Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

This could be VERY interesting. ATOS and the DWP will find it somewhat difficult to threaten people with legal action when those people are covered by Parliamentary Privilege:

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/20...ons-now-likely-next-month-michael-meacher-mp/

And on the 'WTF?' front...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...oversial-tests-could-be-positive-8376336.html

Disability Minster Esther McVey says: ‘Do not be fearful of this. This could be positive for you.'

Rather like an Army officer standing you against a wall and saying 'Yes, I know there are twelve rifles, but at least two are loaded with blanks...'
 
someone posted up an account of it on ian bone's blog:

CHAOS ERUPTS AS KNOWN TROUBLEMAKERS STORM NEWCASTLE COUNCIL CHAMBER
It wasn’t really a very promising start; a ‘Save Our Libraries’ march from New Bridge Street to the Civic Centre in sub-zero temperatures along frozen pavements. Some not very new chants getting a not very enthsiastic response, perhaps because for some reason they made no mention of the Labour Party which controls Newcastle City and which is obligingly making drastic cuts on behalf of the Tories. Same as it ever was.
The two bizzies sent along to monitor the situation did off at the earliest opportunity, presumably for a nice bacon sarnie somewhere, and off we went up Northumberland Street; a hundred or so of us, which is a canny sized mob for Newcastle, specially with a good sprinkling of spikies. We got right up to the main entrance at the civic centre where we made a noise and blockaded the mayoral limo which had been left unattended tut tut.
Next we went to stand outside a big plate glass window to shout rude stuff at some blokes in suits on the other side. It was then that one of us discovered that the main doors were not locked. This is not what we had expected; previous attempts to storm the Civic had resulted in famous but frustrating incidents such as the Revolving Door Kettle and the Known Troublemakers Standoff. In we went!
The blokes in suits turned out not to be councillors or council workers; god knows why they were swanning about inside, but the one I spoke to was a right little sneering shit-in-a-suit who informed me that the cuts were necessary as there wasn’t any money and he could say this with authority because he was…wait for it…an accountant!!!
Fuckwit.
Anyway, the enraged placard waving mob is now on the ground floor. The council chamber is on the first floor and between us is a wide flight of stairs guarded by some security types who were repelling all boarders. Fortunately the SP had a broad and rather stout banner; we pushed up the stairs behind this sweeping aside all resistance. First floor, and there’s the entrance to the council chamber guarded only be a policeperson forlornly holding out her arms and another suit who couldn’t get the door locked in time. The hordes poured into the chamber!
Err…this wasn’t in the script. The room was largely unoccupied apart from some police cadets sitting in the front row who quickly exited stage right. Boldly, we went and sat in the councillors seats and had speeches. Being a broad front action, some of these were about how socialism in one country was possible or the need to build a new workers’ party. Somebody suggested that we should have an assembly about having a meeting to plan for an assembly to decide what to do next and somebody else reported that the councillors were happy for us to stay for their meeting provided we sat in the proper public chairs and not in theirs.
Nah! We weren’t going anywhere and were having out own council meeting! It was about now that this mad old git, (whose placard read “STORM THE WINTER PALACE NOW!!”), attemted to declare the formation of the Provisional Republic of Tyneside & Sunderland. A motion for free education for all was unanimously approved and apparently one of the Byker Ninjas was appointed as Commisar for Public Safety, although I missed the actual vote on that. Things then disintegrated a bit; some of the more liberal types complained about people swearing at the few councillors who had entered the room and people became more interested in the ample photo opportunities and having a go with the Official Council Hammer. As can be seen here:
http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h330/neapictures/stormthewinterpalace.jpg
So, having failed to locate the council vodka store, we retired to the pub, unmolested and in good order. Big grins and damn good pracise for the REAL THING.
edit: some press: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nort...ing-at-newcastle-civic-centre-72703-32371095/
 
fuck the triple a rating. these are the clowns who rated Lehmans Brothers and AIG triple A as they were going bust, who rated the CDOs and whatever other things they were trading as AAA. They need to be ignored by everyone.

in other news, early results from the Community Action Programme - a 6 month workfare scheme for the very long term unemployed - have been released and the shock result is........ no difference in employment levels between those sent on CAP and those going to the job centre as normal

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_824.asp

summary document said:
This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP’s) Support for the Very Long-Term Unemployed (SVLTUtrailblazer, a six-month1 scheme designed to test potential support strands for claimants who remain on Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) after completing the Work Programme.

The trailblazer was designed as a Randomised Control Trial and participation in each strand was mandatory. SVLTU consisted of the following two treatment groups and one control group:
• Community Action Programme (CAP): a six-month work placement complemented by provider-led supported jobsearch. Providers were contracted by DWP to source placements for claimants which delivered a community benefit;
• Ongoing Case Management (OCM): a more intensive offer of flexible and personalised adviser-based support, as well as a set of standard activities, delivered by Jobcentre Plus through increased adviser interventions for six months;
• the control group (standard Jobcentre Plus Offer (JCPO)): Fortnightly Jobsearch Reviews plus additional appointments with advisers based on advisers’ discretion and access to a menu of back- to-work support.

...

Fifteen to 18 per cent in each programme strand had entered paid employment, become self-employed or were waiting to start work at the time of the survey, six to seven months after starting on the trailblazer. These job outcomes did not vary significantly between programme strands, nor did the types of jobs entered, take-home pay and hours worked.
For participants on OCM, those who reported receiving more personalised support to their individual needs were significantly more likely to be in work at the end of the programme. However, for CAP participants, neither attending a placement nor receiving jobsearch support were significantly associated with a job outcome around the end of
the programme.
The majority of participants reported being in receipt of JSA at the time of the survey. DWP statistics published alongside this report found statistically significantly lower levels of benefit receipt for both CAP and OCM participants compared to the control group about six months after starting the programme.

One thing I'm wondering about from that summary, if there's no more job outcomes but CAP and OCM had lower levels of benefit receipt, does that mean that they've had more sanctions? More likely to sign off to escape the hassle? Is there another explanation available here?
I don't know if any of our resident statisticians would have the time to look through the full report and see if there's anything worth noting in there? @ymu @kabbes (I'm not on tapatalk, is this working straight on the boards yet?)
 
Not got time to look at it in detail but that would appear to be the most obvious explanation. That or a different voluntary dropout rate, which might occur if there were differences in the sorts of people referred to each type of programme. Young people living at home might be under less pressure than a young person with no family support or a parent with a low-earning partner.

You'd also need to check for artefacts in the data: definition of outcomes, time frames etc.
 
Good question. I would guess that she only got that far at the Jobcentre because anyone able to earn good money elsewhere in a secretarial role voted with their feet.

Probably 'cos Government departments are getting rid of a lot of secretaries and replacing them with AO jobs. That's what they did to my last job, replaced me with an AO :mad:
 
I was told that I have to sign up to the Universal Jobmatch today as it is now mandatory. If I refuse, am I likely to be sanctioned temporarily and have to appeal to get the money I am owed? Because I want to refuse, but I can't afford to lose more money (I'm currently on 50% JSA because they incorrectly claimed I've been working :mad:) if that's the outcome of refusing.

It's not mandatory but they do want to know why you don't want to sign up and they will "look further into" any possible reasons why you don't want to do it.
 
It's not mandatory but they do want to know why you don't want to sign up and they will "look further into" any possible reasons why you don't want to do it.
OTOH if you know your stuff, are clear about why you don't want to sign up, and remain polite but firm, there shouldn't be a problem.
 
DEBATE AGAINST ATOS, PARLIAMENT JAN 2013:

Pat’s Debate – your support needed more than ever

After a year of very hard work and wonderful encouragement from all of our friends and supporters Pat’s Petition closed with over 62,600 signatures. We then sent an open letter to Liam Byrne.
We are delighted to announce that all the effort succeeded
and we have a result.
Liam Byrne has been in touch and the Labour Party are giving us an Opposition Day Debate in the Commons based around Pat’s Petition. This means the debate will take place in the Chamber at the House of Commons with Ministers and front benchers as well as back benchers.
http://carerwatch.com/reform/?p=1246
 
Does Labour agree with workfare though? I sent a couple of pithy tweets/questions earlier when the Labour twitter account was creaming itself with this story/others. Didn't get a response, obviously.
 
Does Labour agree with workfare though? I sent a couple of pithy tweets/questions earlier when the Labour twitter account was creaming itself with this story/others. Didn't get a response, obviously.
Some do, some don't. It's part of the internal battle being waged. Liam Byrne is cunt-in-chief on benefits, but there are some signs that he is being side-lined.

The disability rights campaigners have been very successful and they may be having some influence on how the party are thinking.

Continue challenging them - Labour can't make be allowed to make political capital out of this government fucking up without explicitly acknowledging their own part in introducing and voting for these policies.
 
Labour can't make be allowed to make political capital out of this government fucking up without explicitly acknowledging their own part in introducing and voting for these policies.
Quite right of course although I am absolutely sick to the back teeth with the way the Con-dems keep using this to avoid focus on what they are currently doing. It is just more of 'well you voted for it/were first to do x, y, z...' This does not facilitate debate and/or clarity at all, it does the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymu
Just reminds us how shit they all are. Some of the young 'uns don't realise how much of this is down to Labour. Don't wanna be jumping from frying pan to fire - keeping Labour on the hook is important.
 
Does Labour agree with workfare though? I sent a couple of pithy tweets/questions earlier when the Labour twitter account was creaming itself with this story/others. Didn't get a response, obviously.

Although many in labour disagree with workfare, the party not only supports workfare, they introduced it as part of the flexible new deal and when Liam Byrne (cunt in chief lol. Lord Freud and Adonis both vie for this title. Progress is the name of their faction in labour) did a policy announcement earlier this year about youth unemployment it included workfare.
Liam Byrne believes basically the same stuff as the tories. Lord Freud (labour peer) is the coalition's poverty tsar (or something).
 
Further welfare cuts risk ‘serious unrest’
Inside Housing 4th December 2012
A Human City Institute study being published tomorrow says tenants have lost 10 per cent of their purchasing power since the start of the credit crunch, totalling £3 billion since 2008.

Current welfare reforms are set to cut a further £2 billion from the incomes of social tenants by 2015, and the think tank warns of ‘serious unrest’ if chancellor George Osborne pushes ahead with a further £10 billion of welfare cuts when he announces his autumn statement tomorrow.

Kevin Gulliver, director of HCI and author of the report, said: ‘Already poor tenants are getting poorer and struggling to cope before the majority of welfare reforms have even come into effect.

‘That the chancellor is rumoured to be seeking a further £10 billion cut in the welfare budget brings into question the viability of social housing communities, will have negative effects on the health and well-being of tenants and the life chances of their children.’
 

I was explaining to my dad yesterday why 2013 is going to be crunch time. His reply, from someone who usually votes Tory and lives in the back of beyond, was illuminating, it was "I can see why people would want to take to the streets. It's bad enough already, any worse and people will have nothing to lose by civil unrest". He's also enough of an old-fashioned Tory to believe that civil unrest is everyone's right if the government isn't working for the electorate. :)
 
It seems as though those nice, ethical folks at the DWP have been suggesting to claimants' GP's that, as it's not in their contract to provide written evidence for tribunals, that they really, really, really don't have to:

http://www.dpac.uk.net/2012/11/dpac-survey-responses-on-wca-what-harrington-didnt-ask/


Quoted from that link for brevity:


64% of those that said their doctors were told not to provide written support said this was because of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
Some respondents said that the DWP had written to their doctors to tell them not to issue ‘fit notes’ or written support, others that doctors resented such directives and would supply these based on their expertise and knowledge of the individual.
 
Back
Top Bottom