Purnell: more attacks on the unemployed, etc

[treelover]

Workfare reforms: stake through this government's heart argues Jonathan Rutherford

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Poverty is the new political battle ground. In Liverpool on Tuesday Chris Grayling launched the Conservatives plans to tackle the social gulf between the rich and poor . Its policy document, 'Uniting Britain's Divided Cities' begins, ‘Britain today is a divided nation, where the poorest in our society are growing poorer while the fortunes of the richest are rising'. The Conservatives are taking on New Labour in its heartland and New Labour can no longer bluster outrage at this Tory hypocrisy.
It has triangulated too far to the right and made too many compromises of its own egalitarian tradition to point the blame at Margaret Thatcher and the 1980s. New Labour is now seen as the party of the establishment and the party of insecurity. Nowhere is this more in evidence than its plans for welfare reform.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=2733

Jonathan Rutherford, one of the few LP activists or academics to regulary write about the welfare reforms has written another excellent incisive and devastating indictment of NL welfare policy, it is on the Compass site and republished in Tribune


See also Dr Alison Ravetz’s work

 

[tbaldwin]

Yes, they should be paid the going rate for the job, not subsidized by the state at about £1 an hour (or less!!) to let whomever employs them do it for nowt.

Why is it acceptable to force people to work fulltime (sorry fulltime activity) and not pay them the going rate. Is that socialism?

Why is it acceptable to pay people not to work? Is that Socialism?

 

[_angel_]

Why is it acceptable to pay people not to work? Is that Socialism?

They're being paid to seek a job. Ironically, the job centre have taken benefits off people on JSA for volunteering on the basis that it's stopping them looking for a fulltime job. However, when the government tells them to work fulltime for nothing, that's alright.

Clearly you do believe working for a pound an hour is okay (as long as it's someone else doing it, not you) I don't though.

 

[Cressi]

done a bit of reading + Purswell's theory is very similar to the tories......just swapped the word 'full time activity' instead of 'projects'.

Can diabled people form their own privitised co and put in a bid to run the DWP? I am pretty sure thee are some highly intelligent disabled people who would probably make a far better job of it than the DWP9Die or Work Posse) plus they would have valuable insight to the problems and far better effecient ideas on how to run the department.

ps. I live near the Civil Service Sports ground and its the Ministry of Justice's 5 a side.........surely the taxpayer should be paying for Work activities not sports + leisure plus they spend an awful lot on fireworks at the end of the eve. (More money going up in smoke)

 

[trevhagl]

They're being paid to seek a job. Ironically, the job centre have taken benefits off people on JSA for volunteering on the basis that it's stopping them looking for a fulltime job. However, when the government tells them to work fulltime for nothing, that's alright.

Clearly you do believe working for a pound an hour is okay (as long as it's someone else doing it, not you) I don't though.

His lack of answer says that you got him sussed perfectly.

And it's not paying people to do nothing, it's paying people so they don't starve or freeze to death. ANYONE can find themselves unemployed in todays free market economy - even HIM. And people like him would be the first to complain if they couldn't get dole.

 

[tbaldwin]

They're being paid to seek a job. Ironically, the job centre have taken benefits off people on JSA for volunteering on the basis that it's stopping them looking for a fulltime job. However, when the government tells them to work fulltime for nothing, that's alright.

Clearly you do believe working for a pound an hour is okay (as long as it's someone else doing it, not you) I don't though.

A £1 an hour would be a great improvement for a lot of people across the world.
Anyway, Do you think people should be paid not to work?

 

[tbaldwin]

His lack of answer says that you got him sussed perfectly.

.

Sorry trev but i had to do a few hours work before getting back to you.....

 

[_angel_]

A £1 an hour would be a great improvement for a lot of people across the world.
Anyway, Do you think people should be paid not to work?

Fucks sake you didn't read what I posted. It's a job seekers allowance! To pay people to seek a job, not working for free for some employer (who will probably sack the staff who did the job before)

So, you won't be happy until people in this country are paid starvation wages like 'other people in the world'

In some cases, yes, I think people who are sick, old, incapacitated should be paid precisely not to work.

Do you think pensioners should work for their pensions? Do you think babies and kids should work for their child allowance? Why should sick people work to claim a benefit they have actually paid into the system for (and are too sick to work anyway, but never mind)

10 hours a week at £5.85 would be 'working for your dole'. 40 hours a week for about £60 a week - fuck right off.

Why is it okay to work for less than the legal minimum wage?

 

[tbaldwin]

Angel do you find yourself counting strawmen to get you off to sleep at night.
Where have i said that i would be happy for people in this country to be paid starvation wages?????????????????

Pensioners have paid for their pensions.

Agree people should do about 10 hours work for their dole. Sounds a good idea to me Angel..

Where have i said that its OK to work for less than the minimum wage?

 

[_angel_]

Angel do you find yourself counting strawmen to get you off to sleep at night.
Where have i said that i would be happy for people in this country to be paid starvation wages?????????????????

Pensioners have paid for their pensions.

Agree people should do about 10 hours work for their dole. Sounds a good idea to me Angel..

Where have i said that its OK to work for less than the minimum wage?

You just said £1 an hour would be great for most people in the world, insinuating people in Britain should work for that.

You are the one agreeing with the work fulltime for £60 a week, so that's why we are asking where you stand on a pound an hour.

I agree 10 hrs voluntary work would be fairer. A little bit of routine but still plenty of time to actively job seek, which is, er, what claimants on job seekers allowance are meant to be doing.

You said "should people be paid not to work" I gave you some examples of them being paid not to work....do you disagree with that?

 

[trevhagl]

I don't think he knows what he believes....

 

[tbaldwin]

You just said £1 an hour would be great for most people in the world, insinuating people in Britain should work for that.
Nonsense
You are the one agreeing with the work fulltime for £60 a week, so that's why we are asking where you stand on a pound an hour.
Nonsense
I agree 10 hrs voluntary work would be fairer. A little bit of routine but still plenty of time to actively job seek, which is, er, what claimants on job seekers allowance are meant to be doing.
And?

You said "should people be paid not to work" I gave you some examples of them being paid not to work....do you disagree with that?
I believe in a benefit system for people unable to work, pensioners and for people temporarily out of work

What i dont support is the status quo of a benefit system that pays millions of people barely enough to get by on and actively deters some people from working.

 

[tbaldwin]

I don't think .

That much is obvious.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

People aren't paid not to work as such, they are paid so that they don't have to work - either because they just simply can't, or can't without harming themselves even further, or can't without abandoning responsibilities to children or others being cared for - or even if they aren't in such a position, so that they don't have to take anything that is offered regardless of suitability and working conditions just so that they can survive, a situation which puts employers in an immensely powerful position.

This isn't rocket science is it? It's not even as if I'm some hardcore lefty, I thought that was supposed to be the point all along. Or am I wrong somewhere?

 

[Nigel]

Surely a certain amount of unemployment, and a continuation of Benefit Culture would help employers undermine the conditions, wages, stability & security of decent working folks.

Thatchers interpretation of Hayek in her years in govenment are proof of this.

 

[tbaldwin]

People aren't paid not to work as such, they are paid so that they don't have to work - either because they just simply can't, or can't without harming themselves even further, or can't without abandoning responsibilities to children or others being cared for - or even if they aren't in such a position, so that they don't have to take anything that is offered regardless of suitability and working conditions just so that they can survive, a situation which puts employers in an immensely powerful position.

This isn't rocket science is it? It's not even as if I'm some hardcore lefty, I thought that was supposed to be the point all along.

The thing is Unemployent has always suited some employers very well. A pool of cheap labour.

Those arguing on here against proposed changes to the benefit system would do well to think about what they would actually like to see.
Most of the posts on here have been preety defeatist and hysterical....Being accused of wanting to see people work in the UK for £1 an hour is particularly good!!!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The thing is Unemployent has always suited some employers very well. A pool of cheap labour.

Those arguing on here against proposed changes to the benefit system would do well to think about what they would actually like to see.
Most of the posts on here have been preety defeatist and hysterical....Being accused of wanting to see people work in the UK for £1 an hour is particularly good!!!

Hold on, unemployment only provides a pool of cheap labour if benefits are shit or people are otherwise forced off them into cheap labour. Reducing their value and increasing the number of people who can't get them therefore makes that more effective. That's what these proposals are all about.

 

[_angel_]

What i dont support is the status quo of a benefit system that pays millions of people barely enough to get by on and actively deters some people from working.

How come you have been full of praise for fulltime work for benefits, on this thread, you now seem to be back tracking.

 

[_angel_]

People aren't paid not to work as such, they are paid so that they don't have to work - either because they just simply can't, or can't without harming themselves even further, or can't without abandoning responsibilities to children or others being cared for - or even if they aren't in such a position, so that they don't have to take anything that is offered regardless of suitability and working conditions just so that they can survive, a situation which puts employers in an immensely powerful position.

This isn't rocket science is it? It's not even as if I'm some hardcore lefty, I thought that was supposed to be the point all along. Or am I wrong somewhere?

There's a lot of denial going on, people not believing that people with medical conditions can't be forced into a job, any job (never mind forced to do manual labour if they can't get a job)

I'm not some hard core lefty either.

But, if this inhumane treatment is socialism, it's nothing I'd vote for.

 

[tbaldwin]

How come you have been full of praise for fulltime work for benefits, on this thread, you now seem to be back tracking.

Where have i praised full time work for benefits on this thread?

 

[_angel_]

A £1 an hour would be a great improvement for a lot of people across the world.

What does this statement mean in relation to people in this country?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Surely a certain amount of unemployment, and a continuation of Benefit Culture would help employers undermine the conditions, wages, stability & security of decent working folks.

Absolutely, full employment would be a disaster for businesses as it would force them to treat their staff well. Purnell and friends know that there's no danger of achieving full employment of course, they're just rooting around for ways to use existing unemployment to channel more money from the publc to the private sector in various projects whose pre-programmed failure can then be blamed squarely on the unemployed people forced into them.

 

[_angel_]

Where have i praised full time work for benefits on this thread?

You've been supporting the government welfare policy in your posts. Their policy is to force people (even the sick) into fulltime 'work' for no extra money. Are you now saying you don't agree with this?

 

[tbaldwin]

Hold on, unemployment only provides a pool of cheap labour if benefits are shit or people are otherwise forced off them into cheap labour. Reducing their value and increasing the number of people who can't get them therefore makes that more effective. That's what these proposals are all about.

In your view. But i think its only partly about that. Decisions like these are not based on one person having one thought they are based on lots of people having different thoughts. Amongst them i would be very suprised if there were not some people who thought that having so many unemployed or underemployed people in the UK is a scandal.
Writing millions off people off is a disgrace but also likely to lead to huge social problems and it has.

 

[tbaldwin]

You've been supporting the government welfare policy in your posts. Their policy is to force people (even the sick) into fulltime 'work' for no extra money. Are you now saying you don't agree with this?

I am not in favour of keeping millions of people ( who could work)permenantly out of work.
To change that is going to take a lot more than the govt proposals.

 

[tbaldwin]

What does this statement mean in relation to people in this country?

It means that a lot of people across the world are piss fucking poor. What do you think it means?

 

[tbaldwin]

Hold on, unemployment only provides a pool of cheap labour if benefits are shit or people are otherwise forced off them into cheap labour. Reducing their value and increasing the number of people who can't get them therefore makes that more effective. That's what these proposals are all about.

Only part of the story. In the 60s far fewer people were unemployed and UB was much higher.

 

[SpookyFrank]

...having so many unemployed or underemployed people in the UK is a scandal.

The scandal is that this state of affairs is blamed entirely on the unemployed themselves despite the fact that there are over twice as many people out of work as there are job vacancies.

 

[_angel_]

I am not in favour of keeping millions of people ( who could work)permenantly out of work.
To change that is going to take a lot more than the govt proposals.

Who says there are millions of people who could work are being permanently kept out of work?

Would the government consider actual 'job creation schemes'? They seem to be able to pull unpaid jobs out of the hat as fast as you like, or will the market be expected to provide, and then the unfortunates unable to find work will be blamed.

Can I just say, even without a poor health record, seeking work when you've been off long term is no picnic. Employers want employees who aren't going to have disproportionate amounts of time off sick.

Who's going to make them employ someone with a chronic condition?


Getting local councils on board to employ people with health problems/ disabilities would be a start:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7532092.stm

Here, they've awarded a contract away from a group of people who would have otherwise have been on benefits.

 

[tbaldwin]

The scandal is that this state of affairs is blamed entirely on the unemployed themselves despite the fact that there are over twice as many people out of work as there are job vacancies.

Its a good point made most forcefully by brassic. But again the thing is that instead of the hysterical opposition to any benefit reforms, why dont people talk about reforming benefits in a way that would be good for most people in the country and those who rely on benefits?