Is the Honeymoon Over?

With a thud a brown envelope hits the doormat. Ominous.

It's contents are a DWP summons to a post Work Programme support interview with 'Brian', at the Jobcentre on the 3rd of April at a time not conducive to bus travel. This alone will have to be addressed otherwise I will either be 20 minutes late or 45 minutes early. Of course the idea that they ought to book these appointments (done without my input) with more foresight is unreasonable. What else can we expect; I don't imagine asking them to change the time will be easy (I don't imagine even getting through will be).

So we're back to dealing with the unpredictable scrutiny of the Jobcentre. Though as I knew my time on the wholly useless WP was ending, this is not unexpected.

I have no idea what will come from this; it might be benign - or it might be a prelude to the kind of intense compliance that has been touted by the government. Consequently I am dreading it. The thought of having to attend, or even wander aimlessly around an empty town centre for 45 minutes waiting, makes my stomach churn. This is really down to two things: 

Firstly, I am being seen by someone who (presumably) is not trained in mental health and has no real understanding of the relevant issues. I could bring along the letter from the NHS telling me about my next Aspergers assessment appointment. Hopefully the words 'Assistant Psychologist' will carry some weight, but I fear that, being in the Work Related Activity Group (be careful what you wish for, Ghost Whistler!), may well be no defence against whatever horrors await.

Secondly, and following on, I am being seen by someone representing a system that makes certain demands, and demands certain results. This is made worse by the aforementioned lack of understanding: I have to assume they want something from me. In which case it is likely they will advocate wayward and possibly unhealthy courses of action - workfare even, and, by way of justification, will resort to dangerous assumptions and ignorance of my capabilities (and indeed interests - much as the WP has done so far). They will say such things as "other people with (aspergers/anxiety/paranoia/terminal indolence) work", which is a hackneyed favourite that only serves to avoid any responsibility to help.

The uncertainty as to what to expect is unforgivable in my opinion. They know they are dealing with someone that has issues, but woe betided giving them any stake or input into this process. From the process of making the appointment, through informing them (except with the usual threatening caveats about loss of benefits - the only certainty present), to explaining what is involved and how, I have no say - and yet it is all supposedly for my benefit, ironically. Presumably then I will be seen in the open plan office, not a private room (I could ask, but again will it be more trouble than it's worth), in full earshot of others. I will likely have to wait to be seen even at the time allotted (as well as prior), again in a place I do not feel comfortable being in anymore.

All of this is the same as having to attend the Work Programme: it's the same guarded secretive process where the only thing that is explained are the brutal consequences of not attending. I would need 'good reason' not to do so, another certainty is that I won't be able to give them anything near satisfactory. The same irony as the ATOS assessment: attendance = losing the battle while non attendance = complete failure. It is a horrible bind; the modern catch 22.

Just like the Work Programme I will be isolated, alone. I will have to live with the everyday terror this invokes. Okay that sounds rather melodramatic; what I mean to say is that this whole process is singularly alienating. It instills a pervasive level of stress into one's life that just never seems to end. I remember making my way to the Salvation Army church hall and feeling utterly sick. Granted there are certainly people far worse off than I (and that is another certainty), but all that knowledge does is further compound the isolation. This is what they want; this is how the poor and the feckless are meant to think - don't be an outsider, get off your arse and work for £fuck.all (if you can find anything of course, never mind the barriers created by health issues). Individuals going through all this - and one of the reasons I started this blog - are kept isolated; kept alone with the fear created by government's threatening rhetoric and the insecurity of not knowing what awaits them. 

I can only hope that what does await me won't be as unpleasant as my initial appointments (of the few that I had - I guess the adviser that took over at the end of last year just gave up) with the Work Programme. But who knows. I'm also conscious that the Work Programme may well have been asked to give feedback on my time, which, I'm sure, will not look good. Sadly in my experience there is precedent for this; as well as the bullying adviser I saw, they lied to the JC after my GP wrote and asked the JC what they were doing for me. In some ways I rather wish he hadn't bothered; how was he to know that doing so, probably with noble intentions, would be like kicking an anthill; rocking the boat. 

I suppose there is no getting out of this. I just wish I could be left alone to get on with my life. Why is it deemed so worthless that I must be bulled into dreadful situations for someone else's gain?

Vice and the Poor

I think it's extremely unfair to punish people for being addicted to legal vices just because they happen to be, at the point of purchase, too poor to afford them conventionally. These are legal vices that the First World (at the expense of the third, in many cases) profits from. In fact I would argue these vices are tolerated also because they mollify the lower classes. Keep the workers in pubs and puffing away and they won't have the desire, time, notion or even lung power to protest.

Moreover it seems singularly nasty - indicative of the barefaced brutality of modern capitalist power strucutres - to deny the poor these vices. This is manifest through support for measures such as food stamps and welfare payment cards; systems that enable their overseers to control how the poor spend their money - even though the poor spend the greatest percentage of their wealth than other groups).

Through such systems they can lecture the poor on how best to conduct their lives; enforcing a moral component to simple economics (hypocritical, given these overseers themselves spend public money on themselves with equal frivolity oftentimes). People that are addicted - and it is undeniable that tobacco and alchohol contain this quality - need to use; this need doesn't recognise power structures, moralising or economics. So keeping people poor and in the grip of, albeit mild, vices, as a form of social control (whey else are cannabis lawes crumbling in even authorative places like the US), seems wrong to me.

Universally Failing

According to the Guardian, Universal Jobmatch, the government’s beleaguered repository for fake jobs (including prostitutes, hit men, strippers and pirates) is to be axed. Specifically it will not be renewed when the contract ends – in two years. Unfortunately that does mean, I guess, that people will still be obliged (regardless of the law) to sign up to and use it. An ‘exit strategy’ is being devised, at further public expense no doubt.

Surely this means that, knowing the site is fatally flawed and on borrowed time, compelling people to use it is, at best, irresponsible. You wouldn’t be allowed to threaten people to use a medicine that you knew to be suspect enough in some fashion that you were to withdraw it. Can people issue a challenge now when given their virtual marching orders?

I’m guessing not. The same old excuse will be given: you are not doing what is deemed reasonable to find work. That amorphous excuse is pulled out anytime anyone questions what is asked of them. Not willing to use even a screwed up database like UJM? Then you are not taking reasonable steps to find work, end of discussion.

But wait, a judge in what must be a landmark case has ruled that the conditionality imposed is unreasonable.

I just went for a morning walk; past the field where the cows graze it occurred to me that we treat them better than we treat our own. Cattle have more value than humans these days. A cow gets a field to graze and all the grass it can eat; a human gets no food and a mould ridden damp infested bedsit – provided by kind generosity of his Tory overlords (literally, as is the case on James Turner Street).

Meanwhile Monster, the technocrats responsible for constructing UJM, want just under a million pounds (of public money), to remove all the bogus and broken ads from the site they built. They blame the DWP for the failure. This is also somewhat nonsensical: if your job was building websites would you deliberately build something you knew to be damaged? Surely they could have just refused and explained to the DWP why their ideas were stupid? I guess the (again public) money mattered more. Shameful, really.

The DWP still plans to install wi fi acess points in its offices so people can, presumably, use UJM there. Won’t this mean having to input personal details on external machines – i.e. computers they cannot themselves secure? The DWP will argue these machines will be safe, but how? Will they operate the way Library computers do, with a timed reboot and (supposedly) a forced logout of everything from the previous session so people cannot get to know other users’ histories and passwords. But I bet there are ways around this. Is it legal under the Data Protection Act to force claimants to use such a setup? The current ‘job points’ (which have always been at best cantankerous) don’t require a user login nor access to the user’s details. I don’t see how that will work if these new systems use UJM.

Where are the Tories when it comes to taking responsibility? IDS has pissed away more money than anyone could have ever though possible. Not one red cent that man has spent has reaped any kind of reward: Work Programme? Failure. Universal Credit? Leaking money and sinking like the Titanic. Bedroom Tax? Was only ever going to cost money either through helping people move, replacing adaptations, appeals, discretionary (albeit temporary) payments. Welfare sanctions, cuts, low pay, no pay, all of it comes with a cost. That money doesn’t come from IDS’ considerable pockets. The very epitome of Tory arrogance; he knows the value of nothing and the cost of everything. Responsibility is for the poor.

More importantly, where is the PCS? It has been said to me by a couple of people that it is unfair to criticise the union; that members are honest people trying to survive as best they can. It’s unfair to expect them to put their necks on the chopping block – particularly for the interests of claimants (i.e. people that are not members or workers as they are). I find this rather bullshit for two reasons:

Firstly the toxic climate of fear and sanctions cannot be in their interests. How can such an environment be anything other than a high pressure nightmare? Many have anonymously at least commented the workplace at the DWP has become stifling and stressful. So fighting this cause would make the place better; it would go some way to healing divisions between claimants and advisers as both are under threat from the Tory regime.

Secondly, while not all PCS members are sanction happy scumbags (anymore than all DWP staff are PCS members), some must be. How else are all these trivial sanctions, labelled by the likes of (and not only) the CAB as cruel, being enacted if not willingly? Nine out of ten appeals against these sanctions are upheld – assuming the claimant appeals (or even knows he can do so), so it’s clear the description of this regime is deserved. You might argue that those dishing out the sanctions do so because they have no choice, but even that is tenuous reasoning at best. Even if we assume it’s true, where is the PCS leadership? Why aren’t they speaking out on their members behalf? Why don’t they ballot for a strike at the very least? That would be a start.

I find this idea that people are being forced to dish these sanctions out dubious. The idea seems to be that, if they don’t issue sanctions, their jobs will be on the line, but frankly I cannot see how. These are not justified sanctions, surely the employee can make that case if an overzealous jobsworth manager calls his performance into question – and it will take some effort for that to happen, even under this government, laws still exist.

The choice, and I don’t suggest it’s easy for one minute (we are, as they say, where we are), is either: put someone into destitution and possibly even hospital or death, or maybe risk attracting the attention of your manager – even though they simply cannot fire you for not sanctioning Mr Smith for being 5 minutes late.

I think the fault lies with a supine PCS leadership. Despite what I have said about individual advisers, it is the responsibility of the union to do something here, to protect its members, thereby protecting the rest of us. I can’t really blame someone for fearing their job might be at stake if they don’t issue that sanction, but if they do issue it then they can’t really expect any respect from the rest of us. You make that choice, you must take the consequences. It’s the Tory way!

Testing, Testing...

Had a pair of aspergers assessment appointment during February; it turns out they actually want a third appointment. This was sprung on me last week when they wrote to me claiming we’d already discussed this (we hadn’t), and copying the letter to the wrong GP (by wrong I mean a GP I don’t really want to deal with again). Granted these aren’t particularly epic problems in the grand scheme of things, but I cannot deal with surprises like this and it put me out of sorts.

Besides I’d already had the only 2 appointments I was told about and was waiting the result. Now I feel like I’ve been sent backwards on the path somewhat. If I’m honest I have a suspicion my expectations are completely at odds with the diagnostic process and those of the people administering it. I am looking for a concrete diagnosis and I explained why (three letters: DWP). I don’t think that is a priority for them, nor do I think they understand why it is so for me.

First Assessment:

70% rather ordinary questions about how I feel as well as stuff I thought was rather mundane, if personal (obviously). Like a mildly pleasant chat with a GP; nothing I thought terribly incisive. I expected more to be questioned on the sorts of things I found in here; this test is one of the things that made me pursue an actual diagnosis (even if it’s an online test).

The remainder comprised a series of practical tests that seemed a little çhildish' to me – as a grown man. That’s not trying to be arrogant or judgement (though it probably is); I just question its efficacy in dealing with someone aged 40. I think the process is really optimised for younger people since they like to diagnose spectrum disorders early on. I guess not.

The first consisted of a short book called 'Tuesday'. It's a short book consisting of images laid out like cartoon panels inviting you to provide the story they suggest. The only text comes when the narrative tells the time. It features frogs on lily pads flying through a small town. See what I mean by childish - or child like? I felt rather odd being asked to explain the story. Perhaps that’s the point.

The next test was to explain what was going on in another, albeit much cartoonier, picture: a holiday resort on a palm drenched beachfront, filled with lots of people. It looked a lot like those 'Where's Wally' images. After I answered I was informed that a previous patient pointed how everyone looked out of proportion. I didn’t notice this, should I have I wonder? It's a cartoon; of course they look out of proportion. It seemed ‘natural’ in that respect.

Test number three was a series of images as a sequence of cardboard panels laid out specifically. Again there was a narrative for me to discern, after the images were taken away. The images were of a fisherman catching a fish followed by a cat stealing the fish before a heron steals it away from him. Once more it seemed ‘easy’: the images were obvious and not terribly complex, perhaps some deeper subtext lay behind the motivations of the cat – who knows, it might have contained a metaphor for religion or something. I find myself continually trying to second guess what is being asked of me for fear I somehow ‘fail’ – after all I might not technically have aspergers. It’s difficult to know what to think, or how, in this situation, though I can’t stop trying.

Next I was asked to explain how to brush your teeth. I was to pretend the doctor did not know how and then set about explaining. Was I to fail this, or be very good at it? I was confused by where to begin and had to enquire to set some parameters, such as could I assume the doctor knew why one would seek to clean their teeth?

Finally a bag filled with everyday objects (no cuddly toy) was presented for me to pick 5 to weave a narrative of my own choosing around. Surprisingly difficult, but I came up with something. Not sure how failing to devise anything gets translated and therein lies my problem; throughout the whole thing I felt myself trying to second guess what they wanted and to worry that i wasn't answering truthfully but to tell what was required to get a diagnosis, even though that would surely be dishonest. Perhaps that’s natural. Its’ hard not to, given the nature of this process.

Second Assessment:

They wanted me to, but I couldn't give them the details required about my early childhood. It just wasn't possible. I knew this and so did they as I'd advised them beforehand. I did give them the report made a couple of years earlier (so long ago!) by the Work Psychologist; perhaps that’s what has prompted a third appointment.

I'm not really sure what to say, quite frankly. The questions were fairly prosaic. Again nothing like the questions I was used to (from such as the online tests). Also nothing like the test carried out by the Work Psychologist from the DWP, whose report I have passed on to the diagnostic team. That test was more practical and there were no questions about my childhood. It didn't come up. Also when the test was complete a formal resolution was undertaken. Consequently that process, while still somewhat esoteric it felt more relevant; this process just felt like a conversation.

I think expecting to come out of this with a binary outcome - positive (hopefully) diagnosis or negative diagnosis - is just not going to happen. In fact I think my expectations are most likely to be completely at odds with what the diagnostic people think or how they operate.

I can't second guess the outcome, but I'm not hopeful at all. I'm glad I went through it, though this will be my only chance to do so. I can't really articulate this particularly well: I just feel that my expectations are wildly out of step and that at best I will get a reply saying 'while we think you have problems, we can't diagnose anything'. This is not what I want and won’t help me at all.

I'm not angry about it; it's just how it is I think. The experience of an asperger type person just doesn't conform to expectations from the likes of the DWP and, I suspect, the medical profession. It's just something people have to manage.

The third appointment will be posted to me. It seems they have some problems getting rooms in the local venue, despite me being told this was something that had been arranged with the local CMHT (who own that venue) last year. I’m not sure what the problem actually is, they aren’t the most organised of organisations!

Easy Ignorance

Last night’s Panorama painted an increasingly desperate, if somewhat biased, view of the poverty crisis the government and the media are largely desperate to hide. I say biased because Edwina Currie was, inexplicably, invited to contribute. I have no idea why; perhaps they figured they could show her ridiculous ill informed class hatred for what it really is. Also two out of the three case studies I saw (a recovering addict, a smoker and a part time worker) were vulnerable to criticism. The media and the right wing pundits (like Currie) will say these people are victims of personal failings and poor decision making; that one chooses addiction etc. As if such instances, even if we assume the criticism is fair, are representative.

During the programme there was a healthy twitter feed on the hash tag ‘hungry Britain’. Predictably there were the usual right wing clowns eager to latch on to the aforementioned failings and argue these people somehow deserve to be left to starve. I do not understand these people, but unfortunately attempts to engage two of these people ended with them chucking their toys out of the pram; one ended with an anti semitic post (I’m not Jewish), the other decided I was a cunt. Both took their ball and went home.

This is the problem with debate: there isn’t any. These people are frightened and insecure. That’s not to excuse their hair brained ignorance, particularly when you attempt to point out where they fall down and how they are wrong. I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy, let me make that clear, but maybe they will go away and think about their opinions a bit more carefully. Here’s hoping.

It seems to me that these people can’t understand what they are seeing. People are starving; thousands are in crisis using food banks the demand for which has trebled in two years. Almost a million have been sanctioned into financial oblivion leaving them vulnerable to loan sharks and predatory capitalism. The sort the government refuses to address or regulate. Yet these right wingers feel personally aggrieved: not only do they not understand, but they think that the ‘scroungers’ are personally taking from them and theirs. They have been divided and are so being ruled.

It becomes about scape-goating. One person was sanctioned after missing a number of appointments at the jobcentre. He claims he can’t remember the reason why, but doesn’t dispute the accusation. Is that any reason to starve him? More importantly, how does poverty help him? If he were to end up in hospital from malnutrition, which I suspect is a bomb waiting to explode since people must be in that situation (perhaps pride prevents them seeing a GP who would surely, if desperate enough, admit them), wouldn’t that cost more money? It would take valuable resources away to solve a needless health crisis manufactured by Tory policy.

Unfortunately for the gentleman in question he smoked and so the question then became “why should we feel sympathy for this person when he chooses to smoke?” But what if he can’t give up? Surely addiction is best treated by making the person secure first, building up their confidence. Taking away their income and leaving them vulnerable to destitution and starvation is hardly conducive to beating a nicotine habit.

It’s the cold logic of the internet. These critics are able to issue their judgements from a position of relative comfort and security. I suspect neither of my two opponents was living like that. So it’s easy to pass judgement in the forensic arena of twitter where the reality of that claimant’s circumstance is just pixels on a screen; no more urgent than a picture of a kitten or a wacky tweet from a celebrity.

In that environment it’s easy to point to the smoker and comment on how he can afford cigarettes but not food. That’s how Edwina Currie operates. She isn’t in that situation. She is as far removed from it as is perhaps possible. She doesn’t know poverty (despite attempts to show it), and, with the blinkers (paid for by expenses no doubt) firmly attached, never will. When the arguments get too much for the right winger they can just as easily detach themselves from the argument and run away or change the channel, or just log off. Meanwhile the problem of poverty remains, the issue of how to help people addicted to nicotine or whatever still remains.

In the case of the third case study, a woman working part time missing meals and visiting food banks because the big corporation she works for won’t pay her enough to eat, the low pay crisis continues. Yet IDS will perversely champion her solution, working a second job until 4am delivering junk food, as a positive sign. How can that make sense? Unless you think people are merely economic drones and that success is measured in how much of your life you expend making said corporation richer. She’s now ‘hard working’, despite the personal cost. This is the perverse logic of the western world: the more effort you expend the better you do, no matter how much is required or how wasteful. We waste lives living in a giant pyramid scheme; everyone knows this, it’s just a question of how you face this or whether you care or whether, like the Duncan Smiths of the world, it works to your advantage.