audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
In 2001 there were voices that urged claimants and workers to unite.
Challenge disability benefit reforms: national conference 15/10/05 in Sheffield
- Thread starter AnnO'Neemus
- Start date
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
MC5 said:
Wasn't that the strike against the nasty New Labour government wanting to take glass screens away from the desks separating jobcentre plus staff from claimants? Wrong example, comrade!
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
gaenor said:
Gaenor - are you getting professional support and advice with your appeal re DLA?
Peole involved in the conference tell me that it is going very well, though apparently the organised left(with some exceptions!), eg SWP, are showing little interest, maybe not surprising given MC5' s comments.
any Urbanites going? ( doesn't hold breath)
'the conference is shaping up to be a major national event with people from many organizations and individuals from across the disability and campaigning spectrum, intending to attend both locally and nationally. Along with many PWD's we have been made aware that a number of charity policy officers, executives, etc, will be attending. The conference is just the start of what will be a long and protracted campaign to retrieve our rights and dignity in relation to disability welfare. SWAN is very serious about this is and welcomes your support and ideas, particularly about creating a national network.'
any Urbanites going? ( doesn't hold breath)
'the conference is shaping up to be a major national event with people from many organizations and individuals from across the disability and campaigning spectrum, intending to attend both locally and nationally. Along with many PWD's we have been made aware that a number of charity policy officers, executives, etc, will be attending. The conference is just the start of what will be a long and protracted campaign to retrieve our rights and dignity in relation to disability welfare. SWAN is very serious about this is and welcomes your support and ideas, particularly about creating a national network.'
I must have missed when MC5 became representative of the entire UK leftposter342002 said:
Don't know if I can make this thing in Sheffield, but I do hope to get involved with this campaign if I can, its absolutely fucking outrageous that the government is trying to force people on IB back into work.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
treelover said:
As In Bloom has pointed out, I don't speak for the entire left and neither do I speak for the SWP.
Last week I was passing information to the elderly and urging them to apply for pension credit.
This week, I will be doing the same with regard to the recently introduced 'supporting people' regime, where the government are looking for cuts of 7 per cent across the board.
So, treelover I would appreciate it if you didn't wholly misrepresent what I say and do and align me with organisations I do not belong to.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Treelover, can you please clarify what you meant here?treelover said:
Did you mean that the SWP aren't showing very much interest? Or that they are actively involved in this?
Tbh, I was thinking of going, but whether I choose to or not is dependent on your answer to this. I can't stand the whole SWP jump-on-every-passing-bandwagon philosophy and all the faction fighting usually associated with the extreme left and the kidnapping and manipulation of others' agendas to suit their own ends.
Life's really too short for me to get involved with people like that.
hello, anno, thanks for your help,
don't worry there is no involvement from the swp or any other left group for that matter. The organisers intend it be a very informal, but structured
event, (although it looks like it is going to be quite large) , The event is a 'non party political event' with the aim of getting the widest range of people and organisations possible attending and contributing to the day, which it looks like acheiving. Though informal, it will allow for heartfelt experiences from PWD's but there will be no grandstanding, floorwalking, political speeches, etc,
hope that helps
don't worry there is no involvement from the swp or any other left group for that matter. The organisers intend it be a very informal, but structured
event, (although it looks like it is going to be quite large) , The event is a 'non party political event' with the aim of getting the widest range of people and organisations possible attending and contributing to the day, which it looks like acheiving. Though informal, it will allow for heartfelt experiences from PWD's but there will be no grandstanding, floorwalking, political speeches, etc,
hope that helps
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fuck the petty sectarian-left bullshit some posters on this thread are spewing. Get a fucking grip you self-righteous knob-jockeys! 
On the roll-out of the further "back to work help" scheme that Alan Johnson balked at.
Daft, of course, when you bear in mind that IB is scheduled to be superseded in 2008. It highlights the position put forward by many people on these boards that the govt sees the long-term sick and disabled as "undeserving" in a very stark manner.
On the roll-out of the further "back to work help" scheme that Alan Johnson balked at.
Daft, of course, when you bear in mind that IB is scheduled to be superseded in 2008. It highlights the position put forward by many people on these boards that the govt sees the long-term sick and disabled as "undeserving" in a very stark manner.
ViolentPanda said:Fuck the petty sectarian-left bullshit some posters on this thread are spewing. Get a fucking grip you self-righteous knob-jockeys!
On the roll-out of the further "back to work help" scheme that Alan Johnson balked at.
Daft, of course, when you bear in mind that IB is scheduled to be superseded in 2008. It highlights the position put forward by many people on these boards that the govt sees the long-term sick and disabled as "undeserving" in a very stark manner.
Loads of people on IB could and should work. Loads of them want too. But the Jobs market is becoming more and more competitive.
The one growth area people could look at is how many more people are now employed in "helping others back to work" A lot of those projects are shite,but probably better to work for one than be on IB yourself.
In Bloom said:
So do you think that everyone on IB should just get the benefit and be left alone?
Personally i think that they should be encouraged back to work not written off by well meaning Liberals. But its much easier to have another go at Blair for most people than to make any sensible comment.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
And as I've said ad fucking infinitum, if you're going to propose that "loads of people" on Incapacity Benefit "could and should work", then you also have to make some sort of proposal as to how you would do it.tbaldwin said:
The problem is that good people such as yourself only ever come out with the generality, you never engage with what it would actually involve, and how, in many cases, the "powers that be" would have to accept that employment, in many cases, would have to be tailored to the needs of the long-term sick or disabled person rather than the person having to attempt to function outside of their abilities to suit the employer.
As you say, the jobs market is increasingly competitive, and it looks increasingly like the "jobs" that the long-term sick and disabled are going to be shoe-horned into will be "make-work" subsidised by govt. What an excellent use of tax-payers' money, subsidising business even more.
And you base that massive assumption on...?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Your phrase "encouraged back to work" says it all.tbaldwin said:
Larding it with a dig at "liberals" is just the icing on the cake of your crassness.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I somehow doubt it is convenient to tbaldwins' politics to admit the fact that, according to the ONS, out of the large-scale benefits, IB consistently is subject to the least fraud.In Bloom said:
Then again, he does live in a mental world where he sees himself as a socialist, so I expect he's quite capable of believing any old dogshit new labour serve up to him.
tbaldwin said:
Havng a desire to work and the ability to work are two VERY different things.
If you manage to get Incapacity Benefit given the shower of absolute bastards that administer it and the doctors who do the medical who are the equivalent of the useless bastards who could only get a job on a wooden battleship you are incapable or work whether you want to or not.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
What exactly do you mean by "encouraged" tbaldwin?tbaldwin said:
Do you mean they should have their benefits cut on the assumption that they will take up non-existent jobs, or jobs they physically aren't able to do, which won't happen, and then an already marginalised section of society will be further marginalised and impoverished?
Do you mean they should be subjected to regular interviews with job centre plus staff, most of whom are totally clueless about disability issues but brilliant at patronising?
Do you mean that they will receive appropriate advice, financial and other support for (re)training, they will then receive adequate support and ongoing backup in relation to disability issues within the workplace?
Options 1 and 2, which I'm guessing are the kind of "encouragement" you're thinking of, are just a matter of cutting costs. Option 3, which might actually be effective, would cost *more* money in the short term, rather than save it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
In Bloom said:Really? Do you have a link or anything?
Nope, but I do have several consecutive copies going from the late '90s to 2003 of the ONS annual publication "Social Trends" lurking around somewhere. I'll see if I can dig them out and do a table.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Which is exactly what will happen, and what is already happening under the current scheme. This isn't about "helping the long-term sick and disabled to help themselves", it's about a nod and a wink to the right and kicking the "lazy scroungers" where it hurts.AnnO'Neemus said:
The staff are supposedly going to be made "disability-aware", but from what I've heard from contacts in the "Pathways" pilot areas it appears that the staff are as disability unaware as the ever were, including a friend with double incontinence being asked by a desk-monkey whether she couldn't "just hold it all in until you get to a loo?".
Oh my aching sides.
He's shown previously how firmly wedded he is to language about "scroungers". If you challenge him on a thread he'll concede that the label only applies to a small minority, but that doesn't stop him then vomiting out his bile at a later date using the same old language.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Exactly. But even hard facts like that don't stop the insinuations, and this government are just as committed as the tories were to the dismantlement and'or privatisation of parts of the welfare state.tobyjug said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
In Bloom said:Surely you cannot be serious
I'm serious. The "advisor" had supposedly had this so-called "awareness training" as well.
The Black Hand
Unclean
When I was on the New Deal the people running the compulsory 'intensive job search' didn't even know the newspapers my line of work is advertised in!
Worse than that, they wouldn't even give me 1 day a week to go to a library to read new journals/books so I could get a job IF I got an interview. So much for helping people back to work. In fact, the schemes ALL about restructuring the UK economy and increasing the pool of workers ready to take shit money/conditions. The attack on Incapacity benefit should be read in the same light, an attack on one is an attack on all...
Worse than that, they wouldn't even give me 1 day a week to go to a library to read new journals/books so I could get a job IF I got an interview. So much for helping people back to work. In fact, the schemes ALL about restructuring the UK economy and increasing the pool of workers ready to take shit money/conditions. The attack on Incapacity benefit should be read in the same light, an attack on one is an attack on all...
The Black Hand
Unclean
I wrote this a while ago, and have updated it a bit (but that copy is on another computer). I hope this is interesting for some.
New Deal, Bum Deal, No Deal
South and Scraton note that the given “’low pay’ of unemployment benefit and social security payments moonlighting, as a means by which a ‘reasonable’ weekly wage can be achieved, has become a regular feature of working class life” (1981, 43). Possibly linked to UK social policy changing during the 1980’s and this included; “a cut in benefits, a weakening of social welfare entitlement, a harsher regime of surveillance and a real increase in costs of living [for poor people of working age]” (Dean and Taylor-Gooby, 1992, in Garland, 2001, 274, also Adler, 2004, Gray, 2004). This is on top of the already wide differentials in the response of Government to Tax avoidance and welfare benefit fraud, which is based on class (Cook, 1989). Taylor (1998) writes that the withdrawal of benefits for 16 to 18 years olds in 1988, with no real time lag, led to a rapid growth in the numbers of offences committed by these people. By 1994 London’s unemployment stood at 17%, and in some inner London boroughs it was over 25%, a result of Thatcher’s structural adjustments (Porter, 1994). Within this total there were large quantities of migrants, both domestic and international, the unskilled and skilled, the middle aged, the youth and ethnic minorities.
Changes in the mid 1990s to welfare created the Jobseekers Allowance (1996) and intensified with the New Deal, part of the ‘flexibilisation’ of labour markets (Gray, 2004, Kennedy, 2004). Already large amounts of empirical research have shown that benefit cuts are “much more likely… to encourage more and more young people into crime” (Taylor, 1998, in Walton and Young, eds, 1998). However, the myth that the New Deal punishes people for the first time for events such as being sacked for recalcitrance, or refusing suitable work (Adler, 2004), needs challenging. A look at the way social criminals are created could be gained from looking at the notorious 4 week rule introduced in the late 1960’s. This meant benefit was withdrawn for unskilled men after 4 weeks, if it was considered that work was available in the area. Perhaps an early example of Labour managerialism;
25,000 men with a criminal history have been driven back by the four week rule to the one ‘solution’ they know – thieving… Some 27,500 men… have been subjected to the four week rule since 1968, [and] have resorted to crime for the first time in their lives during the weeks following the withdrawl of benefit (Meacher, 1974, 104).
That is not to say that disciplinary mechanisms have not become more important under the New Deal (Gray, 2004, Kennedy, 2004). Professor Machin and Marie (Womack, 2004) have indicated that the result of benefit cuts and increasing administrative discipline of the Jobseekers Allowance, has been to force people off the unemployed count, and into crime as a means of income generation. Adler suggests that the New Deal successfully targets “support tailored to the needs and circumstances of client groups” (Adler, 2004, 96). However, he has chosen to believe the propaganda of the New Deal rather than the reality, and certainly no evidence of support for his assertion from the unemployed is provided.
The New Deal provides ‘education programmes’, ‘training’, ‘intensive activity job searches’, ‘work placements’, and a variation of ‘apprenticeships’, but this is all basic and you are disciplined for seeking or going to unapproved ‘training’. While some apparent New Labour supporters claim that there is a possibility of the compulsary New Deal becoming “excessively authoritarian and that people maybe forced into activities that are inappropriate” (Adler, 2004, 96). Some sarcastically claim that “Programmes have become more differentiated, though with an increasing emphasis on flexible response and the provision of soft skills” (Walker & Wiseman, 2003, 17). This should be read as programmes are multiplying but not changing their intents and purposes, with flexible response being impossible because of the compulsory nature, and soft skills being a euphemism for no skills. Further blasé enough to suggest that “claimants themselves overwhelmingly… [accept] the legitimacy of conditionality [of] (Jobseekers Allowance)” (Walker & Wiseman, 2003, 10) without providing any evidence to support this claim.
They do provide evidence of the opposite however, arguing that “service providers often feel that ‘conscripted’ clients are disruptive and undermine effectiveness” (Walker & Wiseman, 2003, 23), and given the obligatory nature of the New Deal, is a large percentage. The compulsory nature of the New Deal has made it de facto authoritarian and dictatorial, and there is already evidence that people view these compulsory schemes with contempt (Gray, 2004). Punishments for disobedience, or ‘sanctions’ as they are officially called, run into the tens of thousands with official warnings running at least 2 times this level, and this is on top of routine warnings of ‘how your attendance levels due to sickness or unauthorised absence are unacceptable’. A study of 7 European countries welfare systems found that Britain uses sanctions most often; “in 1997-98 they affected over 10 per cent of JSA claimants” (Gray, 2004, 91). Youth involved in unavoidable New Deal Programmes are particularly badly treated, with over 20% sanctioned (Gray, 2004). Accelerated New Deal programmes have started trials in 12 areas in April 2004.
Evidence suggests that government ideology consists of viewing unemployment as a personal affliction found within the underclass, with the aim of adding additional disciplinary measures to change expectations and hence acceptance of work discipline (Grover, 2003, Gray, 2004). The New Deal in the context of relatively low unemployment figures encourages the labour market to expand qualitatively for employers. The new temporary labour market needs a fast turn over of staff, at whatever conditions the employer is willing to offer (Gray, 2004, Kennedy, 2004), and the New Deal attempts to enforce this change on the remaining ‘hardcore underclass’. Given that informal economy workers already display the qualities (MacDonald, 1997) demanded by this new casual labour market, the New Deal appears to be misplaced if it is aimed at disciplining ‘work-shy’ informal economy participants.
New Deal, Bum Deal, No Deal
South and Scraton note that the given “’low pay’ of unemployment benefit and social security payments moonlighting, as a means by which a ‘reasonable’ weekly wage can be achieved, has become a regular feature of working class life” (1981, 43). Possibly linked to UK social policy changing during the 1980’s and this included; “a cut in benefits, a weakening of social welfare entitlement, a harsher regime of surveillance and a real increase in costs of living [for poor people of working age]” (Dean and Taylor-Gooby, 1992, in Garland, 2001, 274, also Adler, 2004, Gray, 2004). This is on top of the already wide differentials in the response of Government to Tax avoidance and welfare benefit fraud, which is based on class (Cook, 1989). Taylor (1998) writes that the withdrawal of benefits for 16 to 18 years olds in 1988, with no real time lag, led to a rapid growth in the numbers of offences committed by these people. By 1994 London’s unemployment stood at 17%, and in some inner London boroughs it was over 25%, a result of Thatcher’s structural adjustments (Porter, 1994). Within this total there were large quantities of migrants, both domestic and international, the unskilled and skilled, the middle aged, the youth and ethnic minorities.
Changes in the mid 1990s to welfare created the Jobseekers Allowance (1996) and intensified with the New Deal, part of the ‘flexibilisation’ of labour markets (Gray, 2004, Kennedy, 2004). Already large amounts of empirical research have shown that benefit cuts are “much more likely… to encourage more and more young people into crime” (Taylor, 1998, in Walton and Young, eds, 1998). However, the myth that the New Deal punishes people for the first time for events such as being sacked for recalcitrance, or refusing suitable work (Adler, 2004), needs challenging. A look at the way social criminals are created could be gained from looking at the notorious 4 week rule introduced in the late 1960’s. This meant benefit was withdrawn for unskilled men after 4 weeks, if it was considered that work was available in the area. Perhaps an early example of Labour managerialism;
25,000 men with a criminal history have been driven back by the four week rule to the one ‘solution’ they know – thieving… Some 27,500 men… have been subjected to the four week rule since 1968, [and] have resorted to crime for the first time in their lives during the weeks following the withdrawl of benefit (Meacher, 1974, 104).
That is not to say that disciplinary mechanisms have not become more important under the New Deal (Gray, 2004, Kennedy, 2004). Professor Machin and Marie (Womack, 2004) have indicated that the result of benefit cuts and increasing administrative discipline of the Jobseekers Allowance, has been to force people off the unemployed count, and into crime as a means of income generation. Adler suggests that the New Deal successfully targets “support tailored to the needs and circumstances of client groups” (Adler, 2004, 96). However, he has chosen to believe the propaganda of the New Deal rather than the reality, and certainly no evidence of support for his assertion from the unemployed is provided.
The New Deal provides ‘education programmes’, ‘training’, ‘intensive activity job searches’, ‘work placements’, and a variation of ‘apprenticeships’, but this is all basic and you are disciplined for seeking or going to unapproved ‘training’. While some apparent New Labour supporters claim that there is a possibility of the compulsary New Deal becoming “excessively authoritarian and that people maybe forced into activities that are inappropriate” (Adler, 2004, 96). Some sarcastically claim that “Programmes have become more differentiated, though with an increasing emphasis on flexible response and the provision of soft skills” (Walker & Wiseman, 2003, 17). This should be read as programmes are multiplying but not changing their intents and purposes, with flexible response being impossible because of the compulsory nature, and soft skills being a euphemism for no skills. Further blasé enough to suggest that “claimants themselves overwhelmingly… [accept] the legitimacy of conditionality [of] (Jobseekers Allowance)” (Walker & Wiseman, 2003, 10) without providing any evidence to support this claim.
They do provide evidence of the opposite however, arguing that “service providers often feel that ‘conscripted’ clients are disruptive and undermine effectiveness” (Walker & Wiseman, 2003, 23), and given the obligatory nature of the New Deal, is a large percentage. The compulsory nature of the New Deal has made it de facto authoritarian and dictatorial, and there is already evidence that people view these compulsory schemes with contempt (Gray, 2004). Punishments for disobedience, or ‘sanctions’ as they are officially called, run into the tens of thousands with official warnings running at least 2 times this level, and this is on top of routine warnings of ‘how your attendance levels due to sickness or unauthorised absence are unacceptable’. A study of 7 European countries welfare systems found that Britain uses sanctions most often; “in 1997-98 they affected over 10 per cent of JSA claimants” (Gray, 2004, 91). Youth involved in unavoidable New Deal Programmes are particularly badly treated, with over 20% sanctioned (Gray, 2004). Accelerated New Deal programmes have started trials in 12 areas in April 2004.
Evidence suggests that government ideology consists of viewing unemployment as a personal affliction found within the underclass, with the aim of adding additional disciplinary measures to change expectations and hence acceptance of work discipline (Grover, 2003, Gray, 2004). The New Deal in the context of relatively low unemployment figures encourages the labour market to expand qualitatively for employers. The new temporary labour market needs a fast turn over of staff, at whatever conditions the employer is willing to offer (Gray, 2004, Kennedy, 2004), and the New Deal attempts to enforce this change on the remaining ‘hardcore underclass’. Given that informal economy workers already display the qualities (MacDonald, 1997) demanded by this new casual labour market, the New Deal appears to be misplaced if it is aimed at disciplining ‘work-shy’ informal economy participants.
Similar threads
