campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

[ViolentPanda]

Again, I am not suggesting that the PCS leadership tell their members what to do. I said to just vote on it at least that would be something. If they all vote against it, for reasons of job security or whatever, then that's entirely legitimiate, if disappointing.

I understand why people are cynical. I understand that not all members would support strike action, but there doesn't even seem to be any impetus to do anything. Consequently the environment will remain toxic and only get worse.

Being in survival mode is one thing, but how long can that last? Until the next election? Ok, then what? What happens if Labour doesn't win the next election?

What happens if it does?

Are you cognisant of the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to bring a motion to a ballot?
First you need a decent motion, preferably proposed and accepted at conference.
Then you need the national executive to fall behind it.
You then have to run it past the lawyers to make it as "fireproof" as possible from govt interference.
Next you ballot your members...if you're lucky you'll get a 40-50% return rate.

And all the while, the government will have been bringing to bear many more resources than the union can afford, as well as firing up the "dirty tricks" machine.

I don't expect much of any union, because they foolishly allowed themselves to be hedged in legislatively post-Scargill, and there is no room for them to manouvre meaningfully anymore. One-day strikes? Not exactly a fearsome tool against boss-class rapacity, is it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hi all,
I've been reading/lurking here for a bit over a year (belated thanks for the SWP thread, you helped convince me I wasn't being irrational or failing by choosing to quit).

So I thought I'd join because I found an interesting tidbit that I haven't seen picked up anywhere that seemed relevant for this thread. I bought the Financial Times on Feb 23rd to see if there was more information about Ukraine from over the weekend (read the enemy & all that). Not something I normally do but was getting frustrated.

Anyway, while it wasn't so enlightening on that front, in one of the supplement bits there was an article titled 'L&G plans to begin lending to larger SMEs'. It's an article based on an interview with the chief exec of Legal & General, about lending to small businesses and the like. But, tucked away in the last paragraphs, was this:



Not sure how that fits with Universal credit - as a complement? their 'Plan B'? I thought it might be worth the mention anyway.

As I recall, some of the European states use programmes that are basically a collaboration between private insurance companies, the state, the employee and the employer as part of their social security systems, so there's political traction to be had with "the chattering classes" for something similar.
As to how it'd fit with Universal Credit, it won't. I suspect the idea will be very much to cream off those who can afford additional provision, and to subject those who can't to the tender mercies of residualised state provision.

 

[BigTom]

As I recall, some of the European states use programmes that are basically a collaboration between private insurance companies, the state, the employee and the employer as part of their social security systems, so there's political traction to be had with "the chattering classes" for something similar.
As to how it'd fit with Universal Credit, it won't. I suspect the idea will be very much to cream off those who can afford additional provision, and to subject those who can't to the tender mercies of residualised state provision.

Possibly as a replacement for contributions based jsa/esa (I assume there's contributions based UC too)? Separating these would make it that little bit easier to demonise people who move onto UC afterwards, because if you've just someone who wants to work and has just been unfortunate to lose their job, you won't be on UC, you'll be on something else, therefore everyone on UC is a scrounging waster obviously.
Also a part privatisation of social security is something I'm sure they'd love to jump on anyway.

 

[Greebo]

Possibly as a replacement for contributions based jsa/esa (I assume there's contributions based UC too)? <snip>

Not as far as I've heard. Every benefit claimant of any kind whatsoever will be classed as a Universal Credit Claimant.

Recipients of the state pension, carers in receipt of CA, working people who don't earn enough to cover their rent but qualify for Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance, people in receipt of Child Benefit - they'll all be under the umbrella of UC and therefore sanctionable.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Are you cognisant of the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to bring a motion to a ballot?
First you need a decent motion, preferably proposed and accepted at conference.
Then you need the national executive to fall behind it.
You then have to run it past the lawyers to make it as "fireproof" as possible from govt interference.
Next you ballot your members...if you're lucky you'll get a 40-50% return rate.

And all the while, the government will have been bringing to bear many more resources than the union can afford, as well as firing up the "dirty tricks" machine.

I don't expect much of any union, because they foolishly allowed themselves to be hedged in legislatively post-Scargill, and there is no room for them to manouvre meaningfully anymore. One-day strikes? Not exactly a fearsome tool against boss-class rapacity, is it?

l do not pretend doing any of this is easy or that it is guaranteed to succed.

The only guarantee is that if nothing is done then nothing improves.

The kind of divisive cynicism, whether justified or not, seen in this discussion is what we will get more of if nothing charges, as people end up turning on each other because they can't fight the government.

I do not appreciate being subject to that, nor being portrayed as some spoilt petulant child just for advocating a particular course of action ( even though it was the other poster that behaved like this).

 

[ViolentPanda]

l do not pretend doing any of this is easy or that it is guaranteed to succed.

The only guarantee is that if nothing is done then nothing improves.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

However, I'm looking at your "suggestions" not from the perspective of an activist, but from the perspective of the "average" worker who happens to be a trade union member. Most TU members aren't activist in any way, shape or form. They're everyday sloggers who just want an easy life.

The kind of divisive cynicism, whether justified or not, seen in this discussion is what we will get more of if nothing charges, as people end up turning on each other because they can't fight the government.

Sorry, but your label of "divisive cynicism" is so inapt that it made me laugh.
The biggest cause of failure in activism isn't cynicism, it's the setting of unrealistic goals. When they're not attained they're more damaging to activism than even harsh cynicism is. You see "divisive cynicism", I see "prevention of people getting their hopes up, when the inevitable crushing of those hopes will take them entirely away from any activism in the future".

I do not appreciate being subject to that, nor being portrayed as some spoilt petulant child just for advocating a particular course of action ( even though it was the other poster that behaved like this).

Even though you've just pulled the "please miss, it wasn't me, it was him" gambit?

 

[Awesome Wells]

However, I'm looking at your "suggestions" not from the perspective of an activist, but from the perspective of the "average" worker who happens to be a trade union member. Most TU members aren't activist in any way, shape or form. They're everyday sloggers who just want an easy life.

Obviously. This isn't news to me; it's not some secret I didn't know about. I get it.

What I'm trying to say is that they don't have an easy life. Their job is already in the dark lord's territory. If it were a case of not wanting to rock the boat for fear it would make things worse that would be one thing. But it's not - it's already at the point where the boat is leaking. Having to enact sanctions to target is proof of this, and it's going to get worse every day until something changes. How that changes is the purpose of this discussion, chewing me out for suggesting something is just ridiculous. We can have a discussion and that's fine, but I see no reason at all to be a patronising asshole about it. That's all; it's not chucking toys or having a fit of pique. It's just about being respectful since, I assume, most people in this discussion and on this forum, share the desire to see all this horror come to an end.

Calling for a vote doesn't also mean that members of the union have to support it either. Those that want their soupposedly easy life can vote no. That's their choice. But if the PCS cannot protect it's own interests then what's the point of it? I'm not just asking them to help claimants, I'm suggesting they call for a vote to strike to make their own lives easier, which in turn helps the claimants. That's all, and I do not see why that necessitates being spoken down to. I don't like it and it's totally uncalled for.

Sorry, but your label of "divisive cynicism" is so inapt that it made me laugh.
The biggest cause of failure in activism isn't cynicism, it's the setting of unrealistic goals. When they're not attained they're more damaging to activism than even harsh cynicism is. You see "divisive cynicism", I see "prevention of people getting their hopes up, when the inevitable crushing of those hopes will take them entirely away from any activism in the future".

I don't have experience of activism. I don't have experience of trade union membership. I've never said otherwise. I'm just someone who wants to see social justice. Suggesting the PCS call for a vote is not IMO unrealistic nor is it about getting people's hopes up at all. It's just a suggestion. What I'm talking about with divisive cycnisism isn't specifically even in reference to activism, it's about people taking their frustrations out on those that would otherwise be on their side. They don't have to be activists. They can be anyone who thinks that any course of action or any suggestion - and I can only make suggestions, I'm not Mark Serwotka - is unreasonable or unworkable who then, as the above poster did, takes it out on the person they are arguing with. How does stupid bickering and unplesantness help? I don't need to come here for that, there's plenty of that in the real world.

Even though you've just pulled the "please miss, it wasn't me, it was him" gambit?

?

I was merely acknowledging you were not the one being rude.

I wasn't the one resorting to piss poor behaviour, I simply asked not to be talked down to. How is that in any way childish?

 

[treelover]

After Benefits Street, it's another round of poverty porn – with added celebrity
A new BBC documentary looks set to be yet another dehumanising foray into poor people's lives

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/benefits-street-poverty-porn-celebrity-bbc

BBC have commissioned Love Productions(Benefits St) for a new benefits porn show, 'Rich Famous and Hungry'

there is something obscene about rich media folk at the BBC paid by our money, commissioning propaganda like this.

Having said that, Johnson on that Benefits Row programme was very robust in defence of people on benefits.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Who made 'Rich Famous ad Homeless', because that sounds like the same thing.

#DesperatePoorandExploited - but doesn't get a tv show without the presence of some 'celebrity'.

 

[Awesome Wells]

IDS does Bath.

 

[Awesome Wells]

According to this genius: whom you may recognise, people sanctioned can expect to have their case heard within 7 days and are automatically entitled to a hardship payment if they need it. Phew! Thats good then!

 

[Greebo]

According to this genius: whom you may recognise, people sanctioned can expect to have their case heard within 7 days and are automatically entitled to a hardship payment if they need it. Phew! Thats good then!

He's also denied all knowledge of sanction targets. Why is my chin so itchy?

 

[Awesome Wells]

He denies everything. If asked he'll probably deny he's even in the room.

NAO, ONS, Catholic Church, Policy Exchange, all wrong. Everyone, wrong. Always.

In an earlier part of the interview, trying to defend the Work Programme (again everyone, including the Select Committee, are all wrong), you can see his beady little eyes light up as he says "I can give you the exact figures", which he then proceeds to not give the exact figures.

 

[treelover]

Hey Priscilla, you can't be serious about this! Surely this is just a ridiculous figment of your imagination?
Well no. In another part of government(local) where I live this has already happened A huge percentage of the parks and gardens dept of the local council were made redundant as a result of government cuts, most of them could not just walk into another job so they signed on, listing,as required their workplace experience and the type of work they'd like to go into ( surprise surprise lots of them said gardening) lo and behold they were sent on the mandatory work placement to help train them for new work. Where were they placed? why in the depleted parks department of the local council, doing their old jobs, but for JSA not real pay. The council were desperate to participate in "workplace training" as it got the job done without the expense. those that undertook the training were no longer on the unemployment list, so the government can claim that unemployment is falling and that councils can get by with the cuts. Tory Britain

Comments on Guardian CIF in an article about the DWP: looks like the U.S style workfare where almost immediately recently redundant council/city workers are made to do the same job for free is here, I wonder which council it is?

 

[Dr Jon]

Thousands of people with mental health needs denied social care amid cuts

Yeah, just give 'em meds 'n' make 'em work

 

[Awesome Wells]

Most Jobseeker Agreements ruled unlawful.

 

[Awesome Wells]

The problem with this ruling is that a) there is nothing that will stop an adviser from initiating a sanction - they don't for example, face the sack for doing so (or a sanction on their wages).

and b) it all comes down to the wording 'reasonable'. Even the 'more than 2 steps' (it used to be 3) is not as precise as it needs to be in light of this.

consequently anyone arguing the toss at the JC still has no real power.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thousands of people with mental health needs denied social care amid cuts

Yeah, just give 'em meds 'n' make 'em work

What depresses me is that the people currently falling off the radar are, perforce, those who are most in need of help. How do I make that out? Well, in the last 20 years social care provision has pretty much residualised into three core groups: The elderly; children and the most severely-incapacitated (mentally or physically). This has meant that with each budget cut or spending review, each of those core groups has shrunk. Add to that the extra expense incurred from the budget of commissioning rather than providing services (paying those hefty agency premiums), and this also shrinks the core groups, against all good sense.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Hoofuckingray..!! £20m startup and £350k a month running costs to Monster for that garbage.

DWP plans to ditch ridiculed jobs website

The government has drawn up plans to scrap its official jobs website, Universal Jobmatch, after recognising it is too expensive and that its purpose is undermined by fake and repeat job entries, according to leaked internal communications from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

A cache of documents seen by the Guardian details how the government's main website for job hunters – which tens of thousands of unemployed people have been required by the DWP to sign up to – is likely to be jettisoned when the contract for the service comes up for renewal in two years.

A year and a half after its launch, Universal Jobmatch has been ridiculed for hosting numerous fake jobs, including one for an MI6 "target elimination specialist" and "international couriers" for CosaNostra Holdings, as well as listings for pornographic websites.

 

[Awesome Wells]

...in two years!

So that means for the foreseable future people still have to put up with this shit on pain of sanction.

 

[treelover]

They will just bring a similar one back if they get elected, and Labour will probably continue something like it, bit in their teeth now.

 

[Awesome Wells]

It seems likely that, in all policy areas, labour will carry on from where we currently are

Civil servants say that the US company, which pioneered online recruitment two decades ago, has demanded an extra £975,000 to clear Universal Jobmatch of fraudulent employment ads.

They have the DWP over a barrel at public expense. still IDs accepts no responsibility

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

This was recently posted on People's Assembly South West FB group. I'm sure there are - and will be in future - more stories similar to this one:

[Think prudent to edit] (my brother)
has applied for the new PIP
disability benefit in October
2013. He has still not
received this benefit. The
benefit administration has
been contracted out to Atos
with disastrous results. A
benefit that used to take 14
days to come through is
now taking up to 6 months -
Social workers and health
workers are saying this is
quite usual. Terminally sick
people are suffering and
dying having to worry about
their incomes. He is not the
only terminally sick person
suffering because of Atos
there are many suffering.
When the Prime Minister
was questioned in PMQ over
these issues he refused to
recognised there was a
problem. Something must
be done to deal with the
backlog of applicants.
Please cut and paste this
message to:
mike.penning.mp@
parliament.uk and
Minister.disabledpeople@
gsi.gov.uk
Please share with all your
facebook friends and ask
them to bombard the DWP
with emails.

 

[_angel_]

Not as far as I've heard. Every benefit claimant of any kind whatsoever will be classed as a Universal Credit Claimant.

Recipients of the state pension, carers in receipt of CA, working people who don't earn enough to cover their rent but qualify for Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance, people in receipt of Child Benefit - they'll all be under the umbrella of UC and therefore sanctionable.

Not what it says here or what I've heard. It's for working age only.
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit

"
Universal Credit will eventually replace:

• Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
• Income Support
• Working Tax Credit
• Child Tax Credit
• Housing Benefit"

Therefore not carers allowance or DLA/ PIP. I mean why introduce PIP at the same time as UC only to have it amalgamated?
It's debatable if they even get as far as that.

 

[Frankie Jack]

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Not what it says here or what I've heard. It's for working age only.
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit

"
Universal Credit will eventually replace:

• Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
• Income Support
• Working Tax Credit
• Child Tax Credit
• Housing Benefit"

Therefore not carers allowance or DLA/ PIP. I mean why introduce PIP at the same time as UC only to have it amalgamated?
It's debatable if they even get as far as that.

you're completely correct on the benefits/tax credits being replaced by UC. thing is with carers, many who claim carer's allowance claim income support to top it up so they'll be caught by extension. same with part-time workers, currently they can simply do the work and claim WTC, under the UC regime, they'll also need to do job search activity or face sanctions which is pretty crazy.

 

[_angel_]

you're completely correct on the benefits/tax credits being replaced by UC. thing is with carers, many who claim carer's allowance claim income support to top it up so they'll be caught by extension. same with part-time workers, currently they can simply do the work and claim WTC, under the UC regime, they'll also need to do job search activity or face sanctions which is pretty crazy.

You already "work" 35 hours a week to claim carer's allowance. Afaik there are no other groups who are expected to work or seek more than 35 hours a week in order to claim. Unemployed people aren't expected to look for more than 35 hours a week.

Carers would then be expected to work 35 hrs caring + another 35 =70 hours or in the case of most of us, 35 extra hours in the week because we are there 24/7 already.

Asking part timers to look for jobs to fill the "extra" hours is one thing, in carers cases, these hours don't exist.

If a carer reckoned they could get a job that was 35 hrs a week I reckon they would be thrown off carer's allowance anyway.
I'm sceptical.
We'll see.

 

[treelover]

 

[Awesome Wells]

What needs to happen also is the removal of presumed guilt from the sanction proceess, though of course ideally removing sanctions entirely would be my choice.

However I think this ability to simply 'raise a doubt' because a claimant hasn't done something deemed reasonable, which, let's face it, anything could fall into that category, is obscene. This is what allows advisers to be so trigger happy because it divests them of responsibility. It was labour that brought this change in, btw.

If people were only deprived of their income after a doubt is properly investigated, and not simply as a consequence of it being raised, things would be different. Advisers couldn't get away with being so trigger happy because the claimant wouldn't lose money until a proper investiugation is undertaken, this takes time and money (which is presumably why it was changed).

While it might be idealistic to think such investigations would all be conducted fairly and throughly, the claimant wouldn't immediately be placed in hardship at the whim of an ill informed or vindictive adviser. The current situation achieves the same end through presuming guilt and thereby conveniently doing away with the need to investigate al all. That said 9 out of 10 appeals reportedly are upheld - but only where an appeal is made.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Dunkedin Schitt on the tellybox Beeb Parli now. Vote on the welfare spending cap that Labour are supporting.