Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

There was a point when I was working and two of my kids were under school age so were at private nursery 2 days a week that I was getting more money in housing benefit and child and working tax credits than I was getting in Income Support, housing benefit and child tax credits whilst 'out of work'. I did think a few times 'is this really the best use of resources?'
 
Did anyone else feel dismayed about the success of propaganda as a whole? The bit where the woman with the purple hair said 'I don't wanna be like this, living on benefit street I'm not like those people' :facepalm: I don't necessarily blame her for those views but to be able to get people in the exact same boat to turn against others like that is depressingly remarkable.
 
Another thing I wanna point out is whether you think the end of it was subtle propaganda, or not so subtle maybe, that essentially justifies the whole thing?

There was a panorama on a few months ago called Britain's secret death squad about, well, exactly that operating in Northern Ireland.



Skip it to 56:22 and watch the minute or so of dialogue. One commenter said this:

Take a look at the last 5 mins again .
The BBC , investigates / exposes / interviews / creates the illusion of fairness , and THEN , justifies the whole thing beautifully "what are you gonna do about it John ? Im asking you now"
"I think youve already answered that question"
Incredibly subtle propaganda - aimed at other wars .
Kids going to Afghanistan see this ( very clever PR )

At the end of this panorama about Brent a clip of a speech by Nick Clegg was played saying 'The government is announcing the most radical overhaul of our welfare system since its inception. Driven by a simple overriding principle. The purpose of welfare is to help people into work.' By putting that at the end it seems to be saying 'well yeah this is harsh but these people should be in work.'

At first I disagreed with that youtube commenter but having seen the end of this film I'm not so sure because it appears to be the exact same tactic? What do ya reckon? I don't wanna derail the thread too much but just wondered what others think?
 
By Jonathan Rutherford
Jonathan Rutherford looks at the connections between government and the insurance business in their joint project to reduce eligibility for sickness benefits.
In November 2001 a conference assembled at Woodstock, near Oxford. Its subject was ‘Malingering and Illness Deception’. The topic was a familiar one to the insurance industry, but it was now becoming a major political issue as New Labour committed itself to reducing the 2.6 million who were claiming Incapacity Benefit (IB). Amongst the 39 participants was Malcolm Wicks, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work, and Mansel Aylward, his Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Fraud – which amounts to less than 0.4 per cent of IB claims – was not the issue. The experts and academics present were the theorists and ideologues of welfare to work. What linked many of them together, including Aylward, was their association with the giant US income protection company UnumProvident, represented at the conference by John LoCascio. The goal was the transformation of the welfare system. The cultural meaning of illness would be redefined; growing numbers of claimants would be declared capable of work and ‘motivated’ into jobs. A new work ethic would transform IB recipients into entrepreneurs helping themselves out of poverty and into self-reliance. Five years later these goals would take a tangible form in New Labour’s 2006 Welfare Reform Bill.
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/09/07/new-labour-the-market-state-and-the-end-of-welfare/
Think its time for a repost of the above, labour may be in power in a years time
 
re: earlier discussions on self-employment lowering unemployment statistics

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ource=indynewsletter&utm_medium=email16042014

27 per cent said they had become self-employed because of a lack of an alternative.

The survey also revealed that 44 per cent of the new self-employed in lower skilled occupations would rather be an employee, double the proportion (21 per cent) of the more highly skilled.

The foundation said its analysis suggested that for a growing minority self-employment was “increasingly less of a choice and more of a fall-back”.

Conor D’Arcy, a researcher at the think-tank, said: “The UK has had impressive employment growth over recent months, a sizable proportion of which has been driven by an explosion in self-employment. That’s why it’s vital we know more about these new self-employed workers.

“Some will see themselves as entrepreneurs and revel in setting up their own business - the clear majority still prefer to be their own boss.

“But a considerable minority appear to be there unwillingly or at least would prefer the security of being an employee given the choice. The new face of self-employment is more likely to be female and looking for an alternative compared with their more established counterparts.”
 
This is heartening stuff

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...fits-street-second-series-stockton-opposition

The notoriety of Channel 4's documentary Benefits Street has left the show's producers facing an uphill task trying to persuade people to take part in a second series as well as a spin-off programme about immigration.

Programme-makers scouting potential locations for another series of the controversial programme in Stockton-on-Tees, and a separate documentary with a working title Immigration Street in Southampton, have faced opposition from politicians and community leaders.

When it aired earlier this year Benefits Street attracted widespread controversy, with critics branding it "poverty porn". It received 1,800 viewers' complaints. Some residents claimed they had been misled about the thrust of the programme and that producers deliberately withheld the title from them.

But others said the programme, which featured the residents of James Turner Street in Winson Green, Birmingham, shone a light on an otherwise hidden part of Britain. It also became Channel 4's most popular programme since the 2012 Paralympics, attracting audiences of more than 5 million.

But the row over the first series is making it harder for documentary-makers to return to the same theme, with Grimsby residents also opposing the filming of a second series of the Channel 4 documentary Skint.

The Northern Echo reported this week that staff from Love Productions, the company behind Benefits Street – "two young women, both dressed down in leggings and jumpers but with cut-glass southern accents" – had been talking to the residents of Dixon Street in Stockton-on-Tees.

Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, told the paper he had written to Channel 4 executives asking them to scrap the show. He said TV producers had previously been given short shrift when trying to persuade the residents of North Ormesby and Brambles Farm in Middlesbrough to take part.
 
Just read that Smith has hired a senior Murdoch man: Richard Caseby, managing editor from the Sun/Sunday Times as strategic director of communications at the DWP, God he is a swine, its the most politicised Govt dept in the EU!
 
http://www.unemployednet.org/unemployment-falls-still-being-driven-fake-self-employment

A fall in unemployment was announced today by the Office for National Statistics, but this disguises some very bad news for unemployed people and the whole UK.

Between December 2013 and February 2014 unemployment fell by 77,000 to 2.24 million compared with the three previous months, driven not by a rise in the number of jobs - up by only 99,000 - but by a rise in self-employment, up 146,000.

This represents an all-time high, continuing a trend which the government wants to say is a sweeping tide of entrepreneurship, but which is really a disguise, hiding unemployment from public view.

Population increases mean the country needs to create far more real jobs than this if we are to share prosperity around.

Between 2000 and 2012, the average level of self-employed earnings fell by a third to £10,400, adjusted for inflation.

That level of income is a long way below minimum wage, which for a 40 hour week provides £13,125 per year.

Self-employment has become a route not to business success but into poverty for far too many.

When you hear Conservative politicians talk about their successes in private-sector job creation, remember that all self-employed people come under this category.

Some have suggested that many of the new registrations are taken up by people doing odd-jobs around their communities, but there is likely to be a larger group.

Those of us who have worked in the public sector are used to hearing stories from ex-colleagues who have been made redundant in the Tory austerity drive and set up a small business in response to a lack of other opportunities.

The draconian jobcentre system is likely to be playing a part too; those entitled to contributions-based Jobseeker's Allowance are likely to be put off by the many stories of sanctions and poor treatment, and if they have savings or their partner is earning they may decide non-paying self-employment is a better bet.

The big drop in self-employed earnings is not surprising; many ex-state workers only have significant networks in their own sector, and institutions that are cutting do not usually hire outside help.

With hundreds of thousands of public-sector redundancies already made and hundreds of thousands still to come, this is a damaging trend that is likely to continue for many more years.

The lack of available work in many areas, together with a mismatch in skills between public and private sectors, means it may well get worse, with more registrations and even lower earnings.
 
Great article; I completely agree.

Odds jobs is right: i had a look on Universal Jobscam yesterday and there was a lot of 'jobs' advertised by a company called 'maid 2 clean' which, i gather, has you working self employed as a cleaner. It's effectively zero hours (2-16 a week is what they claimed you'd get, but as you're self employed - and as they attract more unemployed applicants - there's no guarantee). There's also people setting themselves up as tradesmen, in compeition with established artisans of course which helps noone, dog walkers, home tutors and all sorts.
 
10011543_10201016117123747_1639424348444845272_o.jpg



Just a vanishing dream now...
 
I bet that's the default setting for anyone trying to interact with a tory constituency office who isn't there to parrot the party line.

Here's someone trying to see their MP, one Michael Gove. He, the visitor, doesn't seem like a raging anarchist troublemaker. (Though tbf he is filiming! I say fair, the fat guy on camera is a cunt)

 
There has been earlier criticism, or the hint thereof, of Sue Marsh. I would like some more on this. I get that she is close to Labour, but that's not enough. Let's have some evidence.
 
• Labour would redesign the test, which is currently based on a computerised points system, to include a detailed analysis of jobs that individuals could actually carry out.

What the fuck?

So no change at all then. The current test is premised on the notion that people can do 'something' and then using that as an excuse to abandon them to the four winds, sans income. This is just the same. It doesn't address the problems of capitalism, labour market, exploitation, shit wages, securing work, getting to work, surviving in work, helping people do something worthwhile. It's just hot air.

I sincerely hope Sue Marhs isn't supporting this.
 
How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 8:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so? ”
Charles Bukowski, Factotum

just saw this quote for the first time

now its 6.00 am to get to the barista's job
 
What the fuck?

So no change at all then. The current test is premised on the notion that people can do 'something' and then using that as an excuse to abandon them to the four winds, sans income. This is just the same. It doesn't address the problems of capitalism, labour market, exploitation, shit wages, securing work, getting to work, surviving in work, helping people do something worthwhile. It's just hot air.

I sincerely hope Sue Marhs isn't supporting this.


It certainly doesn't take into account employers often won't take on disabled people, especially in the labour market we have, its just more persecution with a softer face.
 
What the fuck?

So no change at all then. The current test is premised on the notion that people can do 'something' and then using that as an excuse to abandon them to the four winds, sans income. This is just the same. It doesn't address the problems of capitalism, labour market, exploitation, shit wages, securing work, getting to work, surviving in work, helping people do something worthwhile. It's just hot air.

I sincerely hope Sue Marhs isn't supporting this.
Been meaning to post this but very busy trying to get my flat together.

Sue Marsh Guardian CiF article from the 18th on Labours plans didn't get a good reception in the comments. So similar to the Sparty Beyond Barriers report in many ways.

At last, Labour has a plan for getting disabled people into employment
Rachel Reeves and Kate Green are moving Labour away from defining the problem as one of 'shirkers' who can work but don't


I notice the article had over 250 comments, that in itself is interesting, when ESA was first being mooted, the comments after could be counted on your hands and a few of them would be calling for sterilisation, etc.
 
Does this sound sinister to anyone else?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-million-workers-off-sick-for-more-than-a-month

The Health and Work Service will help employees who have been on sickness absence for 4 weeks to return to work and support employers to better manage sickness absence among their workforce. It’s expected to save employers £70 million a year and cut the time people spend off work by 20% to 40%.

Minister of State for Work and Pensions Mike Penning said:

More than 130 million days a year are lost to sickness absence in Great Britain, which has a substantial impact on workers, employers and taxpayers.

As part of the government’s long-term economic plan, we are taking action to improve get people back into work. This is a triple-win. It will mean more people with a job, reduced cost for business, and a more financially secure future for Britain.

Important facts on sickness absence:

  • employers face a yearly bill of around £9 billion for sick pay and associated costs with individuals missing out on £4 billion a year in lost earnings
  • around 300,000 people a year fall out of work and into the welfare system because of health-related issues
  • taxpayers fund around £13 billion a year on health-related sickness benefits and £2 billion a year in healthcare, sick pay reimbursement (PTS) and other taxes
The Health and Work Service will offer a work-focused occupational health assessment and case management to employees in the early stages of sickness absence.

GPs will be able to refer employees for assessment by the new service once they are absent, or expected to be absent, from work due to illness for four weeks. Employers can also refer employees.

The work-focused occupational health assessment will identify the issues preventing an employee from returning to work and draw up a plan for them, their employer and GP, recommending how the employee can be helped back to work more quickly.

The plan will include a timetable for a return to work, fitness for work advice, as well as signpost to appropriate help. Employees will be supported throughout their time with the service, so they can return to work as soon as they are able to.

It will also provide an advice service on the internet and telephone for anyone who needs it.

Perhaps if the DWP was run by caring people...?
 
Again, NL were planning something similar, Ed's lot will,

Journalist Tom Clark draws on the research of a transatlantic team, to determine the great recession's toll on individuals, families and community bonds. He argues that the scars left by unemployment and poverty will linger long after the economy recovers.

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780300203776&guni=Article:in body link


btw, new book out, 'Hard Times', by former Guardian Journo and DWP Economist(so he knows where the bodies are buried) Tom Clark, looks at the U.S experience as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom