No New Message

Sometimes, I think, one of the most fraught aspects of ESA is guilt. Certainly in my case, where it isn't apparent that I have problems. Obviously there are other cases, plenty of them despite the likes of our vile mainstream media, where the right to support is unquestionable. My problem is that, there are moments, where one feels a fleeting moment of peace and quiet, or calm; usually assisted with a cup of peppermint tea and some nice warm sunshine. These moments don't last and life isn't so simple that one feels one's problems at a constant and consistent rate, like a regular oscillation. Problems come and go; symptoms or issues wax and wane, often unpredictably. Or sometimes with dismal and depressing predictability. But when I'm feeling more at ease with life (relatively speaking - I've never been comfortable in life) I start to feel guilty that I'm claiming. Something that, no doubt, would please the Duncan Smith's of this world. But what's the alternative? JSA is the same amount, and I’ve yet to hear when my WCA will be (could well be I get a letter through tomorrow!).

In such moments I wonder perhaps I should just go and get a job - or at least try. To be fair to myself, I have made enquiries from time to time on a few positions I’ve seen advertised. It doesn't cause me any grief to email people. I can do that from home and I don't have to commit myself in the process. One such vacancy I saw advertised this week. Unfortunately the position required computer knowledge I don't have and the advert, like so many, was maddeningly vague about the desired character of the suitable applicant: 'we want someone that's reliable (well duh!), who can work on their own initiative or under pressure' or some such Barnum statement nonsense. Who would say they are none of those things? But for me these sorts of requirements are difficult, particularly working under pressure. Then there's the added stress of self doubt and wondering just how and, more importantly, when your boss will feel let down by your inability to cope. As I, like most people, don't have foresight or a crystal ball to scry the future, how can I know if things will work or not. That the job was also part time exacerbated the fraught nature thereof: how can I contribute to a pension or even society (which is what all this is about) if I'm earning between 90-120 quid a week? Certainly that's better than having to deal with the jobcentre and the useless Salvation Army perhaps, but you are certainly not moving forward in life. 

Could the Salvation Army help with any of this? Well I don't think so. The best they've managed so far is to offer me the potential to do a day's creative writing workshop (possibly - there's no guarantee) in March. A workshop that, while I'm sure is great, isn't oriented to helping people build a career. That's not the purpose of these types of courses, but that seems the best they can offer - either that or, as my wanker of a previous adviser 'offered': CV 'training' or 'application form training'. Honestly, it's just ridiculous. At least that's my initial reaction. Maybe I’m just monstrously arrogant. I'm sure Susan Kramer, Libdem Baroness would think so; her disgusting Torymouthed support for 'work experience' (i.e. workfare) on Thursday's night's Question Time was a further sign of the times in today's politics: yellow in colour, blue in tooth and claw. Even when George Galloway (the only panellist to stand up for Cait Reilly, calling for her beatification no less!) corrected her to say that Cait was already on a work experience scheme, one of her own choosing, Kramer decided that wasn't good enough. 

This is how bad it's become: a woman that goes out of her way to get on the sort of scheme the government effuses about, someone that does the work experience this Tory witch (she might as well be) advocates, is castigated for not wanting to give it up to work in fucking Poundland! Poundland! As if there's any chance that the scions of these aristocrats and political monsters would ever find themselves in that position (despite Kramer's hollow protestations to the opposite - who'd want her for a mother!).

I have yet to hear from the Work Programme regarding my next appointment. The Salvation Army were meant to call on Thursday and predictably decided not to ring until Friday afternoon when, again predictably, I was not available. Apparently I will be graced with a call tomorrow, which means I will have to sit on the phone (mind you, there isn't much else to do, but I really do not enjoy waiting for calls and I find using a phone actually quite difficult in that regard, perhaps bizarrely) waiting. 

I know what will happen: if I refuse to play ball - agree to go on a community workshop course - then they will have power over me. They will say 'you aren't making enough effort', just like the sort of bullshit teachers say to kids when they can't think of any better way of teaching those that don't fit into the curriculum (now where did that come from?). It's the rhetoric of control from a service that hasn't the means to offer any kind of provision but wants to make money off of you. I've no doubt that attending such a course will enable them to tap into a revenue stream. I'm still waiting for the help that they said they could refer me to regarding my health issues. That hasn't been offered or explained. The Work Programme remains a huge joke, run by inexperienced people with no resources nor any ability to deal with the issues it's intended to address. No interest in helping people at the core of their difficulties and only interested in propagating simple minded methods. Yet it just goes on; a cramped provision in a church hall or phone calls that are not punctual. The whole thing remains a total waste of time.

Correction

I had previously stated that the letter promised by my Work Programme adviser hadn't arrived. This is not the case. They actually have furnished me with a letter, which I only discovered amongst all the other bumph sent, including the photocopy of the Provider Guidance I had mistaken for that letter. It would be remiss and irresponsible of me not to correct this. It would be dishonest of me to misrepresent my experiences of the Work Programme since that does me, them, and you, dear reader, no favours at all - and defeats the point of this blog entirely!

That said the letter isn't as committal as I'd like. That might sound a bit mealy mouthed, but this lack of commitment is one of the great problems the unemployed/poor/sick face. Doctors for example don't like to commit to writing sick notes or to accepting people might have problems dealing with work. It's the same on the Work Programme: advisers aren't that keen on sticking their neck out. I guess I can understand why, but it does no one any favours. If we are supposed to get the kind of help that the government has promised (the letter mentions that it's the job of the WP while on JSA to monitor jobvsearch activity for instance) then it's not enough to just equivocate in the face of the issues that claimants have - especially if you want to get paid for it.

That's all I have to say for now. I also may have some problems with the blogger software not processing responses properly as I've gotten email notification of a couple that arent' showing up when I go to respond, and I try to respond to every post, since people have taken the time to read these misbegotten cries of self pity. Woe is me.

Also I've had a look at what I understand to be the government's emergency regulations, in response to the court ruling on Workfare this past Tuesday. From what I can gather they seem now to be endorsing unrestricted work for benefits: specifically it states that a claimant mandated can only stop if either his claim ends or the secretary of state (or presumably the DWP) gives the claimant leave to stop. That's not much help!

Another Workfare Analysis By Me

A couple of days ago, Matthew Oakley of the Policy Exchange attempted to defend the government’s position regarding its beleaguered and immoral workfare policy in the Guardian. He’s the head of a right wing think tank and a member of the government’s welfare reform fold, thanks to ‘Lord’ Freud. I will again make it clear I resent that position held by David Freud: I believe him unprincipled and inexperienced. He’s a former banker now living in a large multi-room mansion paid hundreds of pounds a day just to be a Lord who has the right to tell the poor how and where they should (or, more accurately, shouldn’t) live. No one elected him; he represents no democratic constituency and has no mandate. There are people that have served the electorate, rightly or wrongly, for years that still haven’t ascended to the Lords. Not so for David Freud of course.

Anyway.

Many of the arguments against workfare have been made countless times and by far more competent speakers than I. While these arguments should be aired as much as possible I’m not going to cover them specifically here. There are a few other points I want to make as pertains the recent cases fought this week in the Court of Appeal.

Firstly the government has made it clear, via the new face of unemployment, the arch dissembler and question dodger, Mark Hoban, that they will appeal this decision. I’m not entirely sure they can as I had heard they hadn’t been given leave to do so. Let’s assume that’s not the case: what are they hoping to achieve?

The ruling isn’t really much of a victory for us, sadly, because the judges accepted the government has the right to pursue these schemes. The point of contention seems to be one of how it is presented. They upheld Cait Reilly’s objection on the basis that she was not told she had a choice. So what is Mark Hoban objecting to? Does he not want clarity? He disagrees with a verdict the Daily Mail calls ‘Utter Madness’ and yet accepts what suits him. I can only assume, and without being facetious, that they want that level of obfuscation to remain. Let’s not kid ourselves this scheme exists solely to massage the claimant count and reduce the welfare bill; it’s also a nice sop to big business and of course, thanks to the likes of the Mail, a nice vote winner. Indeed the media coverage has been such that Cait Reilly is portrayed as a proper little madam by way of describing the situation in terms that people will naturally object to, further hardening those already in favour of workfare.

Cait Reilly was already on a work placement. She was volunteering, under her own steam, at a museum. Why then was the DWP allowed to force her to abandon that in favour of Poundland? If the whole point of this farcical scheme is to give people experience (they aren’t going to get much else, if even that), then why aren’t you apologising to her and chastising DWP staff for their incompetence? She was already getting work experience. This entire case betrays the government’s agenda here. Why not encourage people to perhaps contact their local volunteer agencies, or use the national do-it.org website. Why not offer support to people doing that instead of the constant threats. Is it because the government wants to capitalise on any opportunity to sanction people rather than help them? Of course it is! There are people that want to work in the caring profession and there are, certainly locally, lots of voluntary caring positions – why on earth not put the two together and support them both? No, instead it’s better to give such people over to grubby retail enterprises where they will learn nothing. Though I suppose if you are not being paid by Poundland, you can’t then have your wages docked if you fuck up on the till!

Says Mr Oakley: “This should mean that, even if a right of appeal is denied to the DWP, new legislation could be in place relatively quickly to ensure that the schemes can be used as before. In fact, such legislation was laid by the DWP last night.”

So what is the problem? What are you objecting to in wanting to appeal?

Is that how Parliament should work? It loses an appeal on the basis that it failed to administer its own scheme correctly and so bludgeons through emergency legislation. Did members get to debate these changes? What are they?

“Given recent evidence that shows the schemes can be successful, this is encouraging.”

And this recent evidence is not forthcoming. It doesn’t exist of course, though I have no doubt the government will present something it claims is evidence – something that supports its equally fatuous claim that employment is falling. Given that people are being forced on to these work schemes its no wonder the claimant count is falling!

“However, the worry is that firms who have previously engaged in the schemes might be discouraged from participating due to the potential for bad press from inaccurate and unfair portrayals. This has already led several employers to withdraw, especially given the costs of monitoring and training individuals who many only be there for a short period.”

Employers can choose to participate in the programme and members of our democratic electorate (people that Vote, Mr Oakley) can lawfully protest that decision, not least of all with their wallets. This is why employers that withdraw do so. Those who live by the sword die by the sword: if you want free labour and refuse to pay people, then you should accept the criticism that you face from those who rightly oppose this modern indentured servitude. There is nothing unfair about it: the organisations receiving bad publicity were engaged in workfare.

Now you argue that it’s a hardship for the employer? That they have to train and monitor individuals who are there only temporarily? Really? That’s fatuous in the extreme. These people are not trained and monitored – that was one of the premises of Cait’s argument. She got no training (what training does Poundland offer? Use of a till? Putting things on shelves?). If this scheme is such a hardship for the employers on it, why do you think they joined? Why aren’t they hiring people? Why weren’t they paying these people and taking them on? Why do we need 240 hour job interviews?

“This would be an unfortunate step backwards. These schemes offer huge benefits to benefit claimants since they allow firms to trial workers they may otherwise not have considered.”

This is a bizarre statement: why would they not consider them? Presumably because these are people who wouldn’t have applied if they had advertised a job. Of course they aren’t advertising a job because one doesn’t exist – the whole problem! So in essence the DWP gets to pimp a cohort of people on its books, people that have no say in this, and big business gets to ‘try them out’, with no obligation to pay them or offer them a job, or, it seems, to even train them! Is that how we want to treat the unemployed? We want to take away a person’s right to choose whom they apply to when looking for work? I can’t think that will lead to a good outcome. Maybe we should be asking why it’s hard for people such as school leavers to find work and not somehow expect them to be anything other than school leavers.

“Claims that the jobs are not suitable or do not meet their aspirations are unfair: we should not let those with no work experience and claiming benefits to pick and choose the work they enter into; and for the extremely long-term unemployed, having any kind of experience on a CV is vital to show potential employers that they are worth taking a risk on.”

This is the thin end of the wedge. This is the language of social control. “We want to control the rules of the game and then penalise people for not being able to follow those rules”. I do not agree, not one iota. If people cannot ‘pick and choose’ (nice turn of phrase) what they do for a career in their life, then I frankly don’t see any point in having that life. Are we just here to work for you, Mr Oakley? Are we just here at the tolerance of Big Business? We must oppose this; if school leavers starting on their career path cannot choose that path then why even bother with school? Why not just have Tesco and Poundland run everything. Why bother with art and culture, science and research? See how far that gets you? We already have a government hell bent on competing with the likes of the Far East, but refuses to provide a nationwide broadband service that comes close to what those countries take for granted. I’m sure there are plenty of people that would like to get involved in digital careers. This was something the last government, toward the end of its time, were keen to pursue, and it seems to be something the Tories have abandoned.

People are not ‘a risk’; they are people. If employers are so precious that they want none of the risk and all of the benefit, then why are the Tories championing aspiration, striving and entrepreneurship? That’s just so much hot air. There is always risk hiring someone, if it doesn’t work out, well sucks to be Mr Big Business. I’m sure the profits these companies make compensate for these dire risks! So it seems that the corporate elite are engineering society so they can get what they want: cheap labour. There is nothing in working for Poundland that gives someone a step up in life. I’ve done voluntary work in a charity shop and I can tell you from my own experience it counts for nothing – especially when you are in an increasingly desperate and competitive labour market. This is just a race to the bottom that will only lead to a brain drain. Besides there’s always someone with a bit more and relevant experience than you, so who benefits…again the recipients of free labour.

“There are also other benefits: in many cases the schemes offer the ability to gain experience and access more permanent paid employment with the guarantee of an interview at the end of the placement.”

We all know this is bollocks; workfare is self defeating it damages employment prospects.

Finally: “We should also take a broader perspective. These schemes are viewed as legitimate by a huge majority of the public…We should also remember that people on these schemes are still receiving the benefits and tax credits they are entitled to. This is not work for nothing.”

A huge majority? Well that’s certainly a scientific assessment! It’s also a logical fallacy.

And that link is hardly objective, Mr Oakley.

It is work for nothing; these are people that are not being paid by their employer. They are still being paid their benefits as their income. This is what blows my mind about the likes of the Daily Mail arguing against Cait Reilly’s case: sending her to Poundland does not reduce her ‘burden’ on the state. She received her benefits just the same. The only thing that was achieved was that the work she was doing, that she enjoyed, was taken from her. If that’s a victory, then something is terribly amiss in your thinking Mr Oakley.

Benefits are not wages; they are a safety net for people that would otherwise starve. Or, more importantly, people that would otherwise turn to desperation and crime – it is insurance against a greater cost, not just financially but personally and socially. If someone ends up criminalised out of desperation their life chances are blighted; that is just cruel and further hobbles their chance of transcending the welfare system. But we live in an age where dogma and profit trump rationality and compassion. People don’t seem too bothered their wages are subsidising big business, yet complain that people receive benefits while those at the top kick the ladder of support they enjoyed from beneath them.

Anticipation

Aside from angry posts to the Guardian venting my ire about the government's slave labour scheme I am facing my next Work Programme appointment, number 4 in fact. This time it will be conducted over the phone tomorrow. I have no idea when that will be, typically, which is why I'm not a huge fan of telephones, but it's better than turning up at the cold cramped and utterly unsuitable church hall.

Now that I think about it, I'm, of course, beginning to dread it. Naturally. This is because they have nothing to offer, have no experience or ability to deal with people that have the problems I have (god forbid if they have to deal with more serious cases - but then that's why they expect you to have a carer), and yet expect to get results, so they can get paid. It's a mess. So I anticipate an expectation of progress in some form. The only progress has been in the severity of my anxiety, something they of course can't help with. I'm still waiting for the support they claim they can refer me to. No doubt that will vapourise and they will, again, revise their previous claims and comments. I don't really know how much longer I can sit back and be wrong footed like that. It forces you to become passive and scapegoated - as if you misunderstood them while they explained to you what actually happens. 

I was sent some brochures for casual (ie stuff that won't get you a job) evening classes last time. That's the extent of their ability to offer training: expensive private courses that are merely casual affairs - no formal qualifications etc. Now there's nothing wrong with such things, but these aren't really going to lead me anywhere and, more importantly, they are extremely expensive. I'm not entirely sure what the expectation was with that, maybe they'll offer to fund them, but I presume they expect me to take up something like Modern Patchwork (I'm being a bit disingenuous, but that;'s the sort of stuff). The idea was to do 'Creative Writing' though I'm not sure why, since - at the risk of sounding very arrogant - I can already write (don't judge from this, I don't proofread or draft what I type here). Such a course is unlikely to really lead anywhere; it's just a casual outlet. More pertinently, there are no courses listed for under £60 (not including other expenses such as getting there). These are casual workshops that wont address my problems nor really help to get a job - they aren't really intended to either, I don't think.

I'm not trying to be negative (it comes naturally), but if fobbing me off with a list of workshops run at the local vegetarian cafe is really the best the Work Programme can offer, and it's what they expect me to do on pain of...well that's what worries me - workfare? Sanctions? Non compliance? If that's what's expected of me, because that's the best they can do, then, frankly, why bother?

It seems really, criticism aside, that what they expect of the client is far more than what the client can reasonably expect from them. It's far from a partnership. It's just a joke. The point I'm trying to make isn't to have a knock at casual workshops and casual community centre courses, it's great such things are provided. But is this really the best I can expect from the flagship back to work scheme tasked with dealing with people of all backgrounds, particularly people with mental health issues? A nice bit of macrame will sort me out?

Small Victories

Today Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson won their case against the government, but I'm not sure it's the victory we'd been hoping for. However, that said, any chance to stick it to the fascists in charge should be welcomed. I just think the battle is far from over. As we speak, this afternoon, the government are working to introduce 'emergency' legislation to amend the situation. As far as they are concerned it's business as usual and these schemes are necessary. In fact they are emboldened by the apparent fall in unemployment even though there's no such thing, partly because of these schemes.

On Radio 4 this afternoon, Mark Hoban was on hand to give his response to the ruling which seems to indicate that the failing is merely one of administration, rather than due to any intrinsic immorality in the scheme. Workfare is immoral, make no mistake. It's unethical and illogical and even the government agree it has no bearing on improving anyone's chances of finding work. People that criticise the scheme like to argue that the alternative is to pay people to sit on their arses and be given 'free money'. This is a nonsense of course: Cait was working as a volunteer in a museum, but even that doesn't immunise her to this kind of illiterate bigotry. Pro-workfare idiots argue that she was on a 'frivolous' scheme that would lead nowhere, but seem incapable of understanding that the taxpayer subsidises her just the same in Poundland. It's as if these people, reacting to the pressures they themselves feel (only the super rich and the arrogant toffs in charge are immune from the unrest in society right now), need a scapegoat. They need a whipping girl.

Hoban said that the government was 'right' to force people to go into work. How then is that not slavery? He said this while ducking the question about whether the government had administered these schemes correctly. So naturally, the arch denier couldn't admit the government was wrong. This creature could stand inside a burning building and deny it was on fire. He argues that it's right people should lose their benefit if they don't 'prepare for woprk'. We'll set aside how depriving someone of an income is ever justifiable (hint: it's not, it just makes things worse), because the more insidious aspect is how Hoban continually presents the workfare scheme. 

It's the government's position, through the likes of grayling and now Hoban, that workfare isn't punitive, it isn't unpaid forced work in crappy jobs (ever hear of workfare people stationed in Tory HQ?). Instead they talk about how it's helping people prepare for work, how it's uplifting them, how it's improving their lives, and how the alternative is that they are languishing in idleness. Of course that's nonsense: the rules for JSA, at least, have never allowed for that to happen. One must always show they have made good effort to find work. Hoban insists they do help people which is plain bollocks. They just bandy about words like 'experience' as if that proves the point. Nope you are wrong, say the government, and that in itself is evidence of how you are wrong, end of discussion.

The worst part of all of this however has to be summed up by Hoban's response to the question of why Cait was not allowed to continue in her voluntary capacity working in a museum. That is traduced just as if she had been sat on her arse watching Jeremy Kyle doing nothing! Completely outrageous.

What concerns me is that we are heading for a situation where aspiration means nothing, despite the government using it as a tool to enforce their wicked propaganda. What good is aspiration when your dreams come to nothing because the labour market only wants people who are prepared to stack shelves in Poundland? Worse, this will then grow: these grubby homogeneous supermarkets, notorious for their low pay, will proliferate even further. This will affect the education system leaving people who want to learn something other then GCSE Shelf Stacking or A Level EPOS Systems as dangerous radicals. That's where Cait Reilly is right now. As her story is portrayed with a predictable lack of sympathy in the media, the hyperbole used will polarise the issue - and further harden idiot Tories who can't understand that they are paying for the likes of Poundland to 'employ' people who will of course still be claiming on the dole, having replaced real jobs and shut out real applications.

On It Goes

I've been feeling really anxious these last few weeks. My sleep is troubled; I wake up around 3-4am and can't get back to sleep for hours. When I do finally wake (around 7-8am - I've never been a late sleeper) I'm 'hanging', as the cool kids might say. 

On the plus side, late night radio is actually quite interesting; the world service is more interesting than regular stuffy old Hobbiton-centric Radio 4 during the day.

I'm on edge all the time. It's not good. Unfortunately there's no help or support at all locally. Chasing up Positive Step hasn't done much good, though I did get a letter from them saying they think I have severe anxiety/depression. Whether their partners ATOS will take any notice...well that's another question entirely. Either they do or they don't.

Speaking of ATOS I've yet to hear when my appointment will be (it could well be coming through the letterbox today, tomorrow, or...). Waiting is not my strong suit, and I'm dreading having to wait for what I'm sure will be longer than necessary in their public waiting room come appointment time. It's just a constant exercise in stress.

The Work Programme has been no help as usual. I contacted my new adviser a couple of weeks back to ask if they could put something in writing regarding the WCA regarding our phone call a month earlier. During that call I was told two things (I've mentioned before): they could offer much more help if I was on ESA, and that, in her opinion, I should be on ESA. So I asked her to put that in writing. Typically this met with a small  measure of resistance as they seem to be very good at revising past conversations. She did agree to do this, but what I eventually received was typically farcical: just a printout of one page from Chapter 2 of the Work Programme Provider Guidance wherein it simply says people on JSA can be mandated to apply for jobs, people on ESA can't (well sort of). Not even signed. So no help there, unsurprisingly. Just another example of the utter uselessness of this whole affair. She's supposed to call me this Thursday (Valentine's Day - lucky me eh!), do I waste my time getting antagonistic about this? I don't know if I have the energy.

There are two fundamental problems I have with the Work Programme (two of many I should point out, as it is utterly and intrinsically useless):

Firstly, as I mentioned above, they are very good at revising what they say in subsequent meetings or conversations. Not only do staff cover each others' arses and make excuses - which I can understand even if I don't agree - but they continually wrongfoot me when they pretend that what I claim they said wasn't quite what they thought they said. They do this all the time; it's like having the rug pulled and rearranged under your feet all the time. For someone with learning difficulties it's a real pain.

Secondly, they will ask you what you want: what you are interested in (writing, for example). But what happens then is that you are told to find out and do it all yourself. They pretend to take an interest, but then do absolutely nothing except criticise. You are then stymied and left to fall without a parachute - and by fall I mean head toward a 'compliance doubt'. They set you up to fail. What you expect to be on offer - what you have been told to expect - does not materialise. In fact it was never there to begin with and your expectations are questioned to the point where, again, you being to doubt yourself. 

It can't be long now before this all implodes. Either that or I will.

These Are a Few of my Favourite Things

Isn't it amusing, the hypocrisy of the right wing. Goods and services that are acceptable to everyone else, part and parcel of a healthy economy apparently, are somehow immediately verboten to claimants. The notion that a bottle of beer in the hand of a welfare recipient becomes a dangerous weapon: the key to personal ruin or family destruction. Or, perhaps more insidiously, the idea that a scratchcard in such a person's paws might mean they get even more free money! 

That's what Shelbrooke's bizarre list of unacceptable items really means; it would be an affront to him to see someone on benefits suddenly be elevated to financial stability. Those are rewards only for the deserving - hard working taxpayers. Only those people are allowed to have lottery cards, and of course the rich, as there's nothing stopping a millionaire from buying a lottery ticket and having the same chance to win as a pauper. The lottery doesn't recognise class divisions: it's equally generous, or equally cruel. But of course the poor are the most likely to fall for the lie that they have any real chance of winning. Consequently many feel that it's a tax on stupidity. The Tories didn't mind taxing the poor that way when the lottery first appeared. Now they do, even though the money paid - if indirectly from the 'hard working taxpayer' - goes to good causes and that money paid to elevate someone into financial stability is probably the best destination for a payout (as opposed to a round the world cruise and a few nice cars).

Now there's more than one lottery. Does Shelbrooke propose to ban access to all of them? What about the health lottery? Surely a Tory MP wouldn't object to that, though only because it offsets his government's responsibility toward the NHS. It's so confusing being a Tory: they are against the nanny state - but only when it suits them. They are all for people making their own fortune, but not if you're a pauper winning big on the scratchcards. They are for aspiration - but not the aspiration of the poor to get out of poverty. That's more than aspiration however: it's survival. Nope, no hope that 'It Could Be You'!

Curiously Shelbrooke doesn't object to paupers being able to buy a TV license, just access to the Murdoch machine. You think it might be the other way around (though you'd need a TV license either way): Murdoch is a friend of the neoliberal machine oiled by the rhetoric of men like Shelbrooke. Murdoch's propaganda is pro Tory (for the most part) so wouldn't you want more Tory voters among the poor - those most likely to fall for the lies and tall tales perhaps? (That's a bit of a generalisation, forgive me - but the poor will include those that are less educated and less receptive to researching facts and figures.) So if it means allowing these people access to Sky - which doesn't mean giving them more money since Shelbrooke isn't arguing for a benefit cut as part of this nonsense. I wonder what Howling Mad Murdoch has to say about this? It might eat into his bottom line that the Tories are stopping people buying his service. Shelbrooke isn't arguing that the poor shouldn't watch TV, if he was he'd argue they shouldn't be able to pay for a license. I've not heard him say that. 

Meanwhile this stupid little Tory is out spending 'hard working taxpayers money' on his own license fee: we pay for one in his constituency office and his London home. Is that really consistent Mr Shelbrooke? If you valued hard work and taxpayers wouldn't you pay for a license for your second home at least? Why does your office need one? Do other people get to watch TV in their offices at work? If the argument is that taxes shouldn't go to such non-essentials then shouldn't that apply to you as well?