Changing Attitudes?

Ed Miliband surprised me the other day with his welcome comment that Britain needs a better attitude toward mental health. While I'm no closer to being his greatest fan, any such comments, assuming they are well intentioned, are to be welcomed. Especially when they come at the expense of cretins like Jeremy Clarkson.

This is a man - a professional journalist (although that's being generous) - that believes people committing suicide on train tracks are selfish. He claims sympathy yet refers to them, bizarrely, as 'Johnny Suicides' which strikes me as especially flippant.

This is also a man that, live on the BBC in the wake of the public sector protests of a year ago, said of such people that they should be shot in front of their families. So Clarkson speaks of his concern of the traumatic effect of a suicide on train drivers but advocates that relatives should witness the brutal murder of their family members - while the BBC production crew laugh. Is there more odious a cunt? 

On a related note, this clip (ignoring the horrendous nasal twang of the DWP representative) features a most welcome comment from an MP I don't know (the Scottish lady in the wheelchair). In this discussion about sanctions she raised the point I've made before a few times that some people with mental health issues (this is not just confined to mental health of course) aren't ill enough to pass the WCA and claim ESA (skip to about 8 minutes in). This was in the context of such people struggling with the system falling foul of the regime. Could this be a ray of hope? After all, the Universal Credit system will be a disaster as it stands; we can see the representative struggling to comprehend the problems his department faces and the paradigm that creates them. But the fundamental question remains: how do you help people that get sanctioned? What then? All the government sees is "we're being reasonable, tough luck, what do you expect us to do...just give out free money?"

Lively Up Yourself!

Because Atos is not good!

Bad Morning Campers!

There I am doing my morning pressups (don't laugh) and who should grace the airwaves but the archfiend himself, Ian Duncan Smith. In an extraordinary interview with John Humphrys (whose welfare programme from around a year ago he praised twice) he managed not only to claim that the lingering deficit of the UK was due to people not working, but also that the unemployed were destroying the lives of taxpayers supporting them. He didn't seem to want to recognise the reality that there are a 'vanishingly small' number of people apparently (which is about as accurate as it gets) bearing kids with no willingness to work before finishing off by saying that it's a kindness to treat the unemployed the way they have (because of course Labour let them languish on the dole, yes that old chestnut). This was led by a piece from south wales featuring a number of people out of work all saying the same thing: where is the help? 

Then, from Channel 4 news and recorded by the Guardian, comes this thoroughly bizarre interview with Emma Harrison, whom I presume has some physical dependency on the media spotlight. Given her withdrawal from A4E her need to be in the media in some form can be the only explanation for her insane performance. Remember this (unfortunately the uploader seems to be a racist)? That's the show where she 'ummed' and 'ahhed' here way through an interview where she claimed, as she does here, that she doesn't know this or that and that, despite the footage of the total uselessness of her company, she hasn't the answers she is being paid to deliver. What a pathetic whiny little mare. The audacity of the woman, happily taking huge dividends in return for delivering a service that, to quote the interviewer, is statistically less successful than doing nothing.

The Quality of Jobs 1

Something I've noticed, as I look at yet another DWP jobsearch advert, is that a lot of vacancies link to the company's career page. This is fine, in my opinion. We're all about the interwebs these days, even on really old dinosaur computers like mine. But I've begun to notice a trend that I initially regarded as just typical laziness in inputting these adverts online, on the part of the DWP. They link to a career page that doesn't exist. Instead you get to the company's main page and then have to navigate your way through.

However the one I'm looking at now (FHind the Jewellers) doesn't even have a career page. Yet the links on these adverts are all the same: "www.companyname.com/careers". 

I'm beginning to wonder - though perhaps I'm getting even more paranoid these days (wouldn't be difficult let's be honest) - if these adverts are generated for less than honest reasons. It's as if no one checked to see if there was even a vacancy to begin with. That can't be true surely? But why would "company name" give the wrong website info to the JC to advertise their job? Maybe they're all that incompetent!

Fareness

Gideon Osbourne attempts to dodge paying a compulsory £168 first class rail fare.

IDS attempts to sanction people out of £140 a fortnight, or at the very least pay them as little as possible.

That rail fare is about 10% of Osbourne's weekly wage, on top of his expenses and savings (which are millions as he's a trust fund boy).

My bus fare to get around, once a week which is all I can afford, costs 10% of my earnings of £70 dole money.

One of us doesn't have a choice. One of us doesn't get to say 'do you know who I am?' like it mattered.

Tech No

I feel out of the loop these days. I was visiting my friend last night and he has all the gadgets going, as do his partner and kids, even the young ones. They have their smartphones, ipads, laptops and blackberries. Sadly they all spend their time with their noses stuck in facebook which I find a bit antisocial. I do wish people would take the time to properly integrate technology with courtesy, but there you go. 

Apparently even the kids these days need laptops for school. I suppose that's reasonable; can't expect them to keep using abacuses and slates. But of course today's schoolkids have all this stuff brought for them as a matter of course, and why not. I'm not technophobe, but I don't have any of this. I have nothing with an 'i' in front of it and my PC is years out of date. It couldn't even run the latest Windows, i shouldn't think (which of course I have no hope of affording). 

When I was a kid the most advanced piece of kit was a cassette walkman that could play the tape on both sides without physically turning it over. Walkmans were fantastic. I even have a box of cassette albums in the loft I have absolutely no means of playing anymore. We never had the Internet, or even home computing. The most advanced PC was a Commodore 64 which I used to play games. Over the course of 20 years we have had a revolution in technology that's brought us smartphones, tablets and wifi. All of these are things people today learn to use and own as a matter of course. I don't even have a mobile phone - in fact the term mobile phone is anachronistic having been superseded by smartphones. I did have a mobile, but the cost of maintaining it coupled with the crap local reception rendered it useless. I could probably get a cheap handset and a pay as you go tariff, but it won't be any different. 

All of this leaves me a man out of time, in a weird way. I feel like I should belong in a block of ice carved from a glacier, frozen in a long forgotten time. The problem is that as such I'm competing with kids for jobs and careers who have all the advantages of expertise in and ownership of modern technology. This gives them a huge advantage on top of my own lack of experience and age (compared to kids coming out of school i might as well be an old man). This is the raw edge of competition in the market, and we all know that the focus in the unemployment industry is largely on younger people; someone like me gets written off, or just 'parked', to use the parlance of the Work Programme.

What help is there? Are the Work Programme providers going to pay for me to own some of this stuff so I can access and learn modern software packages? Fuck no. They are happy to be paid on my behalf, even to refund travel expenses, which, over 2 years, could probably buy a laptop. They don't offer training or resources (except to turn up and use their own crappy pc's to 'jobsearch'). The end result is that people like me are consigned to the scrapheap, just to be pointed at and jeered by the likes of Cameron in his quest to make Britain a leader in the global marketplace. Or words to that effect; that's what he was saying in light of the reported so called fall in unemployment yesterday. Happily he and his vile crew are boasting of cutting people from the state and, apparently, creating private sector jobs (with of course fewer rights for workers and lower pensions, something the private sector already admits when they argue against public sector strikes), and 'competing'. That's the problem. We need to get rid of this ridiculous notion of competition, in my view; that's what puts people like me on the scrapheap with no hope of support.

Thousands and Millions

The unemployment figure has decreased again - so sayeth the news. However that doesn't begin to address the reality of the picture as there are many factors within. Lots more people are working part time, however part time work doesn't cover the bills and is an attractive proposition mainly to cheapass employers and only those few that can make it work. 

But there are still at least a couple of million out of work, so, even taking this figure on face value, what does this mean? The Tories claim that this is a good thing, but how can it be? There are still way more people out of work than there are vacancies for them. This doesn't include the thousands more likely to bear the brunt of austerity when it begins to hit full force over the next year and beyond. 

What I'm saying is that, if the government wants to claim a victory over unemployment, as new boy Mark Hoban is trying, it needs better figures than this. A few thousand getting employment compared to a few million still unemployed is like saying we've made Afghanistan a safer place by arresting a pair of drunken brawlers outside one pub (as if) in Kabul. Yet Hoban was in the media saying that 'there are now 170,000 less people out of work than in 2010'. Presumably by this he means pre-election; a cheap shot at Labour that probably isn't even accurate; unemployment has increased since that time and so that number of people may well come from the count produced during the Coalition's tenure thus far.

And of course the debilitating effect of government sanction policy will have a detrimental effect on the number of people claiming, not least of all because they cannot maintain their claim while they receive nothing each time they sign on. If my money got stopped I'd have no bus fare to get to the JC (or even the WP, never mind them refunding it). So that would mean by default my claim got closed. End result: one less person claiming JSA. Then there's the various workfare/'experience' schemes that have sprung up which I'm sure take people off the claimant count for a time at least.

I'm sure there are smarter people than me that can get to the truth of these figures, which, according to the superficial reportage of the likes of the BBC, show a consistent downward trend. But even that, as I've said, I'm suspicious of. If the Work Programme and all the rest of the government's 'helpful' initiatives were successful then surely the drop in unemployment would be consistently much greater? A few vacancies here and there (which may only last a few months, especially over the Olympics period and now Christmas) are not the solution. We may be back where we started in a few months as well.

Circumstances

We had a clear out of some old tat today. Nothing special, just junk. In fact there's nothing unusual about this anecdote (such as it is) at all save for the fact that the family member I live with was asked, as I was called to help out (not a problem), whether I had a job. Fortunately my appearance headed off that discussion, not least of all because it's not the place of the removal's person to ask, in my opinion. 

Now you might think it a perfectly reasonable question, and in a more tolerant and less judgemental age I might agree. Why should I be held up to scrutiny by any old tradesman that my parent is paying for? Is it because I, a 'grown man' (not sure what the quotes are for, as I am both adult and male) live with a parent? Unemployed too? Oh dear, this will exercise the church elders.

But really why do we get so invested in how other people live? So what if I live with a parent? Is that, across the rest of human society in the world, so unusual (it may well be, I'm no anthropologist)? What business is it of anyone else's? I cook and buy my own food, I wear and clean my own clothes, I keep my room clean and tidy, I don't have offencive posters of pop stars on the walls, nor does my property have a lingering smell of hash and lots of blim holes. I help out, I don't keep bizarre hours nor behave in an antisocial way. What's the problem? 

We have peculiar sensitives in this society and we don't seem to consider the lives or history of others. I'm not posting this to exorcise my guilt; in fact any that I do feel is merely the weight of transient social expectations. We live the way we do because of a confluence of values, means and technology. In a century or even a thousand years from now things will be remarkably different and no less valid. But as a society we are incapable of taking such a broad view; we only think in terms of the here and now. 

You could reasonably argue that I should 'fledge', leave the nest like a bird. That's all fine and good, but birds don't have to rely on money to acquire the worms they eat, nor the twigs and branches they make their nests with. We have a society based on finance that is beyond the reach of most people; deliberately so. We require shelter and then make it so the only way one can buy their own house is to agree to a huge burden that will take years (subject to the vagaries of international banking of course) to meet. Houses are not immediately affordable and are the most important thing anyone will ever buy. Even renting isn't the same and most serious people consider renting a poor substitute for ownership. Yet we allow people to buy multiple houses solely to let and wonder why communities die. We are compelled to live apart from our parents and start our own families and then invite them back to be part of that. I don't want kids, and I can say that with absolute conviction. Bringing kids into this world seems to me a most cruel and selfish act largely to win the approval of others/family. Some think that's their only purpose in life. 

Of course none of this takes into account personal circumstances. The tradesman makes what he regards as an honest enquiry, but to what end? I can imagine in his mind the disapproval 'should be working son, shouldn't be a burden'. A burden? Is this what life has become? If your contribution, as measured by the ruling elite, is deemed to be net negative then you are a burden, regardless of who you are what you do and what you are interested in. We don't care if you help wash the floor, clean the plates, or wipe the toilet (all of which I'm quite happy to do), you are not living in your own property with 2.5 kids a wife and, importantly, a mortgage - and of course a job to pay it all off. So in other words, if you don't owe us some money and aren't paying enough of it back (not too much) you can expect to be questioned about your life. 

But the tradesman doesn't know I might have a learning disability, and/or a neurodiverse condition, he doesn't understand the upbringing I have had or the difficulties within my own family. I'm not going into all that here, that would be too self indulgent. But the point is, we all live complex lives trying to toe the line and trying to do what, largely, other people seem to want us to do. Some of us have strong helpful families. Some of us know the right people. Some of us just struggle. The weight of expectation is the same regardless. Society isn't a two way street and there's no room to negotiate, not that you're even told how. You have to sink or swim, and if, like me, you found learning to swim particularly difficult (I can still smell the sharp tang of chlorine as swimming pool water went up my nose) then it's tough, and tough shit.

Even the world of work is not exempted. Like the property game, we are, upon reaching maturity, suddenly expected to 'pay our way'. We're brought into this world and in short order handed the bill as if we've been left at the table in a restaurant by the people we're dining with and expected to handle the cheque. There's no help in this even though a vast expensive and greedy industry exists to capitalise on unemployment. It's big business, just like the mortgage industry. Yet even when you try and engage with this beast you have no cache; it's one sided entirely. Society wants you to pay your way (again, debt) and then all but sabotages your efforts for doing so. Meanwhile the tabloids the politicians and the great and the good, who are so well versed at 'do as i say, not as I do', are all there to criticise your failings. We are the authors of our own demise; is it any wonder people end up at weekends on the razzle numbing their brains with beer and drugs. 

Instead of deploring those of us whose curtains aren't open by the appointed hour (mine usually are, by me in fact, since the family member I live with is retired and has every right to lie in) are chastised. We, the unemplouyed, are continually regarded as doing nothing but supporting the daytime TV industry. You have to wonder if all those companies happy to advertise and sponsor the likes of Jeremy Kyle, This Morning, Trisha or whatever (I don't know because I don't watch that shit!) realise what a moral tightrope they are walking. It's ok to make money out of these people, it's just not ok to be one of them. They are the social undead. The zombies of society.

I don't half ramble on. This is so self indulgent!

Safe & Insecure

This is annoying I can’t access my blog from the local library because it’s behind an ‘unsuitable content’ wall. So because of a few choice words the overzealous pedants at the library have neutered their service completely even though I can get a book of the shelf that has explicit sex scenes or equally choice language. Work that out?

I have just signed on, successfully thank fuck. I have been fretting about this ever since last time when I stupidly said I’d heard nothing from the Work Programme since April. This time I lied and said I’d left a message. Unfortunately the adviser took a note of this which may have repercussions, the least of which being that the useless god botherers may well get back in touch. I’m more worried that as there’s no trace of me leaving a message I will get into trouble. Oh well, fuck it. The whole system is weighted against us there’s only so long before the friction catches up with me. No one’s interested in the fact the Salvation Army are inept and deliberately unhelpful. They will just focus on me not contacting them and thus me being seen as refusing help. There’s nothing I can do about it and I’m certainly not wasting my time chasing up an organisation who, by their own admission, is no help.

I also had to sign for receipt of a document. This is similar to the sanction letter we all received a couple of months back detailing, in the wake of the Cait Reilly case, the rules for sanctions. Since the regime changes in a couple of weeks this letter contains the updated facts (i.e. the harsher regime). I’m still not convinced I should have signed for this, but I guess I had no choice. Hopefully it won’t come back to bite me on the arse. The letter is genuine, but who can take anything the DWP/Government says as fact these days. On one hand I’m relieved to have gotten today’s signing over without undue hassle, but on the other I feel no less stressed than when I got up – you just can’t drop your guard with these people for a second, no matter what they say or how they seem. As another day goes by I find nothing surprises me anymore about this system: we receive our handout, Oliver Twist style, and then made to feel guilty if we spend it and frightened if we spend too much.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

We all know the BBC is lame in the extreme when it comes to discussing welfare. This morning's fevered episode of the feeble 'Sunday Morning Live' discussion was no less so. God knows why I do this to myself but I tuned in to find Charlie Wolf 'contributing' to a discussion about food stamps and whether the state (you know, that entity the government vehemently abhors) should control how people spend their benefit. The trail to the 'discussion' (despite a spirited attempt by Degsy Hatton to oppose) featured lots of shots of terraces, washing lines outside their windows, pubs drinking and fruit machines. Can't think what sort of message their trying to send, but damn I do feel thirsty!

Now Charlie Wolf is another one of these lunatic rentagobs, but even he excelled the form here. He claimed, straight faced, that without such controls the unemployed end up spending their vast fortune on drugs and pornography! What repugnant bullshit. Of course he later said that plenty of people are playing the system; the usual right wing non-statement designed to provide maximum emotion at the expense of minimum fact.

Charlie is a member of a group called Republicans Abroad UK (we don't need them over here thanks), and a blogger for the Daily Fail, who once called Rachel Corrie 'scum' and blamed her for her death at the hands of the Israeli government. As you can see, he's a compassionate guy; an odious right wing apologist for the likes of Bush and his anachronistic 'eye for an eye' ideologies.

I wonder how many people Charlie boy has reported to the Benefit Fraud hotline. I posed this on Twitter, but I guess he was too busy ringing them up to answer. Obviously as there are plenty of people playing the system - by his own admission - he must have encountered some. As a concerned responsible citizen surely then he has availed himself of his civic duty and reported them.

But wait 96% of such reports turn out to be groundless; the result of bored curtain twitching bitter wankers with nothing better to do than accuse other people of spending their benefit on drugs and porn. Will you be paying for the cost of these frivolous reports and the subsequent wasted time investigating people who should be left alone because they have not played the system? Will you be apologising to the thousands you've just smeared in a particularly vile way?

Charlie Wolf, you are a disgrace. Fuck off back to America and take your odious republican right wing ideology with you.

Not Even Part Time is Good Enough

So the Policy Exchange are at it again; they think "that the government should withdraw benefits from part time and temporary workers who are not doing all they can to find a higher paid or full time job" and they claim "the public’s attitude towards welfare has toughened over the past few years. A poll for Policy Exchange found that 21% of the public thought that claimants should lose all of their benefits regardless of the hardship it would cause if they failed to comply with their jobseekers agreement."

Lovely. Can't think why people's attitudes (even just 21% of them) might have changed; perhaps because of the spurious bullshit that seeps out of the press, the radio and the TV, endorsed by these odious fuckers, on a daily basis. 

The point they want to make is that they believe people working part time and claiming what will become Universal Credit (IE people claiming tax credits or some form of top up from the state) will be forced to look for more hours, up to 40, in order to carry on claiming. The fact they are actually working - doing something - isn't enough. That counts for fuck all.

I will never understand the mentality of the right wing at all. This is entirely self defeating and just more populist crowd pleasing politics. It completely ignores, not least of all, that there are people who will need the part time workers they will have to give up. It ignores that there aren't the full times jobs available (hence all the part time work). Of course it also ignores issues such as the need for flexible work, such as caring or childcare responsibilities. But IDS and his Policy Exchange pals don't care. It even suggest that, once a month at least, the claimant should meet with their adviser, even at weekends or in the evening (just when you want to be shepherded by the DWP of course) to facilitate this process.

According to their website the "Policy Exchange is an independent, non-partisan educational charity seeking free market and localist solutions to public policy questions." My spellchecker is not fond of the word 'localist'.

I'd love to know who they help, other than right wing interests, as a charity.

Meanwhile the Work Programme continues to struggle, something the Policy Exchange ignore of course. Round and round the circus goes.