don't think muddy camps are going to be enough now. Hopefully we can take the scales from off people's eyes so they can see just how much they are getting shafted every day.
It's time we took the fight to the right wing. Is that divisive? Probably. But we've had months and years of the right wing and it's hopeless empty ad hom insults. That's their stock in trade; they have no argument any more. Everything they believe in has been shown to be a lie. Shown to serve only very narrow self interest.
I'm tired of being made to fight over the same pitiful few scraps thrown by the corpulent capitalist masters as they use the economy as their banquet table. These people, millionaires who've benefited from the best that society (and in many cases family or the old school tie) can offer, free education for instance, are telling us we are all in this together. Trying to make us feel good as we fight for those scraps. Meanwhile the media tells us we're scroungers for not fighting hard enough - as hard as others, for instance a wounded soldier; that we should aspire - but only enough to buy the latest toy or bauble. This is all wrong. It's unhealthy and it cannot continue.
I'm past the point of forgiveness now. I will never vote Libdem ever again. I believe they are the linchpins in this whole mess. But Clegg has sold his soul. It's been said a million times, but that makes it no less true. Yet even having enabled his former political opposites to gain the majority of the positions of political power, he is still seen as somewhat risible by his coalition partners. He must know they don't take him seriously, so where does that leave him. In a very lonely and pathetic position having mortgaged the country's future for his own gain. He can't possibly think they have a future beyond this coalition. Their turnout, despite the so called 'Cleggmania' of 2010, was just poor. It certainly won't be better in 2015.
We're almost half way through this parliament and what has changed (for the better anyway)? The world's economy is collapsing. We are still pursuing a militarist mindset - complete with dreadful propaganda (the military wives choir? Dear god!) such as Armed Forces Day (where kids can play on howitzers next to bouncy castles). How long till we invade Iran? What's the next US invasion we will hang on the coattails of? Meanwhile welfare is being slowly dismantled along with the NHS - in direct contradiction to what was promised during the election.
We've got to fight. I don't think there can be any equivocating. If we lose our welfare system then this country will be finished. This government seems hell bent on letting American policies in by the back door. American style healthcare, welfare (to work), and social justice. I don't want to end up like the US. We should be moving forward not backward. Time to consign capitalism to the dustbin of history.