The Cost of Parking

So it seems I have been parked: that is abandoned by the WP. I have heard nothing back from them at all. I still have the forms given to me to fill in, some of which remain unanswered because the questions are stupid and I frankly can't be arsed. Is this a good example of Christian charity? But then, it seems, the Salvation Army has form in this area: they subscribe to a strict biblical morality with all the divisiveness that entails.

Thing with being parked is that you are left in limbo: the claimant still has to search for jobs to fulfil the condition for receiving JSA and show his efforts, but he gets no support from the people that the public purse is paying for that. I'm not entirely sure this is a better situation. But then I don't really want to rock the boat when I go and sign on in case I get shipped off on workfare. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and one that goonface Grayling will doubtless deny happens. The more these experiences trickle out the harder for him it will be to keep sticking his finger in to close the cracks in the dam.

What do I do? The cold hard truth is that, at least locally, there is no help at all. I don't know if I can swithc providers - in fact I suspect that's not an option at all. Once you're with a provider, any complaints about their service have to go through them. I've heard this from JC+ staff many times while waiting to be seen. It's a convenient arrangement: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Even then the other provider (JHP - via whomever they have delivering on the ground) is also operating from a religious establishment: they are hosted at the newer and more plush (but no less Christian) baptist church down the road. Perhaps god has cornered the market on the WP: after all IDS is himself a full on believer. I'd call him a zealot.

These schemes just cannot address the reality of the problems that are out there. For people like myself in rural communities, travel is a huge problem. I simply cannot afford to be travelling around because the cost of a bus ticket is £7! That's ten percent of my weekly income. There's no concessionary rate either. Why can't the government help with matters like this? They are after all quite happy for WP providers to have to find the means to refund travel expenses to appointments, but they can't recognise that the pittance amount of JSA just cannot cope with the huge and ever increasing bus fares charged by the private sector.

I don't really see any of this changing any time soon. Parking is a sign of the times: it's easier to just dismiss problems, take resources away from people (such as help and support) and focus on things that are easier to address: superficial problems that a photo op can cure. Meanwhile the rest of us are abandoned.

Programmed - the Language of Bullshit

I've been looking over the assessment forms P gave me to fill in. They are, unquestionably, filled with the usual lazily worded profile creating questions. The purpose of which is to pigeon hole me. For example: "what job search activity have you done so far?"

No time frame presented. Do they mean since I last signed on? Since I first signed on? Do they want an accurate record of EVERYTHING i have ever done to find work? Good luck with that!
The first page refers to a self-assessment questionnaire. I have no such thing. These forms are not meant to be filled in by the customer, I'm only doing it because I'm awkward and kick up a stink. Most of this is information P would already have if he'd bothered to read the info that was referred. Of course in truth, he has this information (he must have, he has my phone number and rang me the day before). The questions want to match me up with services they doubtless provide: stuff like CV building, advice on the 'hidden job market' (that old myth), telephone techniques and all sorts of rubbish. Oddly one of the first questions asks whether or not I'd like training, self employment advice and even further education, or at least information thereon.

I've already been told that's off the table. What a joke.

Of course for these people this is their bread and butter. Going through these tedious motions might help some people - and that's entirely fine - but not for others. But that's supposed to be the point of this scheme: it's meant to be flexible and custom tailored to the needs of the individual.

It's just ironic that I have already been plainly told that isn't the case at all, and if they cannot begin to address or approach the health issues I do have then all that stuff isn't worth a damn.

Programmed - Action Plans

A few weeks ago I made a FOI request to ask if it was compulsory for claimants mandated to the WP to sign an action plan. The response I have received is as follows:

"Work Programme providers have the freedom to develop their own business models and processes to support and help participants find work. It is not however a mandatory condition of Jobseekers Allowance to sign an action plan, or a form confirming attendance to a Work Programme induction session or form confirming receipt of Work Programme induction session documents.

It is (among other things) a condition of Jobseekers Allowance that Work Programme participants make the most of the help made available by the provider, for example, by attending meetings or taking phone calls at the times agreed and completing activities agreed with the provider. Individuals who are mandated to undertake an activity by a Work Programme provider may incur a loss or reduction of benefit should they fail to comply without good reason. Participants are also required to attend their Jobcentre Plus office fortnightly to show they are available for and actively seeking work and therefore, still entitled to Jobseekers Allowance."

Now I don't know how the likes of my new chums at the Salvation Army will interpret this, which of course is half the battle. But it seems pretty clear. Claimants cannot be compelled to sign these things. But then the second paragraph says that if mandated a claimant that subsequently doesn't act will face a sanction.

I'm not sure I'm best placed to translate that more clearly; I'm not a lawyer.

Smoke and Mirrors

That's all the WP is. From the untruths uttered by professional sociopaths like Grayling to the cash strapped charities desperate for money, plaudits and validation. It is abundantly clear now that this scheme is not remotely fit for purpose, as if it was ever going to be.

There is clearly a culture of misinformation. I'm not sure I put that down to any clever conspiracy, i doubt the government are that clever. It's more a case of poor communication from day one. No one really understands what they are meant to do and when they aren't supported in delivering the kinds of vision that Grayling continues to espouse it starts to creak and groan.

The upshot of all this is that the claimant is constantly kept on the backfoot. I walked into the meeting not knowing what to expect, so I'm guarded (well, more than usual) from the start. Is that really the way to run things? Keeping people in the dark? Not telling them what's going to happen, what's on offer, what they can expect? No of course not, but it's just all spin. No one told me I was going to be interviewed by an incompetent organisation that ignored the data fed to them by their prime and the JC. Noone said to me I was going to be sat in a musty old church hall surrounded by what I would regard as inappropriate religious accoutrement's. I don't even recall seeing a single Internet connection, perhaps they all had wifi. But then there were only two pc's present: the laptops used by the staff.

Noone tells you that there isn't anything on offer. No training for instance. So how am I to move forward? We are living in a period of mass unemployment so you might reasonably argue that retraining people and offering them a broadening of their skills might be a good thing. That isn't the case. So how can this scheme possibly help? How are they going to find me a proper job if they wilfully keep me in the same circumstances I am now?

That's the bottom line: this programme is clearly not resourced or run to offer that kind of help. It will not and seemingly cannot target that which it needs to unless the individual is pretty much within the orbit of a job already. In which case the merest push will be seen to help him get the job, when that's not true at all. As a result the DWP can claim success for this scheme while shutting out all complaints. That's what is happening. I cannot see success for this scheme at all, even for the providers. It is simply a money making enterprise for the primes and quite probably a waste of time for the subcontractors. They aren't being supported and don't have the money to help with things like training, but they are the actual providers that people will see.

Programmed - Meet the New Boss...

So I'm back. From my first appointment on the two year sentence that nothing - including employment - will get me off of. What an utter waste of time.

First the surroundings: even though I knew it was the Sally Army (calling themselves Employment Plus instead of Salvation Army Employment Plus), I thought it might be in an office in a building that's part of what is a small church facility. Nope, there is no such thing. It's a small salvation army church with a small dining room/kitchenette at the back. I'm seen by the adviser, P, in the hall itself. He's set up a laptop with a printer attached as if it were a jumble sale. The whole place had that musty jumble sale/charity shop smell. We're sat between the rows of pews and the 'stage'; I've got a big old bible open on a shelf within arm's reach and on the other side of the stage is a lectern with a mic with the legend 'Jesus is Lord'! P is wearing salvation army uniform (that blue jumper they wear). No other markings, though at a later point he identifies himself, as the organisation had over the phone last week, as being a member of the Sally Army (as opposed to a group funded by them in the way they are subcontracting from Jobfit).

There is no one else present except for another adviser and I think he's with a client; they are in the dining area bit so I can't tell. I don't know whether or not other people will turn up, but as it transpires they don't. Consequently I made a fuss about privacy because even though I'm sure the Holy Ghost is discreet, we're in the middle of a bloody church and anyone could listen. These are all the facilities they have and the tone P uses in response sets the tone for the rest of the appointment: he constantly talks to me about how they do things with a bit of a smirk as if to suggest that it's perfectly obvious how things are done and that I should know this and that I don't means I'm a fool. It's quite defensive actually and I don't really care for it.

Quite honestly the appointment was a bit of a disaster in terms of what's supposed to have happened. But that, again, is in part down to the way things are done, according to P, as opposed to what I've been led to believe including what Jobfit have actually told me. As I said yesterday I spoke to Jobfit to find out whether they had forwarded the info that was included by the JC during the referral process. Jobfit assured me they had and I believe them (they verified said info and knew who I was because they had to verify that to). One thing I didn't mention yesterday was that the person I spoke to, again P, at Employment Plus (EP), wasn't someone that Jobfit had heard of! They mentioned a Samantha (no ladies present this morning just P and another fellow). What is going on?

Again, this morning, P is adamant - though he never explicitly says this - that he hasn't received the info. Instead he says that it doesn't matter because I have to explain all this stuff to him there and then. I think it matters because later on he questions whether Jobfit including writer as my short and long term career goal (it's in print on the action plan thing I was sent when the appointment was booked). He focuses instead on retail and customer service which, stupidly, I tell him I have done before (I couldn't really get out of that as it's part of the jobseeker's agreement info, along with the health overview, the DWP included with the referral paperwork already mentioned, writer was part of that). He completely ignores writer saying that what's on that action plan form, which I show him, is meaningless 'those are just goals, in the future' (duh!), so why is it on the form then if it has no bearing on the process at hand? He doesn't answer. So not only are the facilities inadequate for discussing personal issues (where necessary), but they are admant that they don't have the info passed on to Jobfit and that said info is irrelevant. Also they admit they can't help with mental health issues because it's totally not their remit. So the million dollar question is: what am I doing here, what is the point of this?

I could go on about the appointment ad nauseum, but I want to distill my experience and what it means more succinctly than usual. So here's the nub: even P admits, in fact we abandon the appointment (he starts to mellow out at this point, as do I because the whole thing is such a farce), that the Programme isn't what it's being sold as. At all. Now of course you'd have to be monumentally naive to believe the bollocks the Tories have been spouting. But the truth is, this is no different to the schemes of old, including the Working Links course I was on a couple of years ago. It's exactly the same: these people are there simply to facilitate a jobsearch. They are there to get you into any kind of work, along the lines of what's on your JSAg, as soon as possible. This talk of helping people realise long term goals and achieve a sustainable outcome is complete bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. P is also adamant that this is the same for all the providers, across the board (including Jobfit's local rival, JHP, whom he tells me he has worked for before). It is essentially no different than the JC; no different than the Programme Centres of old. All it can do is offer a bit of jobsearch, some stamps and maybe the odd CV printout. Maybe - maybe - if you have particular needs that can tick a particular box (P tells me that literacy funding is currently en vogue) then it might be different, your mileage may vary.

In the end they can't really offer anything. We have a broo ha ha about writing, as I mentioned. He claims it's a long term goal (ie they completely ignore that as a job goal even though Jobfit and the DWP have recognised it) and that without proper training it can't even be considered. What training do I need? I'm not looking for any particular specialisation and I happen to be able to write (and at great length as these posts attest). I'm open to whatever opportunities the WP can offer in respect of writing - isn't that what it's for? Nope. Not at all. I ask what help he can provide for training and that's when I find out just how little these people can offer. No training. They have no budget for much of anything beyond refunding bus fares and printing CV's it seems (unless, as I say, it ticks a box, then they can 'draw down' funding streams). No mental health specialists/experts, no training, no facilities that aren't in a religious timewarp (it's like being sent to 1975 for some careers advice), not much of anything.

Again we get into the discussion of having a mental health advisor. As if these people are available on tap. Again the implication that, by not having such an adviser, I'm not to be considered ill. The fact that I'm on JSA further exacerbates this because the rules (apparently, at least according to P) say that people on the WP from JSA are ready to work, end of.

Quite honestly I'm exhausted at this point. P mellows out somewhat because I think even he can start to sense the dissonance of experience here. What I've been told and lead to believe is bollocks, even if you factor in a margin for bullshit when digesting Grayling's propaganda. Yet I'm still left wondering why Jobfit don't know who P is or why they have the information and yet both P and EP say otherwise. How can that information not matter? It answers the questions he's asking (even though, apparently, I still have to give those answers in person). I'm looking at my appointment letter: "we will carry out an in depth assessment of your barriers to work and individuals needs". There was nothing of the kind, just a short questionnaire covering basic skills (can you read, can you write, as well as what do you think comprises the skills required for retail and customer service - or whatever work EP think you should be looking for). The questionnaire does ask what health issues I have (as well as am I addicted to anything, do I have a criminal record, etc, the usual), but they can't do anything with those barriers. So why am I here?

I think at this point P realises there's something wrong. He relents and says that he's going to discuss things with his boss while I discuss things with my GP. He assures me I won't get sanctioned as I've signed the form to say I've turned up etc. I believe him (and in any case, he suggested curtailing the appointment and taking a different path so if they decide to play bollocks then so be it, I can't account for them being wankers if they so choose). He refunds my bus fare and offers me the chance to fill in the assessment forms at home, in my own time (i tell him I wont' be rushed and he accepts), to return at a later date. But even if I change my claim to ESA, which seems to be the most appropriate benefit for me (ATOS' bullshit and both the Psychologist my own GP's benign ignorance notwithstanding), I'm still obliged, like some kind of unemployment Johnny Blaze, to the Salvation Army Employment Plus and their outdated 1970's church hall facility. This is hardly the 21st century and it's hardly the progressive manifestation of modern thinking on welfare reform.

Frankly it's the same old same old.

Programmed - And We're Already Having Problems 2

A new post because otherwise it will take up 10 miles of screen space.

I've just had the Salvation Army ring me back. Oh where to begin. I think the guy is almost deliberately misunderstanding me. He seems to be saying that he's been told that I said this or that I wanted that (specifically a private room - no just appropriate discretion). What I asked him was 'what experience with mental health issues do you have'? Turns out, none. They are just, to use his words, job brokers. I explain to him that I made it clear that the issues I have were explicitly included in the referral. These are issues that my GP supports (somewhat) and that, with the help of the Psychologist (in her own wayward fashion), the JC accepts them. My JSAg is also tailored accordingly. It's far from perfect.

The upshot seems to be, ignoring his constant misrepresentation of what I have said, is that if you are referred as a JSA claimant you are regarded as hale and hearty with no problems. Consequently you have no leverage with regard to the mandatory stuff (uh oh, his words not mine). He also mentions group work (fuck THAT!) as well. So they have a whole programme of the usual tedious cake baking crap I have to look forward to. If you are an ESA claimant you have more leverage - although how that works I don't know since they are going to be the same organisation with the same lack of experience presumably. The difference, I think, is that the mandatory stuff then isn't.

On top of this he keeps telling me that I can't have a private room even though I didn't explicitly ask for one. My point was that discussing the personal issues requires due discretion. It doesn't sound as if they have this; it's a small office apparently and if there's group stuff going on it sounds like it's going to be very cosy right from the off! So in at the deep end I am thrown and without even them being forewarned (apparently - who knows what they've been told) that I have problems. So again the system fails: the granularity is so thick and the system so binary that it just isn't helping. I needed to be on ESA all along, ironically, for this to work. So I don't know how this is going to go down. He even claimed to have spoken to the JC who, apparently, said that they don't pass on such info as health issues upon referral. So where does that leave me? He said also that people with mental health issues 'normally' bring an advisor, a case worker or nurse of some kind. Well I don't have one and I can't imagine what my GP would make of this.

It sounds like I'm going to have no credibility tomorrow and that when I sit there and try and discuss these issues (which I'm happy to do with proper professional trained discreet staff who follow due processes of accountability and responsibility to such information and myself) that I'm going to be in a minority of one. He can't help me, he isn't remotely in a position to do so. I'm not even sure that, were I referred as an ESA claimant (and I presume it would be the same random referral process - there's no specialist ESA provision as far as I know), it would be any different. This will be interesting to say the least because I'm certainly not going to be thrown in at the deep end like this!

EDIT: I rang Jobfit directly. They have verified that they indeed received the info from the referral pertaining to my mental health issues. They also said this is information that should be available to Employment Plus. It's all there for them to look at. So either something went tits up in the transmission of info, Employment Plus don't regard that information as being an issue and so just aren't considering it at all, or they are lying outright when they say they don't have it.

Programmed - And We're Already Having Problems

I have just had my 'courtesy call' from Employment Plus (that is to say Salvation Army Employment Plus, only they left out the first two words, curiously). Ok, I knew this was coming. So I'm aware that I have my appointment tomorrow morning, in fact I can't stop thinking about it. Such is the joy the WP instills in me.

I ask if they refund bus fares. I'm assured they do, on presentation of a proper bus ticket. Ok, that's fair enough.

I ask about how trained they are in mental health. Well....they don't know I have any such issues. So that's something they get to discover during the assessment process, so I don't get an actual answer as to whether this person, a youngish sounding gentleman that doesn't proffer a name, has any experience in dealing with such issues/people/problems I might have.

But it gets better, it turns out that I've been double booked. So not only did Jobfit not pass on my the issues that I told the JC to let them know about when they referred me, but that when I asked Jobfit if the appointments were one to one they meant, no instead of yes. I asked this specifically. But instead they've booked me at the same time as someone else. So that would be two people having to discuss personal issues of whatever depth seriousness or nature with the adviser in stereo with no regard for privacy or discretion. How on earth did Jobfit, or even Salvation Army Employment Plus, think that was going to work?

I specifically asked Jobfit to clarify this: I rang them straight back to confirm this after the appointment was booked.

Of course this adviser isn't much help. Either I have to turn up tomorrow and unless this can be mitigated (I'm hanging on the telephone - he's decided to contact Jobfit to clear this up as we speak) be seen with a complete stranger simultaneously while discussing such personal issues as mental health (it's a little different than here as well, since this is anonymous and thus discreet - and I don't have to give out my address, NiNo, and phone number, etc), or I have to rebook the appointment. I can't cope with that. I agreed an appointment and that's what I have to work with. It might be different if it was somewhere more local, but it's not. Never mind pissing around with bus times.

They just assume you're ok with this. Which implies that whatever issues you might have (that of course they aren't told about prior, so as to perhaps prepare for whatever needs a customer might have) mean nothing. That's the problem. It's a complete mess before we've even started, and I don't even know when this guy will phone back or what he will do - assuming he doesn't presume a course of action all on his own (again implying that my issues mean nothing). I'm on tenterhooks as it is. I don't need this, but why am I surprised if the prime doesn't even communicate properly with it's subcontractor!

Programmed - A Quick Sign On

My appointment, as I sit in the library briefly, was at 10 in the am. Fortunately I was seen reasonably promptly although there was some guff about a group meeting that people are meant to have with regard of the Work Programme. This came up because such a meeting was happening as I went in. I have no idea what that was all about.

Really the only change for claimants now on the WP is they get a smart new frontpage for their signing book and they don't have to go through a jobsearch at the JC - that's for the provider to accomplish. So the only thing to report (forgive me, there's nothing else to do in town while I wait for the bus - it's a nice library though) is that the process is more or less the same: you still have to bring in your jobsearch but that search is done via the WP. And, again tediously, the JC don't seem capable of sticking to a regular signing time. Each time I go in they have to book a new time for my next appointment, even though my signing book says 10am. It's a ridiculous system that I think even the frontline staff regard as stupid; it's just petty bureaucracy and it doesn't help people like me that have to rely on public transport.

Programmed - Tidbit

I just rang the Salvation Army HQ (their number off their website) ostensibly to enquire about the paradox of being in a position to sanction people - push them into poverty - while being a charity that helps people in need. I got through to the Employment Plus section, which wasn't actually my intention. I wanted to ask them as the master organisation because I was under the impression that Employment Plus was a more neutral, less religious, organisation they almost subcontracted to. Interestingly that's not the case. In fact when I asked if Employment Plus was as Christian oriented as the Salvation Army itself I was told 'of course' - in a tone that seemed almost surprised that I would even ask. I didn't push the issue and was told that they don't really like to put people up for sanction unless it's a last resort. Now I have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this, to be fair. Hopefully it's true, but I couldn't speak to anyone directly related to the WP (they're all in a meeting of course!). Whether their not being a neutral organisation, if what I'm told is true (don't know why she'd lie to me), affects WP provision I do not know.

Programmed - Action Plan Pictures (repost)

Someone asked to post images from the aforementioned action plan. Now I don't know why this was included, I'm sure it's intended to get me thinking about what I need to tell them when I attend as presumably that's when all this get's done. Here are the three most important pages. There are a couple more covering all the basic sort of info: name/qualifications, etc.

Programmed - This Is Your Threatening Induction Letter!

I have my appointment for the 3rd of April now. I have just received the letter/induction details including an action plan. Now this is confusing. Firstly the action plan isn't filled in and it's not clear if they want me to fill it in or, if not (and I don't think they do), why this is included at this stage. Is it meant to be a work in progress or something? Along with the usual 'if you don't attend...verboten' warnings it says that they will start an action plan during the first meeting.

However, the agreement, on page 3 (out of 5 painful pages) has a part for me to sign and the adviser to countersign. Again no mention that I should sign this now (like hell!). However it does contain the following text:

"For Mandatory JSA Customers: if you do not undertake the activities required in this notification your benefit will be affected"

The agreement that I'm to sign reads:
"I agree with the content of this plan and the outcomes identified. I will attend my programme for the hours agreed. I also understand that I will have to complete periods of work placement during my time on the programme".

The fuck? The Salvation Army (and it is definitely them) are going to compel me to 'work placements' - in other words workfare.

Now that's if I agree to this - and there is some contention as to whether I am legally obliged to this. Or, more pertinently, whether or not my refusal to sign can affect benefits. I've been told that, according to DWP information, signature of this plan isn't mandatory. Whether that means they assume you are going to agree with it anyway I don't know, but my fear, as it always has been, is that regardless of who's right, they will just cause trouble if you don't agree to play ball - even if you are legally entitled not to sign this nonsense.

Also, no one wants to get into a ruck with people like this, and so it's going to take a lot of nerve to politely decline this without them getting all passive aggressive (or just plain aggressive). This won't be easy. But it sounds, according to the wording, that work placements (with all that entails) are compulsory. What do you say that Mr Grayling? I seem to recall you using the word 'voluntary'!

The following couple of pages list 'milestones':

"Milestones to meet any barriers arising from customer's personal circumstances customers that may affect his/her ability to sustain employment" (ineplicable grammatical error theirs, not mine), along with "Planned date of achievement" and "Date Action completed".

Well that's good to know that complex and inhibiting mental health issues, including incurable learning disabilities and/or neuro diverse conditions can be so easily dealt with and 'completed'.
There is also "Milestones to meet customers on-going training and knowledge needs" likewise with a date for completion planned or otherwise. Of course I won't know how to answer this which gives them carte blanche to provide none. I don't know what help is or might be available nor what would best help me so easily lowered expectations are easily met.

Then we finish with start dates and contact details for the job they will of course be procuring for me that will be a long term career goal or whatever they want to call it, and the following above a box to sign:

"I understand that my employer will be involved in these in-work support arrangements and I give permission to share information with my supervisor or line manager as the representative of the organisation that employs me. I agree to meet the in-work targets outlined in this plan."

Waaaaaitaminute....what in work support targets? Why would I have to meet them (as opposed to the people responsible for this apparent support)? I can see no mention of this at all in this action plan. How many supervisors and line managers are going to want to or have time to deal with these things? How many employers are going to hire someone with all this baggage, for better or worse, over the thousands that don't have this (and probably have more experience)?
There is also, finally (finally!): "Customer Declaration (No Employer Involvement) - I would prefer not to involve my employer in these in-work support arrangements but I would like continuing confidential contact with my adviser to support my employment. I agree to meet the in-work support targets outlined in this plan."

So they win either way, I have to fulfill their requirements even in work, despite this plan making no reference (at this point at least) to such targets, and thus they get paid.

This is getting sinister. There's a lot of heavy duty stuff here. I need to be sure of my position before I enter the spotlight and risk even a sniff of a sanction, because for people on the pittance that is JSA even that's enough to really cause problems - and we all know how long they can take undoing that kind of damage. I think I will tell them that I am certainly not signing all this stuff up front; it looks like they will bamboozle me with a ton of info/requirements/plans up front and if they expect me to agree to everything frontloaded like that, well sorry. No chance. Later on perhaps (not really!).

Programmed - Intro Leaflet Breakdown

I really am not looking forward to being conscripted. The worst part is that I have to sit around waiting for the damned phone to ring. That could happen anytime, calling me up for service. I don't deal with that situation well at all. Of course they don't think about things like this, instead you get a referral letter warning you of the consequences of failure. Same old stick no carrot.

On top of that I have a leaflet from the Jobfit people, the standard minimal pre-induction crap. It's worth a closer look because I suspect that, if actually called into question, wouldn't be taken seriously at all.

Firstly it says "Removing Barriers" talking about a professional service tailored to each individual's needs and supporting customers to overcome any personal problems and issues preventing them from working. Good to know, then, that I'll be dealing with trained therapists, counsellors and psychologists (like the person I have been dealing with who tells me her voice carries no weight with these people). It's not tailored at all; my first need is dealing with having to travel to the venue which is a) not local and b) a great source of anxiety. Of course they aren't going to respect that, the Jobcentre don't. Yet previous organisations that I have dealt with (independent from the benefits system, which is a major difference) were able to meet in a mutually agreeable public location like a cafe and were happy to do so. It would probably be cheaper for them. But as this is being handled by Jesus and Co. it's not likely they'll shift. I pray forgiveness for them.

"Championing Ability" tells me that they will recognise my skills and abilities with a view to building on them and applying them to the labour market. Well there's the first problem, I don't want to be marketplace chattel and fodder. That's not the human experience I signed up thanks very much. But really, what are the odds they will provide training?

Then it tells me about "Delivering Sustainability" in respect of achieving long-term employment outcomes. So that should be not forcing me into a job I don't want and aren't suited for.

Three straightforward principles right off the bat that already I'm extremely sceptical about. Perhaps I'm just too cynical. These days? Yeah, right! Now we have the "Customer Minimum Service Standards", helpfully printed in green and black.

I will be made to feel welcome and treated with respect with the chance to have feedback received appropriately. I shall certainly hold them to this right off the bat. If they can't respect the conditions and issues (the ones they claim they can cure as just explained) then already we have a problem.

Next it tells me about the 'welcome call' wherein I will be told when to turn up for the first induction appointment, oh joy. Well again we have a problem: limited bus services make the already troublesome issue of travel difficult, I doubt they will take that into account (especially as local funding cuts mean the timetable will be completely rewritten in a couple of weeks). Then a letter to follow this along with an 'induction pack'. Goody!

I'm also told that I can expect good quality advice and guidance about careers (presumably the ones they approve of that aren't of my choosing, despite all the above promises) and the resultant action plans and steps I will of course be expected to follow in pursuit of that. Great, I hate all that shit. It's pointless because you can't plan outcomes for job applications, and it's only there to give these people some purpose while they tell you what to do under threat of sanctions (which of course they don't mention in their service standards).

Then we got to the creating/updating/rubbishing your existing CV section, application forms (thanks but I can manage to answer a series of sensibly asked and worded questions, that isn't the problem I have). It also mentions, along with the usual rubbish about interview techniques (be polite, pretend to be interested, don't dress up in Nazi uniform or covered in excrement, hope that your interviewer isn't a twat) as well as 'accessing the hidden jobs market'. What the hell is this? Hidden jobs? This sounds like more rubbish to me: if employers want staff they'll advertise as broadly as their remit allows. If a job really is hidden it's because it's internal and they don't want John Q. Jobcentre applying for it, it could be a specialist position advertised in trade magazines. What a waste of time: they try to make it sound as if it's some special knowledge they, as a provider, have access to that, if you're good enough, you might be blessed with accessing. Again it's this complication of the issue that makes the problem.

I can also expect to see my adviser fortnightly, much like the Jobcentre who do the same thing, to 'make sure' I'm getting the support I need 'and moving forward to get a job' - that last bit sounds rather sinister! What if you can't move forward at that moment? What if your problems are really getting on top of you? What if your anxiety is getting the best of you? What then? Prayer? Confidence Building Seminar with Mike Dynamo that will pick you up in some superficial radio 1 stylee? Some issues are a bit more serious and a bit deeper than can be tackled with NLP or buzzwords bandied about? But hey, let's all think positive party people! Corporate bollocks is great! Ugh, not for me - again the sort of thing that makes my (apparent) neurodiverse/aspergers/not aspergers/add/what the fuck it is go into overdrive.

To top it all off there's the codifying of the above into an action plan which no doubt I'll be compelled to sign (along with all the other stuff which may or may not be optional, as others have discovered). Finally there's mention of the complaint's procedure: a string of increasingly more powerful line managers culminating in an independent case examiner. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. This final part contains one of the most curious parts of all: the plain it speaks of details "the level of contact and support that you and the employer have agreed to, once offered a job". How many employers are going to want to be in this position when, as is more likely, they can choose someone else that doesn't have all this baggage attached? More importantly what happens to someone like me in that position, no doubt I will be seen as not having played my part! This is sinister. At the very least this kind of required (as it seems) employer participation means that the jobs available to you will be limited, so again what kind of choice will I have over my own future?

No doubt I have been rather negative throughout all this, but that's because I can see straight through the rhetoric from the get go. We all know how much bollocks some of that is, but it's still written. Will they take it seriously? Well they will pay lip service to it, but when it comes to concrete action I doubt they will do more than most people these days and pass the buck. That's the corporate culture these days; you get it every time you ring up a call centre. This is no doubt part of the reason places like Jobfit subcontract; if there's a complaint it just gets pushed back and forth and never dealt with. The JC can't deal with it as the Work Programme effectively neuters them, that's why The Psychologist can't get involved (though she could at least try, it wouldn't have hurt).

My guard is up and I shall be holding them to account on every part of this. We've heard all along how great this scheme is, from the likes of ratface Grayling, so I expect it to deliver. But even from the get go they aren't respecting me. I suspect it'll be no different to my time (mercifully short) with Working Links a few years ago: all smiles and support until you got there and then a complete about face that left me questioning my own sanity!

Programmed

It's zero hour. I have been referred to the Work Programme. The dreaded Work Programme. The great Jobcentre referral process tombola has sent me to Jobfit whom I have never heard of (but then why would I). The venue is the Salvation Army building directly over the road. Does that sound relatively benign? Who knows, but I'm not a Christian and don't plan to be.

According to Jobfit's website, they work in partnership with (which I take to mean they subcontract to) Salvation Army Employment Plus. So now the good old Sally Army has gotten a seat aboard the Unemployment Gravy Train. I can't say that inspires me, but I can't be sure how all this works, nor do I understand why all these companies subcontract to and from each other. I suppose the obvious answer has the queen's face on it.

I'm not sure how I feel right now. That funk of anxiety blunts everything. The world seems at once too bright in terms of sensory stimuli and yet too dull. My thoughts are engrossing and encompass too much of my consciousness. Perhaps I should try meditation again. I'm on my own with this, I have to wait for the call from the relevant provider to compel me into action. I do not like waiting for phone calls, and I could hear from them anytime. That isn't something that's positive for me either. I'm dreading this for sure, so I suppose that's how I feel. If the venue were nearer that would, perhaps inexplicably, make all the difference. That however isn't going to happen and I don't know of any Salvation Army facility closer to home. I used to quite enjoy travelling around on buses and even trains, there's something uniquely comforting about the train, it's its own thing and doesn't have to use the roads with all the traffic, but now I feel more anxious about it.

My signing arrangements have also now changed. I have a different signing time; the JC is too prone to tinkering. Every time I go in they've changed the parameters of their diary system. Now it seems certain morning slots are not available at all. Yet they know, and even my Adviser understands, that I need this routine. As a consequence of the WP the process of signing is supposed to be more straightforward as the WP provider shoulders the jobsearch burden, even though I still have to bring my jobsearch. I'm willing to bet pounds to pence that the process isn't simplified and that the adviser I see will, at the very least, waste mine, and thus all the other people's, time as well. Signing appointments regardless are supposed to only take ten minutes, but the tinpot Hitlers seem compelled to scrutinise everything to the point of annihilation and just waste time for everyone. It' snot like a doctor who, understandably according to the needs of individual patients, may require a longer appointment or even a shorter one.

I can't find much on the internet about Salvation Army Employment Plus (plus what?). Is this a new scheme? I've tired their main page and there isn't much there. I hope they are positive, as I have no choice in this. The referral letter is of course quite clear, shall we say, about my choice in this matter. It's always nice to be spoken to with an air of complete distrust.

Still Not Much Help

Lean times for people that need help or even just want to do something different. I've managed to prise a letter from my GP as he has now spoken with The Psychologist. Not surprisingly the letter tells me next to nothing. I still have no idea what the test I undertook was actually for; it wasn't to get on the sick, and it wasn't to give a diagnosis. This is the same language used by the Fit Note culture: telling me what the test was not for is not telling me anything. Similarly telling people what a person with disabilities can do is ignoring those disabilities. And to what end? So they can be shuffled into the great queue for jobs. Worse, the queue for the average sort of work (ie the only sort of work) you will find via the DWP. So something like writing from home isn't ever going to come through that system. The letter does acknowledge that, while in principle arbeitmachtfrei - sorry, work cures all (that's what I meant to say of course!), in practical terms I need the right sort of work.

But that's not how the jobcentre works. I face the prospect of being referred to the Work Programme when next I sign (Friday, the sense of dread is already peaking once again - something my GP has no understanding of either. I'm amazed I haven't turned to drink or weed this far into my life). I've already been told that The Psychologist isn't interested in supporting my call for the right sort of help there, because, according to her, they are not compelled to listen to her. Does that mean she shouldn't even bother to rubber stamp a letter from me telling them what I need? What happens if it transpires they aren't interested in listening to me either?

That's the problem, and that's what no one I'm dealing with seems to understand. My GP seems to think that between them the 'job shop' as he calls it should be helping me appropriately. Unfortunately as we all know the reality as experienced by people on the front line having to deal with the DWP and its partners, nothing is ever so simple, nor is it guaranteed; and unfortunately for me raising this point isn't being pragmatic - it's being negative. That, according to the new right wing religion, isn't allowed.

The Insanity of the Jobcentre

I think I'm at my limit. The cup is full, sir. No more can I take of the Jobcentre and their bollocks.

Where do I start? Well when last I signed I had the meeting with The Psychologist to discuss the results of the test. That results seem to say nothing other than I might have ADD/Dyspraxia/Aspergers/all three/something else/'Non Verbal Learning Disability/Anxiety/Depression/Stress - or...? Well who knows. She told me the waiting list for an official diagnosis is around a year so having this test has really not accomplished much, but I presume it's meant as supporting evidence toward that end...if and when a diagnosis slot becomes available. Meanwhile I have to deal with the DWP, including facing the Work Programme. Barring anything else I'm meant to get referred to that tomorrow.

However another choice presents itself, by way of The Psychologist, a scheme called Work Choices. This is sold to me on the basis that a) they can meet me locally (which has worked out well before when I self referred to organisations in the past, and b) they are (apparently) better suited for people with problems, like me. Presumably then that's she told me about them. Ok fine.

So the day before I signed last the Disability Adviser, who works part time and not on the day I'm actually in the bloody JC, rings me up out of the blue because apparently I'd agreed for her to do this. I hadn't. She tells me about Work Choices as well. So the following day, during the meeting with The Psychologist, I say 'yes I'll meet with them' (as opposed to a Work Programme referral - those are the choices). She then agrees to sort out a referral; between her, the DA and my regular adviser, she says that'll happen and I won't have to come in to meet with the DA in person, which is something the DA seems to want me to do, insisting it's necessary though incapable of explaining why. The Psychologist knows I find the JC a difficult environment and seems sympathetic and, more importantly perhaps, helpful.

So I just get another phone call from the DA again wanting me to come in and talk to her. She asks me if I'm free to talk; I am. Then when I ask her what information she needs, as she seems to claim, for a referral, she can't tell me. Why? I'm free to talk, I've just agreed to that. I tell her that The Psychologist said she would arrange the referral without me needing to see her and that it will all get sorted out. To be honest I was expecting to receive a letter from them to that end sometime this week perhaps.

Nope, they can't even do that. The Psychologist hasn't said this so of course, as the untrustworthy claimant, I'm talking bollocks. I don't relally understand why there needs to be all this hassle. I don't understand why I need to be physically present in order to give her the information she seems to want for a referral and she refuses to ask me over the phone (as opposed to an open plan office where anyone can hear). The DA claims it's her decision whether to refer me to Work Choices; she says there are limited places. I don't get why that's relevant - am I supposed to be grateful, like I've won a concert ticket and backstage pass or something? I've already expressed interest in this scheme (which may well turn out to be crap, but at least I'm prepared to meet them), what more do you need?

But here's the real kicker: the only other choice is the Work Programme. I'm sold Work Choices because I'm told it's more suitable for someone with mental health problems. That's why The Psychologist brought it up as an option. I have to go onto one of these schemes, so wouldn't it make more sense to refer me to the most suitable one? If that's Work Choices then sending me to the WP must mean that the WP isn't suitable - so how is it meant to help me? The DA defends her reticence by saying that she's signing off on DWP funding for this course and so therefore it has to be suitable. Well it might not be; it could be crap like all the rest of their efforts - but at least I'm willing!

Again, what is the alternative? If Work Choices - a course sold to me on the basis of being more suitable for my needs - isn't appropriate (and therefore I'm wasting the limited places on offer, and the DWP's money), what is? The Work Programme? Well if that's the case, why are we even having a conversation?

If this makes any sense to you, then please explain it to me, because I'm lost! I really cannot deal with this crap anymore. In fact even though my GP isn't much more help because he doesn't get it and doesn't want to listen when I explain things (he keeps interrupting me), though that's another discussion, he doesn't understand what The Psychologist is meant to be doing. She wrote a letter, pending and promising a fuller report (I've no idea when that will be), for me to pass on to him. He read it and was completely lost: just what are these people doing?

It makes no sense. They seem to offer help (and all this assumes it is worthwhile help) and then take it away. They say they can do something, and then don't. They tell you that you need to get referred and then don't want to know. I've had it now. I think I really need to get my GP on side. So far he has been reticent to write sick/fit notes because he thinks that it's better to get the right kind of help from the likes of the JC, but I think - I think - even he's beginning to see what I mean when I explain they don't help. He's meant to be contacting The Psychologist, but god knows when that will happen. I need a lie down or a stiff drink.

The Myth of the Just World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five Live Unemployment Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuck - Fear of the Marketplace

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thy Father's Bike

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

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

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

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

That Shrinking Feeling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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