Yesterday morning, BBC Radio Bristol showed yet more anti-welfare bias. I've complained to them before about it, it does no good. I may complain again. I don't care if that makes me sound like a torrid little curtain twitcher, if we don't stand up for the truth about welfare and this awful government's propaganda then there's no point.
The discussion was actually about something else, but I tuned in at two different points, tuning out each time in disgust. The first caller was a lady recanting her experience claiming ESA as a wheelchair user. At the end she was asked - or perhaps told - that she must know people who are on the fiddle. Charming. Aside from an errant assumption that is easily debunked by simply looking at the facts, it's a rather nasty jibe at the character of the caller, unprovoked.
I tuned in half an hour later and the caller then was a local TUC rep who spoke about the cruel nature of the Bedroom Tax. Rightly so (solidarity with ALL those protesting that iniquitous policy). Again, at the end, more bias: the presenter asked, again told, the rep "but it's not a tax". This carried on for about five minutes with this idiot parroting this line out almost robotically, concluding with the assertion that it was unfair and somehow harmful to misrepresent the 'under occupancy charge'. Semantic bullshit aside (and those that support this policy are doing this deliberately), he tried arguing that 'it's not a tax' because, he claimed, he'd had lots of distraught callers, when discussing this subject, who were only distressed because of this supposed misrepresentation. As if to say that had the policy been discussed 'accurately' they'd have been more favourably disposed toward it!
I've noticed that people who are not opposed to the Bedroom Tax use this 'it's not a tax' nonsense to stifle the discussion. They must know they are on a losing tip, but they try and shut discussion down by revising the facts: it's not a tax, ergo it's not a problem. That's bullshit of the worst kind.
A few weeks ago, DWP fuhrer and arch fantasist Iain Duncan Smith was interviewed by James O'Brien on LBC radio.
This piece is one of the most extraordinary glimpses into the unique psychopathy of the Tory attitude toward welfare, fuelled by big business and filtered through the singular zealotry of a former failed leader of the same party. We may never fully know what transformed the 'quiet man', in his own mind, into the raging ideologue he has now become, but this gives a few insights and lays bare much of his own rampant hypocrisy. The interview was conducted in the wake of the revelation that 1700 people had applied for 8 vacancies in a Costa Coffee in Nottingham, and a week or so after the DWP were spanked for their handling of their own disgusting workfare policy.
The first bone of contention is the nature of the work IDS claims is representative of now 'record' employment. He is confronted by the fact that the work is mainly part time. His response is both to say that it's full time work, not part time, and to then go on and talk about it as part time work.
"All the jobs taken are full time work" "When we look at the part time work..."
Which is it then?
He claims his figures represent success by saying that those that have found full time work were successful at finding full time work. Except for the 2 and a half million that don't have full time work, comments James, clearly amused at Smith's utter stupidity. I don't think this is lost in IDS but then he's in a permanently haughty and aggressive mood anyway, so it's hard to tell.
"Those who find full time work are finding the full time work they are after".
Extraordinary!
Now we step into the thorny bear pit of workfare and the recent court case. We'll ignore the obvious stupidity that assumes shelf stacking is of any value to one's career whatsoever.
"Work experience is us allowing them to earn Jobseeker's allowance, but also allow them to take in experience at companies that allow them to do that."
Quite a mouthful, but the key word is 'earn'. The second is 'allowing'. IDS is allowing the poor scrounger to work for his benefit. His rationale for this ridiculous scheme is based around the notion that lots of kids want to work but can't because they have no experience and that these people have asked him to be allowed to get that experience, conveniently for the benefit of big business. This is warped: there has never been anything stopping people gaining work experience - ie working for nothing in, for example, a voluntary capacity (like work in a charity shop, in a traditionally unpaid capacity). JSA claimants have always been allowed to do that. He gives himself away by using the word 'earn'; they are allowed to earn their keep says Victorian Smith. But they were anyway - because they weren't being paid!
"Involving yourself in a supermarket is as vital as any job that you might have to do."
Like driving an ambulance for example.
And then we get that glorious moment where the mask slips. Confronted by the first mention of that terrible uppity scrounger, Cait Reilly, IDS loses what passes for his cool.
"She was getting paid! What do you think the taxpayer was paying her for god's sake? Jobseeker's Allowance?"
At the merest mention of the possibility that someone other than a Tory might be paid for the work they do, IDS loses it. How dare she!
However it turns out that DWP policy is not to use benefits as remuneration. This fact is put to IDS, but, in typical true blue doublethink, he dismisses whilst going to make the point repeatedly that she was getting paid.
This is the biggest canard of them all: we need workfare because it allows people to get experience while keeping their benefit. This could have happened anyway as not only would she not need to be exploited and lied to, she was doing voluntary work of her own volition that could have been simply allowed by the DWP without all this heartache. But of course that's not the point: this isn't about letting people keep their benefits; it's about letting them 'earn' their money, further devaluing welfare as intended.
There is still no reason that Poundland could not have paid her. She could have declared that as paid work and in a sane welfare system there'd be no problem. In fact I'd go one further: knowing that the 'experience' was not a proper job nor was it intended to be (something else that isn't made explicitly clear), I'd have let her keep what she had earned as part of the work experience. Call it a bonus.
"We don't have a work fare programme."
But you've just said people earn their benefits.
"What I found when I arrived is that young people were not allowed to go and do work experience and be paid JSA for more than two weeks."
Now there may be some arcane piece of legislation pertaining to young JSA claimants here I'm not aware of, but nonetheless the point remains: it is not DWP policy for benefits to be paid as wages, and people have always been allowed to do voluntary work. The problem IDS has is that he has muddled the two on a colossal scale, hence the court ruling. Cait Reilly was lied to; never mind that she had her own placement, she was told that she had to go to Poundland or she'd lose her benefit. That is the essence of her complaint and that is what was upheld.
Of course there has always been an issue regarding experience, but that is a problem caused by big business who don't like having to pay wages and expenses in training people. That's their fault and their problem. It is not an excuse for capitalists to exploit people. Frankly if we are all meant to be a nation of entrepreneurs and aspiring strivers, maybe these businesses should be prepared to stick their necks out; the unemployed have to do so constantly.
"In many cases the businesses once they've seen them for two months say to them actually we're going to create a job around you because we think you're worthwhile."
So 'in many cases' there were never jobs to begin with for these people to work towards - for two months (does it really require two months to learn shelf stacking?)! Then if they are lucky the business will use them to create work!?! This is pure exploitation!
When confronted with the court of appeal's decision regarding people being forced to do workfare where they should have had a choice (which is separate from workfare where they unfortunately don't - Mandatory Work Activity, as I understand it all), IDS uses human rights as a man of straw. While it is true that there is a human rights component to the case, that was not the basis for the court of appeal's decision, nor was it anything to do with what James asked.
"We have deliberately set them (the rules) general around all work schemes."
Indeed!
"Young people want it. The vast majority enjoy it. They get something out of it and they get to work for it."
Utterly disingenuous; what they want is to earn a wage, not their benefit.
"What she was saying (CAit) is that we're not being paid, we don't earn any money. My answer is you do the taxpayer is paying you (again) JSA. We have allowed you to do work experience and not lose your JSA. In the past she would have lost her JSA if she'd gone to do more than 2 weeks work."
But this is a complete misunderstanding of the very system you are in charge of: if she was - as she indeed was, again of her own volition, working in a volunteer/unpaid capacity then her benefit would never have been at risk. This scheme is completely unnecessary because it has never been against the rules to work for nothing just so long as you still have time to search for work (there may have been a 16 hour weekly limit on voluntary/unpaid work). But that is not the point of this scheme, is it Mr Duncan Smith!
"She is benefiting from the work experience so that she will then go on and be more likely to be employed in the future."
An easy and cheap point to make. Of course if this scheme becomes as ubiquitous as I'm sure IDS intends then it will have even less value; if everyone does their 2 month National Poundland Service then what will give them that edge over everyone else? It's self defeating. The whole point of experience is to learn skills: we learn to read and write not to be better than the rest of the population but so we can read and write! You don't learn to stack shelves (chances are if you own a cupboard you've already mastered that skill anyway) ffs!
So what is minimum wage legislation for, asks James. Good question these days!
"They are doing up to two months work experience. I don't quite understand why you think that they shouldn't be doing that and that they should be paid a full wage because the companies aren't committed to taking them on. Many of them then do."
Many isn't all; straight away the scheme is inherently unfair. Those that get a job are employed, those that don't aren't, and in each case the company has undertaken no risk and made no loss. What is there for the company to commit to when they have nothing to lose? Given that they still often have no say in the whole process, including whom they work for, how can this lead to anything positive? What if they don't want to stack shelves as a career? No doubt they get branded as uppity little madams and ungrateful ingrates.
"The British labour market is doing better than expected."
Because people are working for free without choice and the work programme is also used to massage the figures. Even so, the 1692 people that didn't get the 8 jobs in Costa just have to keep looking - as if that alone will magically create work. What good will telling people this do Iain? What good does it do to keep looking? Isn't this just a road to insanity - if not the detriment of the claimant's mental health (who here can't attest to that!)? Keep looking, it's there, you just have to keep looking! Meanwhile go and work for nothing in a shop because that might itself create work.
"There are 15,000 vacancies in the same area"
And yet there are still almost 1700 people unemployed; doubtless then they must be feckless - but not so lazy as to not apply for 8 positions they had individually a very slim chance of getting.
"The positive figures today are a good indication that the private sector is creating jobs. There are more people in work. There are more vacancies. The claimant count is falling."
Of course the private sector is creating jobs. The point is that there aren't enough jobs for the 2 and a half million out of work (not counting others that don't work). But the private sector is always technically creating jobs. That isn't something unique to this government; the private sector would have done so regardless - in fact had there been better economic conditions it might have created more.
Whether they are decent vacancies is another matter entirely.
"Long term unemployment is falling."
Would that be because this group is the target of these insidious schemes intended to massage the claimant count?
"au contraire; this debate is incredibly illuminating!"
What can I say? I am drifting along with no help whatsoever from the Work Programme. Billions have been wasted on this farce and what have I - or even they to show for it? At the very least a bus pass would be of immense help to me; every journey I make costs me 10% of my total weekly benefit. It's simply unsustainable. Consequently I make one journey a week and that's to do my shopping.
I've been told by the Salvation Army that they don't get any funding; this is apparently why their provision locally is in a musty old church hall. I have no idea if this is true; it may well be the case as they are working for the prime, JHP, and not the prime provider themselves. I suppose it is therefore possible JHP (who happily will provide your business with free staff) that the Sally has been used as bid candy. If that's true then it's unacceptable to treat charities in that way. However I've not got much sympathy for these greedy enterprises; they were quite happily salivating at the prospect of making coin off the backs of the poor when it sounded like they'd make big bucks. Now they are reaping the whirlwind.
Someone's making money off of me. All of us on this scheme are commodities; we are no longer 'scroungers', we have become stocks and shares on the human commodities exchange that this scheme has become. As a result, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to see some of the profit we are making for providers, if only the big boys. Are we not working for these people? I think you could make a very strong case for that in the same way that banks and financial product pimps sell their services by way of 'making your money work for you'. That way I could afford a bus pass.
For more on the Salvation Army's attitude toward the poor, read The Void.
For a good laugh...
and prepare to sing Hymn number 10; "Iain Duncan Smith, Your God, Hath Made You Poorer"
Nothing in that video is true. There is not one thing said that has any bearing on my experience whatsoever. This woman is the director of Salvation Army Employment Plus (Employment + Profit = Salvation Army. How she can say this straight faced I do not know.
"The best possible support"...bullying claimants and demanding personal data while offering no training, having no facilities and lying about what they can offer.
"We're aware that some people have more difficulties than others and we feel very well equipped and placed as an organisation...to support their employment needs" by ignoring those difficulties and lying about provision apparently on offer to such people.
"We don't differentiate whether they are job ready or how far they are from the labour market"...by telling people they are to follow very specific rules that are not explained regarding conditionality that must be followed on pain of sanction regardless of their distance from job readiness.
"We work with everybody on an individual basis to make sure they reach their full potential"...to get us our slice of the cake.
Hilarious, though tragic. Just another day in UK PLC. Could've done without the cheesy piano chords though.
Anyone here not know about Lord Fraud's latest wheeze? That's right, he plans to insert a further hurdle into the process of claiming ESA: anyone wanting to appeal their WCA decision (from either April or October, it's not entirely clear which) must first go through another decision maker. There are two major problems here: first, there is no time limit on how long this DM can take to make the decision, secondly, you cannot claim ESA during this period. It remains unclear, if you make it past this phase, whether you can claim or have your assessment phase ESA reinstated pending an appeal - assuming of course they aren't scrapped altogether.
This means that one will have to claim JSA or go without in the interim; I'm not entirely sure you can claim JSA while an ESA claim is in some form active, which it would have to be surely, even if you aren't getting any money from it. Consequently, as soon as people fail their ESA, and that still seems the most likely outcome given ATOS' continued involvement in the process, there will be a rush to make a new claim for JSA. This can only further bog down an already beleaguered benefit system. You might argue that's what people found to have failed their WCA would have to do anyway but there are a couple of key differences: firstly they would normally appeal, which means their claim stays open and so less pressure on the processing side of benefits, secondly, they won't have multiple benefit claims running concurrently - and they won't then fill up the waiting room at the local JC+ (bringing with them any particular mobility or health issues that staff will have a legal obligation to address). Of course many will have subsequent JSA claims denied on the basis of their health conditions leaving them in limbo.
This will only get worse when Universal Credit comes in. If it makes little logistical sense to have two claims open simultaneously, it is at least conceivable that one might have two different benefits running. How then will this work under Universal Credit, the whole point of which is to replace the current multitude of different benefits with a single entity? Surely if one has an UC claim already open (on the basis of health) then how will the system be able to recognise another claim for the same benefit (on the basis of unemployment)? Has Fraud or IDS given this any thought at all?
We all know what the answer to that is. This is not a logical policy; it is the politics of incompetence and malevolence. It is reaction: a response to the perceived problem of lots of people thinking they are entitled to a benefit and 'clogging up' the appeals process. The real problem is the failure of the WCA and the incompetence (and malevolence) of ATOS. Listen to this recording of an individual with mental health problems going through his WCA; the 'healthcare professional' (who refuses to explain her obvious lack of suitable credentials or expertise) is so clearly out of her depth that she can only behave with contempt and indifference. This is a sign of things to come across society.
Of course IDS/Freud have no interest in addressing the real problems and instead resort to sheer incompetence. Where is the logic of introducing yet another tier of complexity into the system? Do they perhaps think, as they might do to advertise this change (I don't know for sure), this is intended to help people? Certainly there is no sense in introducing another decision maker if you don't think the person is deserving of another chance to have their case heard? No one that wants an appeal does so because they had a favourable decision and they want to fail! No, they want their failed decision to be heard again. But of course that isnt' the real reason for this; it's to cut benefits. That's all it is. They know they can't just ban people from making appeals or take their money away while they wait for them, so they create a new level of bureaucracy to do just that, thereby creating further demand for the services of an overstretched system - will there be enough decision makers? Of course not, so naturally these decisions, like most appeals (though of course as you still receive money pending, it's not as bad) now, there will be a long wait - without money!
Has anyone failed to notice this phrase, used by almost all politicians, particularly the government, over the last few years: "it is right..". It is right that we do this, that, or the other. It's almost religious language - as if the speaker is carrying out some divine command. As if they themselves aren't responsible. As if to say, "we aren't to blame (naturally) for the situation at hand and therefore circumstance dictates we put it right". Three words used to justify horrible and incompetent government policies.
Witness Esther - Cruella - McVey, current Minister against the Disabled, on last night's Dispatches (channel 4, 8pm) using this excuse to justify forcing people with lifelong conditions to undergo the infamous ATOS Tests. People including a polio victim, a soldier whose leg no longer exists, and an gold medallist with cerebral palsy. Apparently it is right to see if these people have demonstrated something unprecedented and experienced a complete reversal of their condition, against everything medical science currently teaches. It is right because they shouldn't have what they aren't owed, and in the Tory World Order, the presumption is that everyone doesn't deserve what they have. Just ask Heather Frost.
As we all must know by now, thanks to the shrill thoughtless rabble rousing of the gutter press, Heather is the latest high profile case to reinforce the divide and rule rhetoric against anyone who claims benefits. Her case naturally highlights clearly how such feckless wastrels are depriving needy people of their due - like soldiers whose limbs have been blown off (in wars orchestrated by corporate funded politicians). In truth the interests behind these odious headlines would rather neither have any money.
The word Heather is preceded by the invidious word 'jobless', as if that was more than a simple emotionless adjective. Except with 11 kids she's hardly jobless, but who at Dacre Central wants to believe that any of her children could grow up to become pillars of the community or even people capable of advancing society: scientists, entrepreneurs (how many of those laud their tough upbringing as a part of their DNA?), politicians! No, the really nasty part of all this is how these disgusting churnalists simple write her kids off as scum who will never amount to anything. Give people a chance? Fuck no; they won't be tomorrow's taxpayers (paying 11 times as much tax as Heather ever could), just tomorrow's scroungers.
I read today that the victims of Hilsborough are planning to sue that most odious darling of the right wing media, Kelvin Mackenzie - cunt. Sorry I just can't help typing the word cunt whenever I type his name. What we need are more people bringing similar cases against these people. For too long the likes of Kelvin Mackenzie - cunt - have hidden in plain sight, armoured by mob thinking, able to avoid the consequences of their hatemongering.
In other news the online 'clicktivist' campaign against workfare pushers, Sue Ryder, has succeeded in bringing about what the charity plans as a 'phased withdrawal' from the scheme. Sue Ryder has lost a great deal of respect and credibility as a charity, which is a tragedy, but even their statement is mealy mouthed. Why do we need a phased withdrawal? They are simply ceasing to participate in Duncan Sith's Victorian workhouse scheme, not exiting the Gaza Strip! They also, and rather appallingly, claim their decision has been forced on them. That they are the victims of a campaign of misinformation from activists that has had a deleterious impact on those who really want to volunteer and those that, apparently, get something out of it. This is pretty wretched guys: no one is campaigning against those who choose to volunteer for a good cause. We are just campaigning against your exploitation of those that have no choice: that's why it's called Mandatory Work Activity.
It seems, if the Mail is to be believed (hah!), the Tories have ordered a clampdown on workfare protests, specifically those that invade shops; though I'm sure Duncan Sith would love to have the power to ban ALL workfare protest. I don't want to give the odious man-thumb ideas. On their website (which is where I'm reading this) also gives the case of a young girl landing a dream job as a hairdresser at Toni and Guy's (no, I have never heard of them). This situation, it is claimed, is the direct result of her getting some unpaid work experience with them. But yet again, if they needed staff why didn't they just advertise for a hairdresser, or set up (as I suspect the truth is) some kind of apprenticsehip to train people and take them on. Like the Transformers, there's more than meets the eye here. The same point as ever is valid here as it always has been throughout the boycott workfare campaign: if there are jobs, then pay people.
Speaking of payment, James O Brien, in a fascinating interview with Duncan Sith on LBC last week. You can follow the link and listen, but the most telling point was IDS blustering out of control in response to James asking why Cait Reilly couldn't have been employed properly and paid. The bald bastard comments that she was getting paid - her JSA is what the taxpayer is paying her. James then responded by pointing out, from the DWP's own words, that benefits cannot and are not to be used as renumeration. You live and learn Iain (well, you don't, it seems).
Meanwhile I've yet to hear from ATOS (haven't seen today's post, however...). I managed to contact Mrs Adviser, care of the Sally Army, she never did rign me back. Predictably more of what was promised earlier turns out to be smoke and mirrors. I had asked, as I've mentioned previously, how the Work Programme would help deal with health issues given that, even on ESA, I will still be dealing with the same, untrained people. I was told that they could, as a consequence of me being on ESA (and thus one of the reasons for pursuing a claim subsequently), refer me to specialists instead. Turns out they can't. All I have to show for that is a list of NHS services that already existed - ie the Community Mental Health team, and another organisation that does exactly what Positive Step does, only in a slightly more distant locale (it's the same thing and they are called Rightsteps - similar name, same service). That's it. The Sally Army couldn't possibly refer me anyway because the CMHT is a medical service that would require me going through my GP (who thinks they are "rubbish") and on the phone I was told these are all 'self help' organisations so I'd have to refer myself, which also isn't going to be possible. So we go from 'we can refer you to specialists we have knowledge of' to 'here is a list of community services we have no connection to and cannot refer you to while we ourselves have nothing and no training or specialism whatsoever'; yet I'm still obliged to 'attend'.
There's a woman dead in South Africa because her boyfriend mistook her for a burglar, there's kids being shot up in American schools, and there's dead horse being flogged in ready meals.
And still the bloody Work Programme continue their tedious incompetence!
I return home from lugging heavy bags from Tesco (where I nearly lost the plot, carrying around baskets of poorly packaged muck in a busy hellhole) to find Mrs Adviser has left a message. Naturally these people only ever manage to ring me when I'm out (which isn't often, actually), and yet never manage to pick up the phone when I ring them (I've rung 4 times as often as they have since they were supposed to - for those keeping count).
Now I don't mind them leaving a message to say 'hi Mrs adviser here, just letting you know I'm trying to get in touch, I'll call back later (which she didn't say)'. What I do object to, having explained this to them after the last fucking time, is: 'hi, this is Mrs adviser from Employment Plus at the Salvation Army, just trying to find out how you're getting on with your ESA claim and wanting to know what you want to do about stuff, bye'.
I explained to her after Bully Adviser did this before. I explained to her fucking face that this was not acceptable. She seemed to understand, and honestly it's not that difficult. You can identify yourself by name my dear, I know who you are. Anything else is not just pointless, it causes me problems. Yet again these people just don't listen! So now I'm looking forward to another awkward experience where I have to, again, explain this, tempting more indignation from these clueless people.
I've been on tenterhooks ('coz that's how i roll!) all day waiting for the Salvation Army to call me back. Nothing. I've tried calling them, twice. Nothing. Can't get through. I'm fucking fed up with this. I've half a mind to leave a message saying 'don't bother calling me back, we are through!' but I suspect it won't do any good. I can't operate like this. I've been staring at the phone all day, waiting for the call I was promised (which was meant to happen on Thursday). This is ridiculous; these people have no idea at all. Not a fucking clue. I thought Working Links were bad, but this lot are giving them a serious run for their money.
I had telephone appointments with them, and they promised to call - even notarising a specific time. When they didn't bother either I called back. All I got for my trouble was a load of attitude, as if I was inconveniencing them! Same old bullshit. Nothing ever changes in this 'industry'.
Perhaps I'll try one more time (grabs phone...)
Nope. I'm done. Maybe I'll press to post this message and then they'll call me. Somehow I doubt it now though.
