Return of Delboy the Tory

I am fucking incandescent.

This morning, the BBC, the biased bullshit cronies, gave this fat cunt ANOTHER half an hour of free airtime on national media. This time it was a second dance with the useless skin-hogger Nicky Campbell on his laughable radio show. Half an hour, between 9-930am, to go, almost unchallenged, with his stupid half baked crock of shit idea. Half an hour to spout more hysterical anti-welfare crap including: labour fostered a 'culture of entitlement' (a phrase that is never defined let alone challenged), and labour engineered the welfare system for votes. Repeatedly these insane comments were allowed through unchallenged. Completely fucking unchallenged.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Call after call from idiots that fall for this anti-welfare claptrap paraded on to spout more bigotry and unfounded prejudice. All of it completely unchallenged. Not once did that fucking idiot Campbell bother to correct the stream of lies spewing forth on his watch. The most odious the most wretched and the most craven nonsense like some Hate Room, some Room 101, vented by people so deluded as to be embarrassing. How the fuck is this the objective unbiased state broadcaster?

Not only that, but after the half nine news/sport James fucking Delingpole rocks up. Now who on cunting earth in the editorial team decided to give this wanker a call? How does that happen? This lunatic is about as informed as a cat with alzheimers. He doesn't know what he's talking about and CONTINUED UNCHALLENGED to spew the same 'they're all on the scrounge' bullshit. Myth after myth, lie after lie, is put forward and left to take root. Sky tv, plasma screen, fags, booze, smartphones, scratchcards, you name it - we're all spending out £71 on some combination thereof. How? Fuck knows.

All of this becomes some insane echo chamber. Moron after moron is welcomed onto national radio to do nothing but claim this is true. Noone is challenged to provide evidence. Nothing. Even when someone actually managed to get through with a sensible question (not me though, I spent 40 minutes, in between tweeting like a furious masturbating bonobo on viagra, trying to get through only to vacillate between engaged and the dial tone of mental entropy), he's ignored. Some poor sod rang up and calmly asked how he'd pay for his car, which he needs to find work. He asks rationally and reasonably and for his effort some utter twat called 'Harvey', whom Delingprick decided was the voice of reason, launched into a screed about how he should instead make his own work and stop being a scrounger.

By 10 0 Clock I was climbing the walls. I had no luck getting my tweet, "how am i to pay for a bus ticket, Mr Shelbrooke?", read out, nor getting through on the phone. I started entertaining paranoid conspiracy theories that they had my phone number on record somehow and were deliberately ignoring me. I cannot have been the only one trying to get the opportunity to broadcast some reason into this toxic media vapour, now proliferating nationally.

This guy has to be stopped. His constituents cannot surely be as batshit insane as he. Fucking hell, please tell me there are some sane people in this country left.

Of course he's not batshit. He's in league with Mastercard. He mentioned that he's currently in talks with 'card people' about how to make this work even with market traders (I'm sure they'll love not being able to take cash, which means they'll just refuse to serve cardholders altogether). So this guy is spending public money to pursue his private Tory wank fantasy. What an astute use of his time as an elected servant of the people. He also gave the game away somewhat in two other ways, I shall now bullet point:
1. He insinuated that only people in work understand stress - in response to the question that shouldn't people be entitled to a relaxing beer now and again.
2. He said the card would function like a debit card and that it would save people money in fact, as well as help them budget (because nothing helps you budget like having nothing to budget with). He thinks he's reinventing the banking system.

Of course to avoid too much opprobrium, he rules out the disabled from this scheme. So they can drink and smoke themselves, including cancer sufferers that would end up costing the state more (bloody scroungers), to death as far as he cares. But he doesn't explain how someone with a wage and claiming tax credits is going to benefit from having a card and a wage. In fact he explains nothing at all, and neither does the BBC when I left a complaint about their vile propaganda.

The 5 live switchboard number is 01613356000, ring them up and tell them what you think. Frankly this kind of churnalism; this sneering voyeurism enacted to spoilt jaded grade types aspiring to emulate the support characters on the Thick of It full of Come Dine With Ennui needs to stop. Get real you fuckers, this is people's lives you're playing with!

Delboy the Tory

Last night's Panorama investigated the twilight world of disability vs. the Work Programme. For those of us in the know it merely confirmed what we already knew: a culture of incompetence, bullying, and disinterest from the providers. The parking of hard to reach clients, and the use of smaller, local, charities (such as, I'm guessing, the Salvation Army) as bid candy - some of whom are not even aware they've been used! Faced with all this, Mark Hoban, the (un)employment minister, decided to equivocate; no surprise there. The programme mentioned the difference in fees that providers could claim, at each stage (referral, placement, and overall success), for able/disabled claimants. Consequently I'm now beginning to see why, if you'll excuse the paranoia, the Salvation Army were keen to say I should go on ESA and that they couldn't help me, in respect of the issues they know I have, otherwise - they get more money. Or would if they were actually able to help. God only knows; what is clear is that these organisations can't be trusted. It's just about the money for them. Help comes a distant second, maybe as a convenient bonus. 

Yesterday I posted off my ESA50 form. It asked me for a phone number, so ATOS can contact me anytime any day between 9am and 8pm (no fucking thanks!) to book my WCA. That isn't remotely convenient (last time they wrote to me and told me I had to ring them to book it within a couple of weeks, which I would prefer) so I didn't provide a number and told them, as the DWP has my phone number anyway (which likely means ATOS has it as well), not to ring up. I'm sure they'll listen; they seem so helpful. I have a proof of postage; I've left it until the last minute to post it (and why not?) so if they moan I can prove it got sent at least.

So again the welfare reform machine, the insensitive Tory (forget the libdems, they are a done deal, gone and forgotten) juggernaut, rolls on. The Bedroom tax, along with other cuts including making councils charge claimants Council Tax for the first time, is looking to set the spring alight and could very well be the next Poll Tax moment. This is an easy, and it seems a popular, comment to make, however it is painfully obvious the government has not thought this through at all - as if they care. Pensions minister, and Coalition lickspittle, Steve Webb of the libdems blundered his way through a response to the select committee debate on this matter. Faced with a horde of angry opposition MP's recanting warnings of very real strife, including the notion that foster carers aren't exempt, all he could do was resort to the tired 'blame Labour' rhetoric, the usual bland sophistry of 'fairness', and to say that people 'could' find lodgers (oh how easy peasy, even though many housing associations don't allow it), or that, as we now, in his words, have record employment, people could easily pick up a few hours extra work a week to cover the cost to be imposed on them. At the very least why the fuck should they - and if they could, does he not think that they might already be doing just that? As if there is a surfeit of 2/3 hour a week positions (to quote his figures) that people can easily do on top their current responsibilities to make up the shortfall. 

All this came on top of Lord Fraud's inexcusable and flaccid performance a couple of weeks ago on 5 Live wherein a pair of tenants facing the likelihood of destitution put forward their circumstances, only to be rudely fobbed off by a blustering idiot. One lady told him her tenancy forbade taking in lodgers while her son, a soldier, was away on duty. Freud cared not simply asserting that she could just change her Housing Association's mind (why would they? What's in it for them to do so?) Another, a divorced father with three kids and joint custody who had already downsized and was now having to do so again, was told to get a camp bed in the lounge for his three kids. Maybe if they were really young they might think that a bit of an adventure (or they might go back to mum and say 'i hate it at daddy's, it's awful', destroying their relationship), but these are older kids and camping isn't really suitable - and why should it be? It will never cease to amaze and appal me how this creature, this shameful charlatan, has managed to inveigle himself into power. He is a lord (with 8 spare rooms of his own!) yet has served no time as an elected MP or official!

Finally the appearance of the ridiculous bloated wannabe Tory, what you might call a Delboy Tory - a 'made man' who fancies himself among the old guard, Alec Shelbrooke to defend his ridiculous welfare prepay card proposal. This scheme, as has been roundly debunked, has no credibility, is completely unworkable and, more importantly, is divisive and repugnant. He's just a backbencher trying to make a name for himself with the top dogs. What he doesn't realise is that they will look at him with as much disdain as the rest of us: who is this pretender trying to be an aristocrat? Who does this whelp think he is? They'll get some sport out of him, make a few headlines, and he'll be back running a second hand car showroom moaning about muslims before the next election.

This floundering elephant of ignorance appeared on The Big Questions on Sunday Morning on the BBC. Blustering his way through the usual 'we've spent beyond our means' and 'welfare is too high' bollocks he responded to accurate claims that his absurd idea was divisive by saying that everyone would receive a card so that, if they needed to claim, they could use their card. Therefore no one would be stigmatised for having to rely on this nonsense because we'd all have them. Totally missing the point. But of course it's self defeating when people who are on tax credits involved since they will have, in one hand, their wage, and in the other, their Universal Credit via a prepay card!?! Unfortunately noone seemed to spot this. 

Still it's big business for the likes of Mastercard. It was a laughable performance; this guy looks like he belongs on Eastenders as the latest dodgy wheeler dealer 'doing a bit o' business sonny', with his cheap jewellery and sovereign ring. Not a fucking clue about the practicality and the cost of implementing this madness.

He tried arguing this would help funnel the money to where it's needed the most - as if that was anywhere in his corporate addled brain when he dreamt this idea up. Of course it won't; processing payments and running a card scheme will cost the system more. For example, assuming bus fares are not on the verboten list of what claimants can buy, how would you use your card to buy a bus ticket? First, who runs our bus 'service' has never had the facility to pay for a ticket using anything other than cash. There's no card/swipe system. No room for prepay cards. What then?

Amusingly, on his left shoulder, was torture apologist and corporate excuse maker, David Vance, who sat there like a nodding dog arguing, tediously, that the welfare state comprises the usual suspects: feckless smoking sky watching drinkers and idlers.

Mid way through the discussion some 'entrpreeneur' (the new cultural heroes) called Deirdre Bounds (no, I don't know either) chimed in about her time on benefits. She made the usual mistake of saying: 'some people on benefits are scroungers, but not me; I was hard working and look at me now ma!'. Credible? Notsomuch. Again with the 'benefits culture' bogeyman; what does this mean? There's no culture of benefits: there are people that live on benefits, they have no choice - that's why they claim. They have a pittance to live on and are thus even more dependent on it (everyone is dependent on an income, it is capitalism: slavery to debt and credit and money). They are the least resistant to change and rising prices. To then stigmatise them for that. However she did make a good point about working from home and the lack of support for that. There was also an interesting acknowledgement of something I've recognised: that benefits include a large proportion that gets paid back into the system leaving a net cost, reportedly, of £25 billion. Not quite the shock figures the media likes to play with.

"if they don't smoke or drink, then there isn't a problem" to paraphrase the odious Vance. As if that's an argument. It's the same argument used to bring in ID cards. The Tories are meant to be anti-nanny state as they see it. Except only where it suits them. Everyone else? Too bad. What a disgusting argument: why should you moan about us controlling your lives and banning you from using currency? It won't affect you if you don't smoke or drink! Arsehole.

In Partnership

A GP (not my usual GP, because getting appointments with him is next to impossible) recommended I see a local service provider called Positive Step when I tald them about anxiety. Positive Step deal in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, that's their stock in trade. I have actually seen them before and frankly didn't really find it particularly helpful. I'm not knocking it, but CBT seemed to require a particular level of awareness that isn't commensurate with stress. In fact developing that clarity of thinking is half the problem, so it didn't work for me. The service is delivered in a specific way with no real on going support: I used their online provision. The alternative is a classroom environment that was not practical because of location (nothing local). 

I decided to go with the GP's recommendation more to avoid being seen as refusing help, but I don't mind trying it again maybe it will be a bit different. When an appointment will become available is another matter entirely. In the meantime I'm looking at their website and dicsover they are in partnership with, amongst others, ATOS! 

I'm not sure what this means. What does in partnership mean? I'd mentioned that dealing with the DWP and the incoming WCA I will have to attend is a major part of the cause of my anxiety (as anyone that's dealt with ATOS knows). Positive Step told me they can't get involved with this and that they can't help; all they do is deliver a programme of CBT. So what's the involvement with ATOS and can their partnership help people like me who have been successfully assessed by Positive Step as having problems (problems enough to green light access to their service - no doubt that's how they get funded) deal with the WCA? ATOS of course will say that it isn't down to them as regards the final decision, but everything that can be provided to help make a case surely has to be considered. I'm not sure how to pursue this.

Compare and Divide

This story in the Guardian presents another ridiculous example of the mistreatment of the disabled. I mention it for a couple of reasons, but mainly because it leaves me thinking "what chance do I have?" and leaves me questioning what I'm trying to achieve. 

I've been told by the WP that I'm on the wrong benefit and that, were i to claim ESA, I'd have access to more support (if and when that materialises). Consequently my GP has agreed. But compared to Mr Douglas I don't stand a chance. If someone injured in a warzone is getting his support curtailed (and I'm not exactly sure what he's being denied as it's not entirely clear, I think it's DLA) then someone like me, with much milder problems, doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance - and that's before you factor in the serving soldier aspect which is of course an emotive issue at the best of times (and that isn't meant pejoratively either).

I have always tried to be clear, in everything I've posted here, that I do not consider myself as affected as some. But that is the reason I'm posting: the system and indeed society thrive on this game of compare and contrast. My circumstances, by deign of the function of this crazy system, will be compared to standards such as this, and if support for someone like Mr Douglas is denied then people - particularly the DWP - will think I shouldn't get anything.

Worse, Mr Douglas appears to be working. This may well be the reason for the curtailment of support. Now it seems to anyone with a modicum of sense that this gentleman needs support. I have absolutely no problem with him getting whatever he needs (that's kinda my point). In fact, while I disagree with the profession of soldiering, I certainly do not agree that personnel should be denied support; only the most callous would think like that (hence the Tories). So again, if Mr Douglas can work (and the article doesn't really explain how) then naturally one might ask: why can't you?

But life doesn't work that way. I'm not going to make excuses; our two lives are entirely separate. There's little chance of me starting or running a charity or a politician. I wouldn't even know where to start or to afford to do such things. Maybe I should ask the Jobcentre! People's circumstances should not be compared and contrasted and what applies to one person's life cannot always be applicable to everyone and anyone else. 

I'm sure some people will think I'm just making excuses. I can't do anything to change that, but surely it's obvious? That's before we even begin to address the reality of securing a job, which is something the government, in all it's welfare reform talk, completely ignores. The coalition argues for its changes while completely failing to address how one, for example someone that fails his WCA, is then meant to find and secure work over the thousands of able bodied jobseekers also struggling. Ministers, addressing the Policy Research Institute (a convenient echo chamber), claim Universal Credit will directly lead to 300,000 people getting work but doesn't even begin to explain how!

People often resort to platitudes these days; we seem to live in an era of greatly reduced discourse, where folk have a small list of often trite statements. You will be told things like 'other people manage' or 'other people are worse off'. Of course these things are objectively true, but who really feels better for hearing this and how are these statements supposed to translate into action. If someone can't find work or needs help in their own life, no matter the degree thereof, implying that they are feeling self pity is no help at all. I don't believe in self pity; it's my assertion that those who say this are just being defensive. We are living in tough times and people are lonely, frightened and struggling in their own lives; hearing that other people are saying their lot is worse just serves, in some cases, to rankle them. That's why people will be dismissive of others thus. So the answer isn't to compare and divide, it's to come together and give people what they need on their own merit. It's only the lanugage of austerity and the poverty mindset  - the message of neoliberal economics it seems - that compels people to adopt these divisive attitudes. I believe that there is enough to go around, it's just the will to address that isn't there. Instead it's divide and rule.

Or, to quote someone called Karl Marx: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need

(yes, I'm sure that's incorrect, inaccurate and inappropriate. can't win 'em all!)

Howay The Lads

Over the past few days I've watched a couple of documentaries that show me a world I do not understand and have never understood. The first was a programme about drugs with a bunhc of 19/20 year old urban partygoers who all took drugs like Ketamine and MKat (which I believe is what the call meow meow) and something else called GHB. The second was an episode of a fairly ludicrous 'documentary' about kids of the same age going to the Balearic's or similar destinations called 'Sun Sea Sex and Suspicious Parents'. 

I just don't get the worlds I'm watching. I don't recognise these people, in myself at that age, or the lives they live. I've never been to any of these rather sordid looking holiday destination, I can barely hold my drink, and I don't do drugs. I guess I must be one of the most boring people that ever lived, certainly to people like this.

That's not to say I've never tried drugs. Like most people I've 'inhaled' on multiple occasions, but Cannabis has always made me feel pretty sick. Maybe I didn't get the good shit? I tried speed once, but didn't really feel anything, and have no real compulsion to try anything else. I wouldn't know where to go to get some drugs and I'd much rather spend the money on other things. I'm not in favour of prohibition even remotely, but I don't condone the use of any drug. I don't trust my mind to stay in one piece. But that's just me. I just don't see the point of taking this stuff; I'd rather remain in control of my faculties and enjoy myself that way. 

Similarly I've never really enjoyed alcohol. I'm not teetotal, although I can't remember the last time I drank anything alcoholic. I just don't need or even want it, and, as far as drugs go, it's a pretty pathetic excuse. There are much better things for people to take, but it's become the social lubricant that people rely on. Perhaps if I spent more time in pubs I'd feel differently, but I don't go pubbing nor clubbing. The pubs near me (which I couldn't afford) are insular sad places full of old boys who I'm sure drink and drive (I can't imagine people of that generation ordering a lemonade instead of a hearty point of grog on their way home from work). Clubs always seem to be places full of people I don't understand; image conscious judgemental tribal and intimidating. The few times I've ever been to a nightclub i have felt violently out of place. I don't adorn myself with faux tribal tattoos and I don't chisel my abs daily. 

When I see these kids in places like Magaluf or Aya Nappa necking insane cocktails and being forcefed everything from Sambuca through a pipe in a dentist's chair to inhaling gaseous alcohol I wince. That would kill me! Of course these kids would say 'they just want to have a good time' or 'you're only young once' (though I draw the line at drinking my own sick), which is conceptually fine, but when did all this become the norm? Why is this the accepted way to have a good time? Is our society now so far gone that people need to get so violently wrecked, so utterly drunk or stoned, even to the very real potential detriment of their health in order to feel alive? I'm not trying to be judgemental here; everyone wants to have a good time and life just gets harder on a daily basis it seems, but I look at these holiday destinations and it just looks like some grubby British seaside resort with a spray tan. The streets are coated with sick and the scenery is nothing but a row of charmless cheap holiday apartments, bars, fried food/gutbuster breakfast establishments and places to stock up on insane amounts of booze. The native culture seems to have given way to the English customer and his euros. Isn't that a bit sad? Lovely Mediterranean islands paved over by the British drinking establishment so blokes can feel up young women who themselves seem to end up lying in a gutter with their tits out.

It's a world I don't recognise. I'm not even sure it's a world I want to live in. I've never ever felt comfortable in that kind of 'howay the lads' social unit. But that's what these kids, particularly the boys, are defined by. Each of these lads looks a carbon copy of the other and, with the help of the programme maker's narrative, they are assigned a role in the group: the joker, the babyface, the mother, the virgin (who will get teased mercilessly for being a virgin in these places - probably not what he signed up for), the pro, the cool kid, and so forth. It's like they are positions in an RAF squadron, soldiers in Afghanistan, or football players in a team. So much for individuality. 

They are all toned and honed in a way I never was (and still aren't!), all preened and proper. When I was that age the last thing on my mind was buying expensive brands of aftershave and deodorant, or going to the gym and working out. That seems to have become popular with later generations; I don't even live near a gym. But nowadays it's all about qualifying for the master race it seems - not being a young person examining the world and finding about it. Instead of learning about life and the world in a more traditional sense - it's preening, getting preloaded, taking party drugs, seeing the world through the lens of some grotty britishcentric party destination and following some prescribed path of social evolution. Even the phenomenon of the gap year passed me by. I dont' recall it being something that anyone I knew did, nor was it ever discussed. I think the only thing was the Camp America stuff, and a couple of kids may have done that - working in summer camps in the US (and other countries I'm sure). 

Even back then I never had the money for such things - I still dont' even own a passport. Whereas nowadays these kids are all armed to the teeth with modern accouterments. They get smartphones and computers as a matter of course from their parents as birthday or Christmas presents. That's fair enough I suppose, although I question why young kids need the full reign of smartphone technology per se, but that's not my decision to make. These kids are all loaded and are all seasoned travellers as their parents are of the generation that could afford and avail themselves of the boom in cheap travel and less restricted world travel. The world wasn't that small when I was their age. 

It's just such a change from my generation to the present that I don't recognise the world these kids live in, yet I have to compete with them for work. These kids will have their gap year doing all sorts of amazing and outrageous things that I don't have the chance to. Again, fair enough - that's the way the world is now. But that will become the norm; that's the standard used for judging my application for jobs (never mind health issues) alongside these young dynamic upstarts. How can I compete with that? I'm not a lad, nor a bloke (except genetically of course!), I don't really enjoy football, I don't particularly want to drink alcohol nor take drugs. I dont' see any room in this society for me? It's just a society I simply don't recognise. Everyone seems to speak through the prism of football parlance. Everyone has to compete, and if you can't handle your ale you're a LIGHTWEIGHT!!!! Oy Oy!

I'm not pissing and moaning (well not too much). I just find myself surrounded by a massive cultural change I don't understand and am not comfortable with. I have a football pitch near enough that I can hear them scream (and I mean scream) and swear (including racist abuse ffs) whenever there's a match. It gets ridiculous: as if 11 men are going to benefit from a crowd of armchair pundits shouting 12 different sets of directions at them. Why does football attract this level of 'passion'? Why have people, especially blokes, got to be so leery? What has made us this way?

GBHRH

This week, runt of the royal litter and prince not-in-waiting, Harry Windsor talked to the media about his heroic efforts flying an expensive armed toy around a desperate theatre of war. The same Harry vaught cavorting around an expensive Las Vegas hotel in the buff (and presumably enjoying it), and dressing up in Nazi regalia for an equally enjoyable and probably expensive party. The same Harry, like the rest of these photogenic aristocrats, always caught in some luxurious sun trap with a nice piece of posh arm candy. Oh life is tough on the front line!

I'm not defending the media. In my view 99% of our media - the world's media, frankly - is scum. But I'm sure there are worse things than being caught in the buff and plastered on the front page of the press. Is it really fair to blame them when it's you doing that stuff in the first place? Or is it bitterness over the death of his mother - and even though chasing around people with cameras is a desperate and sad act was it not the fault of a drunk driver rather than paparazzi chasing them down like Bullitt?

There are huge question marks over the legality of our invasion, for that is what it is, of Afghanistan that no amount of football terrace or Dambusters bravado can alter. No matter how much people like to regard soldiers as heroes or say that it's not their decision as to where they go, people are still choosing to join or stay in service to this cause. This is pernicious: if you are happy to take up a gun in the service of the western military industrial complex then you must accept the consequences of that decision. Saying that you have no choice where you go frankly is a bit like saying that its ok to lose control of a speeding car. I'm sure it's not easy leaving the army, with all the military propaganda and esprit de corps, but surely people must know what they are getting themselves into.

Harry certainly does. He's not stupid; he's benefited from the best that our country can offer. The best education, the best home, lots of money and opportunity. Yet with all of that he chooses a career soaked in blood. He wants to be 'one of the lads', even though that means putting a high profile target (and propaganda tool, which is what this really is about) on the frontline. Does he think he's a hero? Does he actually want to be in a position where he has to pull a trigger and kill people, possibly innocent lives? Is this little boy delusional? It's not Call of Duty, it's a desperate battle in a desert, in a country that has a history of being unbeatable fighting a tribal ideology that feeds on ignorance and misery.

Now we have a red blooded aristocrat flying around the desert thinking he's action man. Just so he can 'serve'? Who is he serving? His mother? David Cameron? The reputation of this disastrous misadventure. Certainly not the people as most of us, those with some sense, aren't supportive of this mess. Originally the mission was to get Bin Laden, but that has changed - even though he is now dead - to facilitate regime change. Why? If 911 hadn't happened we wouldn't bat an eyelid about their awful regime. If 911 had happened elsewhere we wouldn't have followed the gun crazed yanks in.

I think this silly little prince has behaved appallingly. War is not a toy. It's not a pastime for the idle rich. Do something more productive with your life; you have way more opportunities than most of us ever will and yet you squander it on being a 'lad'. Pathetic.

Churning

IDS' ideology is bizarre - assuming he isn't dangerously psychotic. This is penny pinching of the most venal and odious kind: kicking people off ESA to save a few quid a week and forcing them to claim JSA. Of course it's more than a few quid, it's all the associated benefits that might be claimed as well. These are all immediately curtailed once ESA is stopped. At best the claimant then has to initiate a brand new claim, for JSA at least, and wait until all that is sorted out, putting further strain on the system. At least until Universal Credit takes over, which I'm sure will be even worse.

His rhetoric seems to suggest that what people need is to have their benefits stripped. As if there is some causal link between having no income and getting a job, when in all likelihood having even less (ie zero) money will impede the ability to find work even more. This is convenient of course because it allows the government to save money. How fortunate!

The right wing argument is based around the idea that people need to be encouraged to work, never mind that there is no work, and that the best way to do this is to cut their money. Even a child could destroy such a failed argument. So it's all about cutting costs. Forcing people to join the dole queue and compete for work against able bodied people, or people with way more experience, is nonsensical. But that's what the Work Programme is for, and so charities will be hit by the double whammy of cuts and being made the scapegoat for the failing of a scheme that was never going to work.

But the support isn't there. I'm still waiting, a week (snow notwithstanding) for the Work Programme adviser I now have to send me the information regarding creative writing courses she promised. This information isn't really going to help me get a job of course, the Salvation Army, like the rest of the WP, doesn't have that power. I was also promised, when I first spoke to her, that she could refer me to people that could help me with the problems I have, as they didn't have that training themselves. That has yet to happen, and I doubt it ever will.

People are being left, quite literally, out in the cold.

Universal Jobmatch is a disaster. It's a site that is even more disorganised than the previous incarnation. I have to routinely wade through twice as many pages due to it's failed filtering system. The jobs are just a collection of random crap culled from Monster's competitors that leave you having to google the full details (only to find out that the job is not just part time but only 10 hours a week which would cost you more than you'd earn due to bus fares for example). This won't get changed. In fact it's likely to be a staple of any Universal Credit claim. Unemployed people claiming UC, which is meant to be online, will of course have their claims checked not by their jobsearch booklet but how much they can show they've done online, ostensibly via Universal Jobmatch. If registration isn't mandatory now, it soon will be and there won't be a thing we can do.

Recently there was a shitstorm on Twitter in response to this article. Another mainstream hit piece against the disabled claiming benefits. I abhor this kind of 'churnalism'. It's the most wretched kind of prostitution: a media hack paid to print nothing more than flame bait. That's all this is. Facts dont' matter these days, just the ability of the writer to stir up shit and then, pathetically, claim that the shit he provokes is the nasty end of public discourse. This is bollocks; if you can't stand the heat Mr Hensher, stay the fuck out of the kitchen. I don't condone abuse, but if you wind someone up and they give you a smack on the nose...well that's your own fault. This is the new political correctness: witness another media hack, climate change denial fantasist James Delingpole: "My bad. I mistook you for someone who was disabled but not part of the shrill victim lobby." in response to criticism garnered for also traducing the issue of disability and benefits; his twitter feed is full of equally ignorant hurtful nonsense. He is another right wing crutch kicker happy to play the victim card when it suits him, but ridiculing others who have a legitimate claim to being oppressed.

These people seem incapable of accepting the reality that a growing section of society and activists are discussing - and have been for years. They cannot understand that a 'legitimate' organisation like the DWP or a company like ATOS can be so callous, yet they themselves behave no better. They resort to quoting figures, out of context, as if 'here's a big number' or 'here's a big percentage' means 'bad'! If a lot of public money is going to supporting people that is something to be championed in my opinion. But of course they never mention that half the welfare budget goes toward the pensions of the elderly who these cowards won't dare criticise (I'm sure that some will).

Then there are strawmen arguments such as conflating criticism of the system with criticism of the need to be assessed at all: 

But is it not reasonable to say that someone who can cycle the equivalent of a bus journey of more than 15 minutes should have their fitness to work examined?

Noone says that people should just be given sick notes without question. Not once. Not ever. Not even I have said this. What should happen is that their doctors and specialists - trained NHS personnel (whose expertise the public has paid for in their education) - should be all that's required. What reason is there for paying an IT company to do a redundant job if not to fulfill particular targets and an obvious government agenda. 

Again it's the just world fallacy, so beloved of the Tories, that makes up the bulk of their logic: if the process could be done properly then there'd be no reason for these tests. Well duh! So why traduce activists complaining that the system isn't done properly (to put it mildly)? The answer: so hacks like this can whore themselves out in the press, appealing the UKIP types, curtain twitchers and the terminally ignorant.

Is this person going to be hired to ride his bike for 15 minutes a day? That's a job i've yet to see appear on Universal Jobmatch.

It might, too, cut down on the unconscionable numbers now claiming these benefits. It’s not so long since doctors felt quite capable of saying “There’s absolutely nothing wrong with you” to their patients, not “There’s no space for that on the form”. A little more robustness, and a little more flexible inquiry than a questionnaire permits, would have some very positive outcomes.

 

Unconscionable? If people are sick, and the evidence says they are in almost all cases, then what is unconscionable is the lack of support and the tendency toward biased hyperbole from churnalists like this. Why assume that a given situation, itself a simple objective fact taken out of the greater context (that of austerity, hate, division and cuts), is worthy of subjective judgement? That there are x people claiming is simply a fact. Yet it's treated as a personal slight - ostensibly against the 'strivers'. This is tosh, complete fucking tosh.

Doctors are still quite capable of saying 'there's absolutely nothing wrong with you'. They still, in the majority I believe (most least of all because they've been told to by the DWP), assume this. It's taken me about a year to persuade my GP to write a sick note. He isn't happy about it, but the problem isn't just my own issues, but the process by which I can access help. If I'm to fully avail myself of what the Work PRogramme claims it can offer, I have to claim ESA - their words! 

But if someone has problems, all the stiff upper lip stoicism and rhetoric in the world will not make the better, nor will government ideology, nor will wishful thinking nor pining for some yesteryear where everyone knew their place and worked. Even then, those that 'could' do something are treated as if they can do everything, and are forced to compete with those that have no periods of ill health and more experience that are already able bodied and compus mentus. Yet that is ignored; as if the will to work is enough to change the plainly obvious fact there, are, no, jobs!

This is beyond lazy journalism and it's beyond the point to call time on these lazy churnalist wankers. They need to be called out at every opportunity, and if they get a few insults on Twitter, well too fucking bad!

HMV and Sympathy

Retail results for Christmas are underwhelming and the high street is on it's knees. This week HMV, which has long been in trouble, and Blockbusters have gone into administration. I suspect that the former, at least, will survive. Ironically the eponymous video GAME retailer, itself in trouble almost this time last year, is considering buying them out. Even more ironically last time I was in town HMV - two doors down from what was Gamestation (now fully rebranded by their parent company GAME) - were advertising their superior trade in offers for video games. How the mighty have fallen?

For several months HMV has been in the danger zone, yet you wouldn't know it to look at them. Their shops gave no indication of problems; nothing was reduced in price, the shelves were not empty and they were even trading in any old cd/dvd for a £ a piece in some bizarre bid to capitalise on the second hand market. End result, they had a bargain rack full of second hand tat no one in their right mind was ever going to buy (certainly not with a CEX round the corner). Their stock was, in fact still is, highly expensive as brand new merchandise goes. Even their second hand video games were dear.

The problem with these shops isn't down to just one thing: it isn't just the recession, though that certainly has exacerbated things. it isn't just the relentless march of the supermarkets, unfettered by regulation or planning considerations or even the will of residents nearby. It isn't just the online market, as many of these shops, certainly HMV, also trade online.

For me the real core of the issue is the inflexibility of head office. The senior people, who no doubt see themselves as experienced retail gurus, think they know what works. They think that what might work in store x, which might be somewhere affluent, will work everywhere. They are not interested in selling stuff off cheap or doing deals with customers. Everything is cross referenced on their computers and if the network says that if a brand new dvd is £15 then come hell or high water that's the price it WILL be sold at. Of course this is then easily undermined by online sales and second hand stores (like the aforementioned and grubby CEX). These people are more interested in making a buck no matter the cost. Sadly it's not them that will pay the price, it's the staff.

Ultimately this period of closures is really just a temporary phase; it's a period of readjustment while bigger players and powers reshuffle the order of the high street. It will further homogenise the makeup of high streets as big players become bigger like the current supermarket chains. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesco has a hand in buying out HMV. 

What we need, and where the answer lies, is in fact the reverse: smaller shops. Independent businesses that give colour to individual high streets and communities. Places that couldn't exist on a bigger scale catering to what the people around them want. Instead of what is frankly an awful shopping experience (unless you like listening to Lady GaGa and are only interested in 'chart' dvd's at premium prices) an independent music or dvd shop would exist to cater to the surrounding market. Not tracking the top 10 nor pandering to trends or fads (like HMV does with it's selection of 'cool' autobiographies and books about bands or banksy). We need to say no to the encroaching big players before we lose everything. Sure I can buy dvd's from Tesco, as well as even books and video games, but Tesco know fuck all about what i want to watch listen to or play and have no real means to properly sell stuff, other than as a loss leader. I don't read Jamie Oliver books, nor do I want to buy Downton Abbey dvd's.

Tea and Sympathy?

That was not as painful as I had anticipated.

But before I got there, and even until I spoke to the person I was to see, the manager, it was terrifying. I stood at the door for a few seconds before entering and felt like i was going to puke up my own beating heart. Even when I stepped inside I could still hear the ominous tones of my favourite adviser, from within the churhc hall itself, fortunately out of sight. I imagined him sat on the stage as some grand overseer, playing pandemonium on a church organ and conducting the affairs of the few jobseekers (presumably) within. 

There was about 5 people in the place, which meant there was no room at all for me, never mind the possibility of having a private discussion. They were sat around laptops connected to the web (so the place at least has Internet access). I couldn't really see what they were browsing, I thought they might all be mind linked to Universal Jobmatch. Once again the environment was totally unsuitable, there's no privacy, no room to do things properly. 

My contact was not present at the time; she had taken another customer to a cafe to speak to them privately as they were having a difficult time, I would discover. At this point I'm starting to really get frustrated now; I'm extremely stressed and the one person that wasn't my awful adviser who was there to help didn't know when she'd be back and couldn't process my bus ticket. Things are not off to a promising start. Fortunately the manager was quick to return. 

I get her to refund my bus ticket, wanting to get that out the way and she offers to take me to the cafe she'd just been to as she agrees there's zero privacy (there's barely room to swing an unemployed cat). While not ideal it's a lot better than that place - and I can be somewhere that awful adviser isn't.

Ok, that's enough scene setting. She sits down and explains to me some of the reasons, from her perspective (how true any of it is is not for me to decide, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt), why things are the way they are. I'm not initially impressed when, predictably, she defends her colleague saying he's one of the best she's working with, though later she concedes he's a 'by the book' kind of guy - you're not kidding.

The reason they are based in a church is because they don't get any funding. I was under the impression there is an initial fee for each customer that gets referred, perhaps that's just not true or not enough to cover costs. Either way this is why they don't have nice offices and have to resort to using their existing facilities, ie Salvation Army church halls. She even agrees that it's far from ideal. I'm getting a small insight into the Work Programme from someone who, I think it's fair to say, isn't 100% happy with how it's working. 

She tells me that they get no help from the Government and an interesting scenario is mentioned: people that are on the Programme that move out of the area are still expected to comply with the Programme - with the people to whom they were referred. There is no transfer system; apparently she's having to stay in touch with people that have moved to the other end of the country and dish out expenses for people getting help now living a couple of hundred miles away in another town altogether! The programme is so ill conceived that it just doesn't accommodate the providers at all. I'm not unsympathetic, since it's us that have to bear the brunt of this massive mess, but I do wonder what they were thinking when they agreed to this contract in the first place? Were they lied to? I don't ask, it didn't seem pertinent and I doubt she'd be in a position to help.

Ultimately she agrees to contact me over the phone once a month, conceding that travelling to such an unsuitable environment isn't in my best interests. Again, now that I'm on ESA, she can be more helpful. It's ridiculous; the government tout this scheme as flexible and completely open to how the provider wants to help their customer. Clearly that's bollocks, complete bollocks: if you're on JSA they have to do certain things (though what those are remains unknown, I hope I never find out). She even admits to having to deal with lots of terrified customers and says she works in another capacity to allay those fears in vulnerable people. In fact when the customer she saw before me was in such a state that dfealing with them in the church hall was also out of the question. 

This is a more positive outcome and to be fair she does seem to be more understanding and genuinely helpful than the person previously. There's no point me going over that situation to her so the best thing is to hope for a new start. How long this will last depends on the ESA process. Again there is nothing the Work Programme can do to help in that regard; they have no medical training of any kind. They cannot refer me to anyone that might be able to help with the issues I face so again that falls back into the purview of my GP. Again this disconnected situation remains, but I don't suppose that's her fault. Again it confirms just how poorly put together and ideologically motivated, at the expense of real help, the Work Programme is. If even the organisations that run it as providers can't get funding to do it properly - and one can certainly question why they are even running it if that's the case - then what hope do the rest of us have. All we can do is make the best of a bad situation.

How I View The Work Programme

Dread, it seems to pervade my life in dealing with this new order. Dreading appointments, dreading being given appointments, dreading travelling to appointments, dreading having to wait an hour in the cold for the next bus home after the appointment, dreading whether my benefit will be stopped, dreading whether i have to do this or that. This is what the DWP brings out in me and it's completely beyond their remit of help and assistance.

I don't feel I can deal with the Salvation Army any more, but I have to. 

The problem is that appointments with my adviser, all 2 of them, do not comprise a meeting of equals in an atmosphere of support and compassion. They consist of suspicion and expectation; they are punitive. It seems beyond them to ask "is this person suffering? does this person need proper help? what can we do?". Instead it's "you are making excuses, why?", it seeks to chastise. 

When I speak to my adviser I don't feel I can be honest and open. He has demonstrated that he isn't interested; when I told him what I was interested in it was thrown back in my face and I was told "that's a long term career goal - we need to focus on your short term career goals". These are terms used without definition but with the assumption their meaning is obvious. In fact short term goals is code for "we are only interested in what your JSAg says, and nothing you can say will change that".He demonstrated he wasn't capable by telling me that his organisation has no training or capability to deal with health matters, whatever they may be. I was told (not asked) that I should have a support worker present, but that's only because it protects him from being held liable by me for anything I might say. However they have to deal with people on ESA (like me, now) that thus have issues.

When speaking I feel that not only do I have to guard myself and watch what I say, lest it trigger some unforeseen bureaucratic consequence, for example saying what is on my JSAg and then finding that's all they are prepared to even consider. I have to anticipate what the adviser is thinking and I have to consider that, because he isn't acting in my best interests, he is working against me. Normally that would sound like rampant paranoia, but the Work Programme is not motivated by getting me into a better and self sufficient place in life with a good career (or whatever), it's about pursuing targets and making money. So as I talk to him I know that, in his mind, that's how he's processing our interaction. That in terms sets me on the defencive with the consequence that I am accused of...being guarded - as if that is only ever a  bad thing. Of course it's not; life is complex and interaction, as this proves, is not always without ulterior motives. Consequently one must have some form of defence mechanism, but even that is not safe from their attention.

I do not believe these people are acting in my best interests, obviously, but more than that I don't believe that can ever change. I think the advisers, being merely part of the system, cannot change their programming. It would be like asking a predator to stop eating meat. Now I have my appointment on Monday and I will have to, I'm assuming, explain myself. I have no doubt that my adviser, having presumably received wind of my complaint, will have said that I'm lazy and that I make excuses.

Therein lies the problem: that will be the default conclusion, because, as I've explained, that's systemically how the Work Programme operates. They claim to have even spoken to the Work Psychologist (which I'm not convinced about, but I have to assume it's true) so they know that there are issues there, yet they are ignored. They tell me that "you're on JSA, we can't help you", that my issues are simply ignored while they wear their 'JSA goggles'. They cannot operate under a paradigm that presumes the customer isn't lying, skiving, or that their problems aren't anything that can't be solved by them applying for jobs on my behalf. At best it subscribes to ridiculous arbeit macht frei notions that only benefit the money makers. 

Watch this video diary from a young graduate, having studied genetics I gather, posted by the Guardian. At the outset he sounds positive; he regards his first experience well. But from that moment on it turns around completely and he soon seems to lose hope. There is a follow up video where he talks about ending up with a diagnosis of, if not akin to, clinical depression! This is a scientist; a person that's studied. Why is he not out curing cancer? Nope, instead the profiteering bureaucracy hired by the government is only interested in 'short term goals'. It will be as much a success, in their eyes, as curing cancer if he ends up stacking shelves like the rest of the country's graduates in some pound shop.

Positive Outcome or Positive Image?

On Twitter, using the Work Programme hashtag, you'll often find various providers advertising their success stories. This is just such a one, from Serco, who are one of the bigger sharks in this swimming pool. 

I can't verify or dispute any aspect of this story. Nor would I seek to denigrate what the subject involved has achieved. That's not the point of this post. If she feels she has been helped and is moving forward then good luck to her. I don't know any of these people involved, nor have I ever dealt with Serco, but I just cannot help but get a negative vibe from reading it.

So we have someone that's been out of work for a while and has apparently got low confidence and self esteem. That's something the Work Programme is very quick to say about its customers. What worries me is that becomes an easy trigger for them; just decide someone needs 'confidence bulding' and you can call in all the weird devices or procedures and bring them to bear. Of course this helps in the process of making them money. 

Perhaps that's just too cynical, but we have a government hell bent on selling the NHS to the likes of Serco. Is it then surprising for the government to cede authority over people's emotional and mental well being? I am extremely wary about the Work Programme being used in this way. Are these advisers trained to help people, or do they just roll their eyes at the bedraggled in the way Hayley Taylor did in her first TV outing on Benefit Busters, when dealing with a single mother on the A4E back to work programme supposedly helping her deal with her massive debts (or the woman she decided had alcohol dependency issues without showing much in the way of compassion nor expertise).

I am greatly concerned about this, and about facing this. These providers are working for profit. They are chasing targets and so they are motivated to get results - but not necessarily in the customer's best interests. Like the government you will be expected to 'be well' by a certain period, or you will likely be seen as faking it or making excuses - in my case 'putting up barrirers'. This doesn't help people, and it certainly wouldn't help me.

"she was very nervous, lacked confidence and struggled to maintain eye contact. She knew she wanted a career in care but had no idea how to pursue her dream."

Could it be that dealing with an complicated cumbersome and overbearing bureacracy has helped create this state of being? Could it be that dealing with the Work Programme exacerbates this? Why is a career in care, something fundamental to a decent society, regarded as a 'dream' as if it were pie in the sky?

"After attending one-to-one support for confidence building with her adviser Rebecca, she then attended a pre employment training session associated with a career in Health and Social Care, as well as application support and interview advice. As a result, Jackie secured a 13-week paid placement as Trainee Health and Social Care Assistant and is delighted with the opportunity."

Sounds great, and if it's working in her best interests then fantastic, but I, again, just can't help being cynical. What does the confidence building constitute? Was the adviser trained in these matters? Is she a properly accredited therapist or counsellor? If so, how does that square with being a Work Programme adviser? It's my experience that such people are not trained in health matters, and were quite happy to admit as much (even though they know full well their remit includes dealing with people that have health problems).

This troubles me greatly: can we really expect to be helped by people working from as biased a standpoint as the Work Programme? It sounds Orwellian to me; confidence building is an easy phrase to use. It's not hard work to just decide to traduce the sum of a person's experiences and issues as requiring 'confidence building'. Then you just stick them on a simple course no doubt full of Fairy Jobmother happy clapper urban guru bollocks, tell them to 'think positively' and everything's hunky dorey. But just as Rebecca the adviser could be dealing with someone who is little more than a bit down in the dumps, she could be dealing with someone that has a history of abuse and trauma. How would she know? Worse, would that be seen as the customer deliberately impeding their 'journey' into work? Care works at it's own pace and cannot be coerced nor compelled by government initiatives or right wing ideology.

"provider continues to offer regular in-work support over the telephone and face-to-face through the Training department within the Adult and Social Care team."

Regular support over the phone? How on earth can that be considered support? Or is it just the adviser keeping tabs on the person to make sure - however covertly - she stays in work for the prescribed time period at least. 6 months of that and they get paid. How on earth do you properly care for someone, which is really what this comes down to (and is something that's in short supply these days), through a phone call - and just who or what is the 'Adult and Social Care Team'? Again it seems very very scary to think that these organisations, which are not like the NHS - a state funded health service not motivated (or shouldn't be) for profit, are giving this kind of service. Doubtless if one questions the efficacy and motivation of such people, as I'm doing right now, one is branded a shirker and is again accused of 'putting up barriers'. That to my mind is reason enough to call it into question.

Personally speaking I'm more than happy to be seen by trained objective professionals from the NHS. I'm not quite so thrilled at the prospect of being serviced by the private sector because of the motivations involved. Are these people answerable in the same way as state social services or NHS care? 

In the end the subject of the article is reportedly doing well so I can't assume otherwise. Maybe this is just one of those cases where the Work Programme has genuinely helped someone - it would be irresponsible and ignorant to assume that no one is being helped. But the statistics say that only a tiny percentage, way less than would be helped by default, are being helped. It's impossible to judge the true nature of this outcome until a few months down the line: will she have found a full career doing something she wants to do, or was it only ever a few months 'experience' dressed up by Serco so this kind of article sells a positive image?

The Cat's Mother

She rang me today. Who's that, your fancy woman? No such luck, I refer of course to the Salvation Army head honcho I will be seeing on Monday. As you can imagine I am looking forward to this appointment wholeheartedly. I can't wait to have a one way conversation with an organisation that doesn't understand, seems institutionally unable to help, and insists on using completely inappropriate facilities. If I'm extra lucky then bully boy adviser, who works at the same venue on the same day, will also be there (I'm not actually sure that isn't going to be the case, but if it is then I'll not be staying). Isn't sarcasm great.

She called to ask me if I was ok with her manager not also being present. Er, what? I don't remember that being part of the deal, Lord Vader! Perhaps then it's just as well he won't be. I saw no point in changing the appointment or arguing the toss either way. 

Maybe I should be more positive about this. Perhaps I will be lucky and this person will actually be more helpful, more compassionate and more able to assist. I simply don't believe it, I'm afraid. What I've seen so far - and they have had 9 months to be helpful - tells me otherwise. As I type the above words about being more compassionate etc I just find myself laughing with a sense of resigned internal despair. It feels like saying 'maybe today I'll win the lottery'. I just don't see it.

The whole programme seems so institutionally inept that I cannot see any good coming from this. The best these providers seem to be able to offer is a facility to spam my CV to whomever they like, or to send me to application form training. My problem isn't one of literacy or a lack of imagination, it's based around the way my mind seems to work. There's about as much chance of them understanding this as there is of the sky turning green. People take one look, hear me talk without slurring my words (too much) or having a massive schizoid episode, and assume that there are NO problems, never mind issues they can't possibly understand.

I don't really get why the Work Programme could not have been delivered by people with an understanding of more than just what a CV might look like (and there's no guarantee they can even get that right). It's just the most basic school leaver level career guidance, possibly topped off with some dodgy corporate sales psychology, and a lesson in 'life is for winners kid!'. There's nothing of substance here, except the money these people make. Yet these advisers all think they are cock of the walk; they think that, because they've been filling in action plans and talking in corporatesspeak and doublethink, they are actually experienced in the pure art of helping people. They aren't. Action plans mean nothing if they don't help people. But it's just so easy to compel us to fill them in on pain of sanction (though, unless the rules have changed, one isn't actually forced to sign the plan - something I'm sure would have gone down well with my adviser had we actually got that far!)

Quids In, Kids Out

Some good news. My claim has been approved. So for now at least I can claim ESA. Now I will have to fill in that ESA50 form and send it to them (at the last minute of course), so I should be good until at least the end of February, depending on how long they take in processing that form and getting back to me about an appointment. Last time they wrote back saying you need to book an appointment within a fortnight of receiving the letter, give or take a couple of days. I would assume that hasn't changed. Don't know when the money will clear into my account, hopefully tomorrow as the letter is dated the 3rd, which is last Thursday. 

So thanks to the people that have written nice things in the course of waiting for all of this. I'm glad it got sorted reasonably quickly, though there really has to be a better system than all of this. The benefit (pre assessment) is no different than what you get on JSA; considering ESA is employment support you'd think the two would be more compatible. I guess that's beyond the wit of the King of Universal Credit, who'd rather dream up an entirely new system and inflict that upon people, untested, during the biggest recession in living memory while the economic system dies on its arse.

Speaking of such matters, I notice that today the media is ablaze with the change to child tax credits. Am I the only one that regards such a clumsy change as more an exercise in propaganda. Do people really care that a few rich people (ironically including the Chancellor) claim a benefit they perhaps don't need? Surely so long as everyone is supported that needs help then what's the problem? No, instead it's more political misdirection; the debate doesn't focus on the injustice of a greedy chancellor who could easily have exercised some self control and not claimed what neither he nor his wife needs. It focuses on the usual hate rhetoric. All I've heard on the radio (the BBC, I should say) is the usual 'people spend their tax credits on booze and fags' or 'people shouldn't have kids they can't afgfgord' or 'people have kids so they can milk the system'. That last one is something I simply don't believe: anyone, if such few people exist, that thinks like that needs help. They are emotionally damaged and deserve help and support, not opprobrium and scorn.

This change isn't about fixing the system and it certainly isn't going to pay off the deficit (blah blah blah). It's another way to divide people. It's easy politics: look at the people that get tax credits that earn 50k - they don't need it. But will that money instead go toward helping people such as I've just mentioned? Of course not, such support is concurrently being chopped down with the axe of austerity. Besides which two parents of a kid can earn just under the threshold and still receive the benefit - and I bet there will still be plenty of George Osbourne's claiming CTC under just such situations; I'm sure his wife will put her affairs in order in such a way as to claim the credit that he clearly thought was his due, despite being a millionaire and a highly paid public servant (though given the attitude of the ruling elite you'd be forgiven for thinking they weren't).

The Bulging Mailbox

This is being recorded live! (No it doesn't make sense.)

Just been for my morning constitutional (to quote an old GP of mine): a walk through the mud after breakfast, in the country and the fresh air. What do I find on my doormat waiting for me: 3 brown envelopes and one white envelope. The latter is from ATOS and I've just opened it; they don't waste any time! I've already been given an ESA50 form to return by the end of this month.

This must mean these other three envelopes contain good news about my ESA claim, though I wince as I'm typing. Never get your hopes up, not with the DWP! Though to be fair, in the past, the processing people have always been decent. It's the rest of them that I've had problems with. Let's find out...oh it's like Christmas all over again!

First envelope contains that p45 the ESA form wanted. Hope that's not a problem otherwise why send it to me!

Second envelope tells me my JSA claim has ended. Ok, I knew that.

God my hands are shaking!

Third envelope tells me...my JSA counts as taxable income.

Er, where's my ESA then? How can ATOS have me as an active claimant, or whatever, and yet I don't even know if I am entitled to the benefit for which they are to test my entitlement? This is ridiculous. How can they have access to a claim that doesn't even exist yet? Will I get some more mail tomorrow? Next week? After the end of January? How can they expect me to fill in this form when I don't even have an open claim.

Fucking hell, anxiety overload!