See Me After School!

I wish I could take credit for this, but sadly no. It is a glorious deconstruction of Herr Ratface Grayling's letter to Polly Toynbee.

Hypocrit much, Chris?

Fare, What's Fair?

The Workfare leviathan rumbles on, like a riderless horse. The public (that's us, the group the Tories hate the most) are shining light into this murky world, and it's about time. Next Saturday there are to be demonstrations against this iniquitous and scandalous scheme. No doubt the likes of ratface Grayling will label those participating as job snobs or SWP troublemakers and the like as he has done all week. His appearance in the introduction to a piece by Newsnight (21/2, right at the start) is telling. Watch his body language: his eyes give it all away as they look away when he finishes speaking. Even he knows full well this is all just about corporate power.

My advice to those participating (and, though I hope to god otherwise, that may well be me) is to become the least employable candidate. I don't mean cause trouble or make the workplace you are sentenced to attend dangerous, that would be stupid. But let your self worth dictate your course of action: you are being used, stand up and be counted. If they want you to work, then they should earn that right, not get it given to them by a coalition of crooks. Meanwhile, pleasingly, many big high street names are withdrawing publicly from this scheme. I say publicly, beause who knows what goes on behind the scenes.

We are fighting a thankless war here: the public, we are routeinly told by the likes of the ridiculous Policy Exchange (who use that as an excuse to advocate further tightening the thumbsrews), are not on our side. Yet those that find themselves unemployed, as evidenced by the 5Live debate, quickly discovered how pitiful their benefits income was. Meanwhile the media propaganda continues: Question Time last week featured a dismal turnout from a panel almost wholly in favour of workfare. One lone labour speaker's disapproval was met with thunderous silence from the Tunbridge Wells audience. Much the same could be said for it's sister show, Any Questions, the following day, with the exceptioon of Kenan Malik who fought desperately against not only the same kind of apathy, but a disturbing impersonation of tory policy from Sarah Tether.

What I have noticed throughout these venomously biased debates is how the undercurrent of demonisation is unchallenged. Every single person advocating this nonsense quite happily criticises the young (not that this scheme is limited to the 18-24 demographic, far from it) in the most appalling terms. Their anecdotes are replete with accusations and assumptions: they are unable to keep time, they are lazy, they sit around playing xbox all day, they can't write, they can't read, they don't want to work, blah blah blah. Such comments are always made by people that claim they are businessmen, so of course we don't dare criticise them. But when someone talks about an experience with a 'youth' who stopped turning up after their dog died, we are compelled to believe that the problem lies with the youth in question, and not at all with the businessman or his working practises/environment.

Of course there's every chance that those whining that they are sent people who are useless are the problem themselves. There's also the fact that the jobcentre will compel everyone and anyone to apply for a given job, so the businessman will have to interview people that aren't suitable amongst those that are, contributing to a skewed perception of the labour market. That of course is unfair on those people concerned - and indeed the employers - it's a waste of everyone's time, but if we don't do as we are told, we lose our benefits.

Then there's the issue of workplace health and safety, which, despite the best efforts of tossers like Richard Littlecock, is an important issue. The Tories see such trifles as mere employer safety as an inconvenience, a cost the self made man is burdened with: another of the state's shackles. But what rights do workfare slaves have with respect to workplace regulations and thus insurance - are they insured? Who covers this? Is it further expense passed onto the public purse that the big corporations can avoid? That can't be right; workfare will end up costing way more than just paying someone their benefit and letting them get on with it. But that can't be allowed to happen, in the Tory worldview. It's bad for the soul. Or some such bollocks.

As for me. Well the battle between GP and Work Psychologist goes on. It's a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. They are both, in their own way, happy to say they are supportive and that they want to help, but when it comes to actually providing help and support they shy away. I'm still waiting for the full report from The Psychologist, but even that won't do much because she has made it quite clear it's purpose isn't to highlight genuine issues that must be dealt with, supported, and at least respected by an employer (which in the current climate, an employer's market, won't happen). Likewise the GP is all for seeing Work Psychologists and attending Work Programmes or Work Choices but doesn't take anything I say seriously or even really listen. He'll happily slag ioff the local CMHT (and he may be right to do so for all I know), but then when I explain how CBT hasn't really helped (it requires you develop a level of awareness to step outside of your thoughts when you experience difficulty I haven't mastered) I'm told I'm not making any effort. The bottom line seems to be:
"Yes we're here to help; we want to help."
"OK, so what help will i get for non verbal learning disorder/ADD/Dyspraxia/Aspergers and/or just plain anxiety/depression?"
"Oh if you can't be bothered to help yourself and work then we can't help you."
"Right, but how?"
"You're just lazy."
It's a no win situation.

Workfare Again

I say again, I've probably spoken about this, one way or another, more times than I can actually remember on this blog. I find this issue just extraordinary: I simply cannot understand how anyone can genuinely think it's a positive for society. It totally blows my mind. Obviously the Tories do; over the weekend DWP unterfuhrer Grayling tried to qualify the rules, but succeeded only in contradicting himself. (That link comes from here.) He said that people won't get sanctioned unless they walk out of these schemes, having agreed to partake (though the voluntary aspect is still unclear), at the eleventh hour. He quickly followed up by saying there are also limited sanctions for those that don't partake at all, or who quickly back out within the cooling off period said to exist. It's deeply confusing. But then so is the Coalition (isn't that the sort of name dystopian SF writers use for their far future machine tyrannies?)

All this comes from the revelation of a job, advertised by the DWP on behalf of Tesco, for a nightshift worker. It's exploded - quite rightly - in the media, right in Tesco's and the government's face. It is an appalling example of the state of our capitalist economy: millions out of work and the best that Thatcher's children can do is offer a multi-billion (that's billion, not million) pound organisation, the largest private sector employer in the country, free labour. Well, not quite free, the taxpayer is paying their wages - as well as their expenses, and covering the costs of health insurance as well as paying the pimps that place unemployed claimants who have no say in this (let's not be coy, Mr Grayling), including the Jobcentre. Who said recession was bad for business?

Now, I might have some (very limited) sympathy if the position advertised was more clearly an experiential position, or if the claimant had some say in where he went. But that is evidently not the case. This is pure and simple about getting cheap (ie free) labour in to do a pretty low end job. If the position wasn't listed as permanent, and saw the claimant visiting with every department within a supermarket, so that he gets to experience not just the shop floor, not just the stockroom, but the head office and the manager's desk, then maybe -

Well no, scratch that, I would of course have zero sympathy. A 30 hour job at the NMW is at least £180 a week (which itself is a crap wage, and the Tories would rather the NMW was removed as a supposed barrier to employment) - not £67! Once you open this door, it's a Pandora's box that can never be closed. This is a slippery, slippery, slope and we must not allow it to lead us to where it will inevitably go. If we are going to pursue a policy of not paying people a wage, in our continued race to the bottom under this Tory-led nightmare, then what hope do we and future generations have.

This is forced labour - slavery, plain and simple. There is no positive out come here. To call it work experience is misleading - the claimant is working. The idea that, because it's all about getting valuable experience (of a single, low skilled, task), shouldn't exclude paying a wage. The two aren't incompatible: the worker will still get that experience as well as the perhaps even more valuable experience of earning a wage, which is what all this is about. Obviously not, as far as Tesco and the government (that means the liberal democracts have just as much muck on their hands from this as their Tory masters) are concerned. It is deeply iniquitous to keep someone shackled by the welfare system - with all the negativity that brings, all the social opprobrium and self harm - while at the same time having them work for you. Whatever people think, this night shift worker is in a job. The idea that they need to do this to get valuable experience etc is completely countered by that fact: they are working. The only problem is that their boss, big fat Mr Tesco, can't be bothered to put his hand in his pocket and pay him. He can't be bothered to present the slave with a proper contract of employment (giving him proper rights and protection that we, otherwise, have to provide). After all what happens if the worker is injured on the job? Well obviously he gets handed over to our increasingly privatised NHS (or what's left of it) and another slave is shipped in from the urban colonies. This is wrong on so many levels I fear I might fall down if I think about it too deeply.

And yet there are plenty of people that cannot see this. We have a depressed labour market and dreadful economic conditions and so these schemes, they enthuse, are even more vital. Work is so important to people that we must keep them working, even if we can't (ie won't) pay them. Again the message from our 'betters' is that work is good for the soul and that without it one will malinger and fall into indolence. It's the neo victorian, puritan work ethic, born of a christian/religious mindset. I find this depressing, I find this limiting and I find it offensive. But lest we forget, this is nothing new: jolly James Purnell back in Labour's day was all for schemes like this. Labour were tough on claimants throughout their time. In fact it's another example of the Tories' dishonesty that they secretly take credit for the current harshness of the system, when in fact most of it they inherited. At the same time they happily blame Labour for the supposed 'something for nothing' culture (irony overload!).

Lastly, have a look at this. These are the guidelines for those providing the Community Action Programme. This will be a 6 month sentence (30 hours a week, again, of workfare for those that 'fail' the Work Programme. So, survive that (which also includes the chance of workfare) and you get to go through this scheme; all designed to help you back to work. The government claim it's intended for claimants to give something back to society, to help in their community (and take work away from actual tradesmen and artisans, of course, who cannot possibly compete with free labour). Sounds like Community Service doesn't it! Those guidelines include some very sinister elements: such as:

Mandation is there to use as a tool to ensure that claimants do what is required of them.
Whilst on CAP, the participant is required to attend the Jobcentre for Fortnightly Job Search Reviews and to confirm that they are continuing to meet JSA conditionality (actively seeking and available for work). (somehow fitting in an inflexible signing time with work time will be fun - and the responsibility of the claimant, not the JC/provider.)
A2.4 Examples of organisation types that deliver direct/indirect benefit to the community (does that include the claimant?) for the purposes of this section include;
•Local Authorities and Councils
•Government Departments and Agencies
•Charities and third sector organisations
•Social Enterprises
•Environmental Agencies
In addition to providing the 30 hours per week participation on a work placement you should maintain at least a minimum of weekly contact with each participant and have the flexibility to deliver up to 10 hours of additional provider-led jobsearch support each week. (That's on top of the placement, and finding the time to actually sign on.)
A participant who is absent from their placement (e.g. short term sickness, domestic emergency etc), will still need to complete 30 hours work experience in that week to enable you to count this period as one of the completed weeks.

I note that, while travel expenses are meant to be covered, there is no mention of covering the cost of food. So if you can't afford to prepare a decent meal to take with you everyday (which, given the amount people have to live on on JSA isn't unlikely at all, when it comes to taking meals with you to work). Childcare expenses are also mentioned, but they can only be paid to a licensed carer - and that means friends and family, if you want them to get subsidised, must be so licensed.

Unfortunately for us, the Tories don't. I wonder how many positions within Tory or Libdem Head Office or the Houses of Parliament exist for 'work experience'? Funny how it's only ever limited to shelf stacking or sorting clothes in a charity shop (and the third sector's involvement is a discussion in itself!). Meanwhile Boycott Workfare! As you were.

The Myth of the Just World

Following from Thursday's surprise call from the jobcentre I had my signing yesterday along with meeting The Psychologist for the outcome of the test. It's all somewhat confusing. Though signing went smoothly I'm still not really sure where I stand with respect to this test. She seemed to indicate that I have something called Non Verbal Learning Disability which, I'm told, is a newly discovered neuro-diverse condition (if indeed that's the appropriate word) and that I may also have ADD. It all seems to be about tendencies: getting a concrete yes or no seems impossible and, I get the feeling, inappropriate. Unfortunately the system requires that degree of certainty (as do I, quite frankly).

A preliminary questionnaire answered from the first appointment prior to the test itself led her to conclude that I suffered from anxiety (duh) and depression. Now I can't attest to whether I feel the latter (I'd say more frustration than depression, but I can't really be objective). She was surprised and concerned I wasn't getting treatment for this. I explained that the CMHT aren't interested and that my GP isn't much better. He thinks the CMHT are useless and has said that they wouldn't see me for a routine diagnosis of such a condition (I had asked). This is compounded by his belief that 'getting a job' would cure my addled mind - and therein lies the problem.

I'm still not really any closer to any kind of solution, or even a diagnosis. She went through the test results, but I didn't walk away with some kind of certificate - ie a concrete diagnosis of something I can take to my GP (or indeed anyone) to work with. I have a letter from her with the promise that the results will be made available to him, though I suspect that an actual result - a diagnosis - won't be forthcoming, and she made it clear, after the test, she wasn't qualified to diagnose Aspergers. What does any of this mean: I am told I have (possibly) x or y condition, but then on the other hand that it means nothing, in terms of getting support or help (because at the very least getting a job is the be all and end all).

This is difficult for me to articulate, but it seems that they - the experts - are happy for you to have tests, even be diagnosed, etc, but only insofar as that it doesn't mean you actually have any kind of problem. Society doesn't like weakness and has grown intolerant of weakness: problems, physical emotional or mental, are there simply to be overcome. It's just easier to tell someone that getting a job would solve their problems. My GP tells me that 'if you could find the right job (so to speak) it would be better for you'; consequently writing sick/fit notes is seen as anathema - it makes things worse. They simply believe you will otherwise whither and die presumably in front of Daytime TV on cannabis. I find that insulting.

This realisation exposes the truth of the right wing agenda as it's based on the just world fallacy - if only you could find the right job everything would be great and all your problems would be healed. There's an almost Christian ring to it, but that should come as no surprise of course: much of our current thinking is based on Christian social ideology - work now reward later. Of course that's a means of control, which is why the likes of Eric Pickles support it.

The truth is that I can't ignore the problems I have - that's why they are problems. Certainly I can try to overcome them, receive help to do so. However in that I am only human; all the self help superstar guru rhetoric doesn't make it any easier and doesn't guarantee success in an increasingly hostile social environment in trying to overcome problems. So when I'm given the choice between Work Programme and Work Choices (if indeed there's a difference between them), I have to wonder what the point of it all is. The goal in both cases is the same: pay a social enterprise firm to get me into work. I'm also told that, despite the recommendation of Work Choices, on the basis they exist to help people with problems (to put it simplistically), they aren't specialists in dealing with, for instance, neuro diversity, depression or anxiety. So what's the point? But of course what choice do I have.

It's like being told that you need to learn to drive and then learning that you have a visual impairment that makes driving impossible and then being told you need to learn to drive to overcome it. The whole system, with it's bias toward the marketplace, is the problem. I commented to The Psychologist that my emotional state won't change anytime soon (she said 'in time it will') to make the point that the system is the problem. Another analogy would be comparing it to washing your hands in dirty water - how clean will they be?

I may edit this post as I process all these perspectives over time. On Monday I again see my GP and will of course present him with The Psychologist's report and tell him what she thinks. I doubt much would change; he's ideologically opposed to writing a sick note and I have no doubt he will defensively reinforce his errant belief in the just world fallacy. Unfortunately, what he refuses to accept is that we don't live in the 'but if you....' world, that's why it's a fallacy. Equally unfortunately he, like many others (especially the Coalition), doesn't accept the reality of his point of view.

Work Choices

I've just had a call, completely out of the blue, from the JC disability advisor (who, handily, is never scheduled to work when I'm due to sign). Caught me completely unawares and left me unable to answer as she claimed that my adviser had, several weeks prior with my knowledge/consent, arranged for her to call me. Er, nope. In fact I'm pretty annoyed that I've been lied to like this as at the very least it means I've got to look forward to an awkward confrontation tomorrow when i go to sign on (assuming I'm not being seen by the front desk).

This may seem rather a trivial thing to be critical of, but I cannot deal with being contacted out of the blue like this. Basically she wants to see me, at some point, for a discussion about all the options that are available to someone with health issues. Of course there are no options: I claim JSA and she has no means to alter the conditionality. She wants to talk about the options to the Work Programme - apparently there is a scheme called Work Choices run by either the useless Remploy or some group called 'Pluss'. But really whats the difference? It's always something with them, and it's never the whole truth. They always equivocate when explaining things; for instance after I express some preference for what Pluss seem to be offering, I'm then told there are limited places (handy way to run a scheme to help people!) and that also I'd have to meet some requirements as well, whatever they may be. But I have to go on one of these schemes, so what's the point? Either meet this bizarre conditionality for something that seems more helpful or default to the Work Programme which, by implication, isn't optimised for the needs of someone like me with, shall we say, issues. End result; Ghost Whistler is an awkward sod that refuses to engage (which is exactly what Working Links said 2 years ago, despite the exact polar opposite being the truth).

Well apparenlty the Pluss people can come out to meet people locally. Ok that's a start. Doesn't mean they are any different from the Work Programme - it's all the same thing isn't it, let's be honest. Apparently also there are only a few places on this course; oh I see, so there's the conditionality. Always some stick with the carrot. No limited places on the Work Programme which, I must assume, isn't able to deal with people with health issues (hence the reason for Work Choices as a separate scheme, presumably) despite that being the government's claim. So I'm none the wiser. I'm supposed to see The Psychologist tomorrow to find out, finally, the results of the test I had last month. She knows about Work Choices; in fact now that I think about it, she mentioned it before along with some third option as well.

Frankly it's all confusing and having all this sprung on me at the last minute is deeply confusing. I can barely speak because I simply don't know what to say. In the end I explain that I find dealing with the JC extremely difficult, I mention how they've behaved before and that I don't like people going behind my back to arrange things on my behalf like this. I don't really know why my regular adviser can't tell me about Work Choices or why I need specifically to see the disability person, but that's the only entry route. Of course that doesn't guarantee that Work Choices will be any better than the Work Programme. I think it's all the same thing: providers and their action plans/schemes just out to make money. They can't magic up jobs and will probably encourage me to work in a charity shop as a soft option.

Naturally the disability person isn't terribly receptive to my criticism of the experience and my difficulties travelling in so it gets nowhere. She says that I can discuss this wit The Psychologist tomorrow and go from there, but of course that will be after my adviser (if I see her at all) admonishes me for not immediately making an appointment with the Disability person. But the fact she can't understand why is really central to the problem I have with JC+ as a whole.

This post probably makes no sense, but then I had to get it down right after getting off the phone. Bleurgh.

Five Live Unemployment Discussion

I missed it as it went out live, but I'm writing this as I listen to the iplayer repeat. It's broadcast from Salford in the wake of another rise in unemployment. I guess it really is the price worth paying for the unstoppable juggernaut of Tory ideology. Let them eat cake, eh Gideon?

Ok, so the show starts off with a couple of people saying who they are and how long they've been unemployed. Then suddenly some mouthpiece from Morrissons (nice free advertising there, reminiscent of last Summer's BB3 Jobfest bollocks piece that I commented on) saying they are creating 7,000 odd jobs this year. Of course they won't be saying how poorly paid those jobs are, especially given that the big 4 supermarkets are the third biggest employer (together) and that's right after the NHS. Megabucks for the boss class, free advertising, and shit jobs for the rest of us. Fortunately Sainsbury's have had the sense to pull away from the government's workfare frenzy, not so the rest of them. Does that include Morrisons? I don't know, but maybe corporate shill Richard Hammond might. Or Chris Evans, another vacuous overpaid supermarket millionaire. Mr Morrison's is followed by someone from a utility company I've never heard of, more applause. I suspect the Hangman could receive the same applause if he showed up to offer work.

Now this discussion was first mentioned after an earlier episode discussing the Work Programme. Lots of people rang up to say 'the WP stinks'. Curiously, Chris Grayling's seemed instead to hear 'the WP is the best thing since sliced bread'. Perhaps his radio was affected by the smell of money wafting from the unemployment gravy train.

Now a young chap is talking about his experience applying in a theatre highlights a salient point about the ludicrous nature of some job interviews. The job, apparently, was bar work in a theatre, darlings. We've all had these crazy interviews; one in particular, for WHSMiths, features a board game. This game was basically an empty board save for some random items culled from the shop (the board was empty, by the way, the pieces came from shop stock). We rolled dice and, when we landed on one of these items (the sellotape for instance), had to sell that item to an imaginary customer! I doubt even Lord Sir Alan of the Sugar Apprentice could do the hard sell on a round of sellotape, or a pair of scissors, or a pencil! Everyone palpably felt how utterly fucking stupid it was. I didn't get the job.

And bingo, the first goal is scored: someone comes out and says 'the government doesn't know what it's like' in respect of the pittance that is JSA. But that will never change. It is core to the ideology of the capitalists that JSA should be low. They fundamentally believe that, if it were increased (it's among the lowest rates in Europe), everyone would give up work. They believe that welfare is a lifestyle choice in that respect. Tells you all you need to know about the Tories: know thy enemy. They hate welfare and they hate claimants. The speaker is living with a mortgage she can no longer afford.

Three politicians are introduced: a Tory whose name I can't remember or spell, someone called John Leech (or Jon, I don't know) for the Libdems (so two Tory contributors then) and a Labour person called Emma Reynolds. They are asked if they could manage on JSA and the latter two admit they couldn't while Mr Tory dodges the question. This character is all over the place; he's nervous, and he's on the defensive. I expect him to resort to trotting out the usual Tory propaganda and try and bluster his way through.

Another speaker, more vociferously, challenges Mr Tory to live on Jobseekers for a week. At this point the Tory does indeed resort to type: yes folks it's Labour's fault, they maxed out the credit card. Excuse me, I must vomit. Ok, back. Ugh, sometimes it just takes a long time to get the taste of Tory bullshit out of my ears. Now Emma is talking, in response to that point. Ok, she's pushing at an open door here. To be fair, she doesn't overplay the card. Good move, I'm no fan of Labour but it's their fight to lose (and so far they've lost every time, but then they are no less right wing than the Tories).

The spotlight shifts and a speaker from Church Action on Poverty (something like that) raised the point about work paying by way of mentioning the poverty wages that some people earn. I hope we come back to this issue, but for now a young man called Matt is laying into the Tory MP (Sam someone or other, I'd look it up but I can't be bothered). He knows what's going on; it's privatisation all the way. That's what all this Work Programme (which I'm sure we'll come onto) is all about: privatise the JC+ and give it over to the likes of Emma Harrison to make more money from.

Over to the John Leech now who is, in my view, comfortably equivocating. He mentions Nick Clegg's Work Experience scheme that has had some success (51% apparently) getting people back into work within 13 weeks. I don't know this scheme, but that may well be true, but given the lack of jobs out there, this initial success rate is naturally unsustainable. I think he's being a bit disingenuous here. The jobs will dry up and the spotlight will move away to another scheme in another area run by another provider and so on.

Over to Norman (his name, apparently) from Morrisons; it seems the local community wanted him/them to come up with 'pre-employment schemes' (the usual confidence building bullshit) so they delivered. But what about the quality of these jobs? Supermarket work ffs! Is that really what we want for our society? A nation of supermarkets. I've commented on this before, but I don't believe a job at any cost solves the problems our society has. It might make a given applicant smile (assuming the wage isn't a joke).

Michael, a trained teacher, speaks now. He's noticeably emotional in verbalising his feeling of humiliation - and the suicide of a young graduate who couldn't reconcile her qualifications with her exoperience trying to find work, very sad and sadly very unrprusing. That's the effect of months (years, to be truthful) of right wing propaganda. A society so browbeaten that the supermarket sector can come in and prey on these people. A society so cowed that it believes willingness to do anything is less gullibility (the boss class don't care) and more a virtue. This is categorically NOT the answer, but that's what hardworking Britain's are told to believe by the newspapers that routinely claim to be the voice of the taxpayer and the conscience of the great and the good. Fuck that and fuck their ideology. I'm looking at the DWP jobsearch page as I listen and it's the same selection of crap. Am I meant to be thankful for these opportunities? A job packing petfood? Fuck off!

And now we have some twat that wants to play the John Galt card. "Why do people always blame someone else?" Right out of the Paul Dacre Playbook. The answer is they don't. Move on.

And move on we do (i'm not discussing some upwardly mobile twat's worldview, sorry)...to Hayley fucking Taylor! Oh fuck me, so much for an informed debate then. I wonder how many people will bring up her propagandist crap on tv. That said she is pointing out the damage that unemployment can cause. Well ok, fair enough. But that doesn't excuse that awful populist Fairy Jobmother crap.

Onto the jokeshop, sorry I mean the Jobcentre, now. This should be good - which is the opposite of the opinions provided. They are useless, but that's no surprise to us. We know how they don't help. We hear comments about how the JC staff are themselves looking for new jobs. Some guy, used to work for Connexions, says he's better off out of work than enduring the target driven uber caseload culture! Interesting. I am a bit concerned with the view coming forward regarding how the JC are not helpful and don't do much; while this is true, the threat of sanctions is not being discussed. The implication of further distancing people from society is huge and giving the JC more authority over people regarding their jobsearch efforts is far too dangerous.

I think, now, I'm done. This debate has tired me. It's like watching people flailing around in a pool of water, rather than getting to the real meat of these problems; ie a discussion of the system - capitalism, I suppose. We can talk numbers, we can talk about how the Jobcentre is rubbish, we can talk about how we are prepared to do anything for a job or to look for work. This isn't enough: we need a fundamental change - a sea change - in all areas of society. We need to evolve beyond notions of competition: the audience applauds when one person says they just got a job. Well that's great and I'm not churlish, but that's one job less for others to apply for, and the rest of the cohort that applied for that job will be grilled by the JC and blamed subsequently for their failure to beat that person to the punch. This debate has told me nothing, but for those interested it's up on iplayer on the Victoria Derbyshire show, today, 15/2.

Stuck - Fear of the Marketplace

In the past I have seen a couple of counsellors. The first was a stoney faced old harridan with zero interest whose only contribution, that I can recall, was to say that agoraphobia was dealt with by dumping someone in the centre of town and leaving them to their own devices, as some think you teach a child to swim. At the time there was mention of a diagnosis for agoraphobia as the first attempt to understand my issues. There was no mention of Aspergers or even ADD (or any such thing) and so I asked the counsellor, sat there looking at me like a statue, how you treat this condition. She had made no effort to engage with me, talk to me or ask me anything other than my name and some cursory preliminary questions. In turn I too sat there, confused as to what was meant to happen. It's my belief that the counsellor should lead the session, but what do I know.

Subsequently I saw another counsellor a few years later, via the local GP, she wasn't much better, certainly a warmer personality, but no more helpful. It seems that counselling is really just someone sitting and listening to you. Now that's great - for certain situations only. For me, notsomuch.

A recurring theme was the 'stuckness' of my life. I've often felt like life was - is - like a caul; a barely perceptible membrane that hems me in. This membrane, matrix-like, is created by various social conventions and cultural norms that one either identifies with or struggles against. The most successful people I know are the least sensitive - that's not meant unkindly, it's to say that because they don't really think too deeply, even feel too deeply, they don't perceive that membrane. They get up, do a fairly average job well paid or otherwise, go down t'pub, watch the footie, etc. I have never been that person: I don't like football, I have never really enjoyed the taste of alcohol (save the occasional bottled beer), and couldn't function in a fairly average job. I can't really articulate why, that's the point of the Asperger's diagnosis merry-go-round (that I'm still waiting on), but I feel it. I loved the Matrix, a great action movie but with surprisingly insightful depth regarding the conformist nature of human existence.

Of course most people will regard this as poppycock of the most self indulgent kind. They will think I'm feeling sorry for myself; that I'm lazy. Why shouldn't I have a crap job? Why aren't I prepared to get up and work all the hours a non-existent god sends? Of course everyone else has to do these things. Is that really how we want our society to evolve? Isn't that just capitulation? The tories want quiet acquiescence into slavery - because that's where we are. Slaves to ecnomic conditions: beggars can't be choosers. In some ways I envy those people with less sensitivity, although they probably would choke on how patronising that sounds. Again it's not meant to be. Ignorance is, well, bliss!

This isn't acceptable to me. This is my life and I believe it precious enough to protect from capitalist predation, or marketplace and speculation. I simply couldn't function in the vacancy I viewed earlier on the DWP website. A job stapling papers (or some such, it wasn't, as ever, particularly clear) miles away. Travel would be a nightmare enough that I couldn't cope. I didn't apply, nor will I. But what help is there? Again the DWP offers nothing, but conformity to the 'beggars can't be choosers' idiom. Not good enough in my opinion; if these people are going to hold the purse strings that allow me money to either eat or starve then they have a responsibility to provide me with better choices. This is one of the richest countries on the planet and the best we can do is some crummy adverts in the DWP? No training, no education, no opportunity for self development, no support for doing it yourself. Nothing. I find this laughably ludicrous. I have issues that make it difficult for me to 'take what's given' yet the DWP, and I suspect the incoming (for me at least) Work Programme, are culturally incapable of dealing with this. It seems to me that the WP is nothing but another layer of state funded bureaucracy the populist press can both insidiously rail against and support that offers no real solutions and is therefore egregious and iniquitous by it's own irrelevance.

How can we as a society ever move forward if all we are prepared to do is let ourselves be dominated by business as usual in the marketplace?

Thy Father's Bike

Here is an interesting piece, with accompanying video, from the Guardian. I don't know what the significance of the self help books the article mentions are, but the rhetoric from the provider is palpably ignorant. I find this kind of nonsense self defeating because all it seems to do is set the reader up for failure - and then, when they inevitably look to place blame, get criticised further. In other words, if you don't 'self improve' it's your own fault, and you have to 'own' that. Taking responsibility for your own actions is one thing, taking responsibility for conditions beyond your control and the consequences thereof is another.

I find this very worrying. It cannot be healthy to programme the minds of 'customers' (that awful word again - it implies a freedom that isn't there) to believe, as Richard from the article does, that it's all your own fault if you don't have a job. It's the customer's fault they aren't working. If only they would make the effort; if only they'd get out of bed in the morning; if only.... It's insidious, but this is the tone of the Tory paradigm and it's getting stronger. If only the sick would rise up and work they'd be better, they'd be healed! This is monstrous ignorance!

I don't think this is healthy at all. I think telling people it's their fault they didn't look hard enough - that the 10 applications they made each day last week should have been 11, for instance. It just sounds like an easy out for the provider; an easy way to wriggle off the hook. I think it sets up the 'customer' for a fall which will (further) harm their self confidence, their emotional well being and perhaps any existing mental health problems, such as depression. This is compounded by then compelling them to look harder and to 'keep trying' which will only exacerbate the problem: the more they put in, the more crushing each rejection becomes. There's no room to take stock, to even allow the 'customer' to catch his breath even. Then of course we will see an increased rise in people turning to their GP for a sick note. It's a vicious cycle.

(PS: I notice this site has had 5000 visitors. I hope they've got something from this, certainly as much as I have for writing my lefty loony liberal thoughts and experiences. Thanks for reading!)

Hang 'Em, Flog 'Em, Film 'Em - Rethink

I watched the film again last night, the whole thing. Indeed my reading of Ryan's parents was incorrect. I'm not going to defend the riots, in fact I don't know any progressive speaker that has. Smashing up communities for material goods is giving the Tories and the rich elite what they want. It's self defeating.

In fact it's obvious that none of the people in the film, taken on face value, are bad people. They were just guilty of stupidity. Unfortunately the venomous Tory party and their programmed followers are functionally incapable of understanding events like these - how dare people riot? There's no poverty in this country, blah blah blah, we live in a meritocracy blah blah blah. Unfortunately they don't see how wrong they are. The utterly futile incongruity of stealing trainers and xboxes is proof of this: it's capitalism gone mad. The only thing that should surprise people is that this hasn't happened sooner.

The zealousness of the responses from the authorities toward some of these kids, that's what they are really, even Lee (who really doesn't come across as a thug whatsoever), is the worrying part of this. A young man with a promising army career forced onto the dole, a young girl guilty of picking up (and then discarding) two trainers from an already looted shop out of stupid curiosity, and another that smashed a paving slab (his case is left vague and his mohter has written him off, worryingly), all in jail or given some jail time.

Like the facebook provocateurs their lives will now be forever blighted (especially a conviction for arson, which in reality turned out to be setting fire to a waste bin - inexcusable, but incongruous with the scenes of house aflame). What does this achieve but to further polarise society? The opprobrium was in furious supply when Danielle's (the trainer 'thief') mother appeared on a local radio station to talk about it.

The frightened enclaves of Middle England would rather see a young man's entire career ruined than countenance the dire consequences of not punishing him for buying a stolen guitar in the heat of the riots. This country specialises in excoriating people like catholic flagellants, no forgiveness no surrender. The disproportionate level of the responses achieves nothing only to up the ante for next time. That's how the likes of Ryan see the world, his only mistake is the naivete of thinking smashing up his community will change society.

First World, Worst World

The last couple of weeks, for the welfare community - specifically the sick - has certainly been tumultuous. The government has resorted to shenanigans with Lord Fraud (that's David Freud for those who, blissfully do not know) pulling a late night stunt to get his amendments through after the rest of the Lords sending his bill back to the Commons. Not content with such inconveniences as democracy, IDS and his sloth faced manservant (the Igor to IDS' Frankenstein) have used some new trick called 'financial privilege' to get the bill through - 'It's alive'! I'm led to believe this means that the Lords cannot intervene further. The government won the vote and the rest of us have lost out.

What more evidence do people need that this government, this so-called coalition, is not for the people, but for the rich. The truth of the old adage that says government should fear it's people couldn't be more in demand here. I certainly fear this government.

More evidence you cry? How about pasty faced treasury bullshit artist Danny Alexander signing off the chief of the Student Loans Company's tax arrangements (all legal of course, I'm not suggesting there's any law breaking m'ludd)? Another libdem that's gone from hero to zero; Alexander was once quite vocal in his condemnation of the Work Capability Assessment. How things change; now he's batting for a government that's waging unconditional war on the vulnerable, poor, bewildered and sick. Clegg himself pledges he will put and end to the tuition fees and then when his lot get into power not only do they treble them but Mr Alexander decides it's acceptable to allow Mr Student Loans to avoid paying tax!

Watching this government is like watching Tory X Factor: with the libdems trying their best to appeal to their tory masters to progress further in the competition. The winner is the person that's responsible for kicking away the most crutches, turfing the most families out of their homes, and making the most misery in communities up and down the country.

We are too complacent in this country. I've had lots to say over the last couple of weeks, but my ire has prevented me from organising my thoughts coherently. People don't see the reality of what's going on; even when you spell it out for them. They simply cannot process that, in a wealthy first world industrial success story such as Britain, people can be poor, or hard done by. It must be that people are the architects of their own misfortune: lazy or indolent - that even sickness is a result of some karmic debt owed to such qualities further up the family tree. There are plenty of jobs, we are told, if only the lazy would rise up out of their sick beds and take them. Then they'd feel better: claimant, heal thyself!

Of course the media is complicit in this: i couldn't bear to watch Question Time last night (how middle class of me, but it's a guilty pleasure): accompanying the token government mouthpiece (in this case Alan Duncan) was Lord Pigby Jones, CBI spin doctor and apologist for tax avoidance, and the leader of the Taxpayers Alliance, themselves a tory front. Opposing them was one forgettable Labour politician and the writer of Brookside whose politics I'm unfamiliar with. Where will it end? Last week with Any Questions we had David Blunkett bashing the poor and talking about how people on benefits should be taxed. Didn't bother to mention his financial links to A4E.

We've gone from toxic debts to toxic nation. Hate crime is on the increase. Is it any wonder with the climate of fear and resentment the government and the right wing media has programmed into us? When Cameron appears addressing a working class shop floor and specifically tells them how the unemployed are taking them for a ride. When he talks about how working people should be angry when they see their neighbour's curtains are closed (because that's evidence of fecklessness right there!). Never mind that people should know more about their neighbours - or just get a fucking life and stop being so prurient.

My date with fate has been announced: the first Friday in march, when I sign on, will be my referral to the Work Programme; a full year since the claim first opened. I do not know what will happen, but I'm not expecting miracles: despite all the taxpayers money the government is happy to hand over to the unemployment gravy train, these organisations, which consist mostly of pr types and script reading consultants, have no means to create work, just to feed off the current situation.

My Work Psychologist has no answers (even though she changes her story every time I talk to her). I'm still waiting for her to assess the test I had a month ago. Initially this test was to see if I had Aspergers and that the results, if that were the case, could be taken to the official body to rubber stamp an official diagnosis (no it doesn't make much sense, but neither does she). After the test was complete she tells me that she isn't qualified to test for Aspergers and so thinks I have Attention Deficit Disorder. This isn't unreasonable and in fact is quite plausible as she is also correct to say that there are other 'neuro diverse' conditions that might apply, not just and possibly instead of Aspergers. I don't know. I also ask her what I'm to do with this diagnosis of ADD, should that be the result, and she seems to suggest it's to 'help me decide what to do with my life'. Seems to me she's just another government paid timewaster. She's friendly enough, but in terms of offering help or support - particularly as a psychologist - she's nothing more than a careers advisor quite frankly. Even then she can't seem to offer any advice. I really don't see the point of her frankly, she has offered nothing.

Hang 'em, Flog 'em, Film 'em!

Last night I turned on the tv to find a show about rioters (the traditional kind, not the banksters who won't make it onto cctv). The bbc had managed to find a group of teenagers that had participated in the riots and been caught and their parents (a couple whose kids were inside still). To be fair the show did become less ‘for the gallery’ by the end. But the whole tone seemed to be rather demanding, and somewhat pointless. In fact the premise seemed rather flawed because the only people that would agree to participate would be those that felt some measure of contrition. The ones that didn’t care obviously wouldn’t agree to be filmed (in fact I can’t understand why anyone would, but these are young adults/kids we are talking about).

So a series of interviews to camera are conducted by a disembodied voice asking trite and obvious questions ‘why did you do it?’. We learn nothing about the riots at all. It’s obvious these kids are just victims of the moment – that’s not to say they have no culpability or that smashing shit up is healthy. But they are not rampaging monsters. The whole affair seemed rather pointless to me and its existence solely intended to sate the hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade. I suspect no amount of explanation would ever silence the right wing’s furious barrage of ‘why, why, why!’

I don’t know; what can we say about this? The right wing media is fundamentally incapable of understanding the riots. They cannot understand why people would do this because they only focus on the end result: kids nicking plasma screens. They just cannot understand and will never grasp why. These are people caught up in the moment that have spent their lives within a consumer society run by hypocrisy – and lord knows we need someone to blame. Society now, and this is a quality the Tories love, enjoys blaming people and not allowing people to get over their past mistakes. One poor lad, with tears in his eyes, knew full well the consequences of his action. With a conviction for arson he’s fucked, and he knows it. His father/stepfather (I’m not sure which) as a white man (the lad is mixed race) just couldn’t grasp the lad’s expression of frustration living in London where he’s routinely subjected to the sus laws.

Interestingly, no doubt to the ire of the right wingers looking for the requisite amount of contrition (which will never be enough), one lad didn’t seem too regretful. A burgeoning sense of political activism led him to realise, with the innocence of youth, that society is unfair. He knew he was doing wrong and his mother was visibly uncomfortable, but his father, I have a sneaking suspicion, shared his views. The lad, Ryan, spoke of the behaviour of police and seemed motivated to riot to get back at what he felt was a corrupt establishment and police force. I found it hard to disagree with his views even though he lacked the maturity to realise he was only hurting his own.

In the end the views seemed to point toward the failings of the response. One parent couldn’t get an appeal for her child who will have to serve the remainder of their sentence. Another was on the way to a military career and was now signing on (has since found work apparently). The message being: what has their punishment achieved? More cost for the taxpayer, and thus something else for the masses to complain about.

I did get a sense the programme was more concerned with demanding some form of contrition and apology to the nation from these kids – and of course their ‘failure’ parents. Of course there will be a lot of people watching that will demand nothing less than them be skinned alive on tv and their heads stuck on pikes like the traitors of old. The problem is that until the masses understand what happened and why, we will never learn, and more importantly, things will never change. But I suspect we’d rather watch some kid cry with regret and frustration than effect any change in a society riddled with consumerism, programming citizens with aspiration that will never be fulfilled, and leaving them with nothing. I suspect the public thirst for vengeance (above and beyond a proper measured productive response), fuelled by the Tories, will never be sated. Though I was interested in one rioter commenting that he would do it again - just to observe and to film (and thus show) what it's really like, from the inside. You won't get that view on the beeb.