"Work is the Best Medicine" Says Paul Flynn MP

[llantwit]

Who is forcing them? If they don't wish to claim benefits then they are free to do so. If they want taxpayer money then I suspect it is only a matter of time before such a system is adopted. After all we have no constitution to state that slave labour of this sort is not allowed, and such a small group is unlikely to be able to campaign against it.

You really are fixating on the constitution a bit, mate.
Like al social justice problems would be solved if there were a bit of paper that said so?

 

[In Bloom]

<parental controversy> my mother said that the scroungers on the dole are just as bad as the rich tax dodgers. They both steal from middle ground working people and we shouldn't appease of condone either.

Yeah, but your mother's clearly a fucking moron.

 

[llantwit]

Yeah, but your mother's clearly a fucking moron.

That's what I wanted to say!

but didn't

 

[In Bloom]

Who is forcing them? If they don't wish to claim benefits then they are free to do so.

Free to do manual labour for a pittance or starve to death on the streets. Charming.

I've just gotten off JSA in the last month, I'm seriously glad that I don't have to sign on any more, because it's a pain in the arse, that doesn't make work some wonderful cure for all the world's ills. If you're long-term disabled, your ability to work may well vary massively from one week to the next, keeping a full time job is not necessarily an option, not because you're incapable of making a useful contribution to society, but because places of business are not set up to take account for the thousands of people with long term disabilities that fluctuate in severity and impact over a life time. What's more, yet again, the current government plans treat single parents as parasitic upon society, as if raising a child just happens by fucking magic or something.

 

[PAD1OH]

Yeah, but your mother's clearly a fucking moron.

Thanks, I'll let her know tonight.

Your attitude highlights why this country is the sick and depressed shithole of Europe.

 

[In Bloom]

Thanks, I'll let her know tonight.

Your attitude highlights why this country is the sick and depressed shithole of Europe.

If you don't like it, I suggest you move to Italy. They're so far to the right, they've started fingerprinting ethnic minorities, you'll love it.

 

[llantwit]

Thanks, I'll let her know tonight.
Your attitude highlights why this country is the sick and depressed shithole of Europe.

Genuinely, what did you expect?
Posting up some right wing bollix and thinking that no-one would criticise it 'cos you said your mum said it.
Well, my mum said that you're a fucking cretin.
You callin' my mum a liar??!!?!11!?/

 

[Udo Erasmus]

 

[PAD1OH]

Genuinely, what did you expect?
Posting up some right wing bollix and thinking that no-one would criticise it 'cos you said your mum said it.
Well, my mum said that you're a fucking cretin.
You callin' my mum a liar??!!?!11!?/

Actually, my mother was a left wing campaigner and "irish republican" before you even existed, mate. She told me about 10 years ago she got sick of the tired old ideological debates (which you seem to be dragging out - nothing has changed in decades) and the need to make excuses and defend fuckheads for the sake of a badge.

I actually expected some debate rather than some dickhead having a go at my mum.

 

[llantwit]

It doesn't matter if she was Rosa Luxemburg, really, mate. That's a hackneyed statement that purely reproduces a stale right-wing argument.

 

[PAD1OH]

explain to me how you interpret the statement and how you have managed to classify it as right-wing.

 

[llantwit]

Can't believe I'm doing this. Wonder if I'm being trolled. But here goes the bleeding obvious...
The use of the term 'scroungers' to decribe those claiming dole is a term which has historically been reproduced and circulated by right-wingers of various stripes.
It assumes that those who claim unemployment benefit from the state, are not entitled to it, as is usually assumed by proponents of a welfare state.
In other words the use of the derogatory and value-laden nomenclature 'scroungers' in this context is and always has been used by right-wingers.
Those of more left-wing or 'socialist' persuasion have historically preferred the more neutral 'claimants', or the more descriptive 'unemployed' to describe those availing themselves of 'the dole', and do not refer to them as scroungers.
It's mainly on this evidence that I quite reasonably described your mother's statement as 'right wing'.

 

[_angel_]

5 things

A) It's not 'worklessness' it's unemployment or disability/ illness!

B) Why when work-for-your-dole has it always got to be street cleaning/ sweeping up - is it a supposed punishment?

C) If you work for your dole at minimum wage thats about ten hours a week - fair enough. Why should anyone work fulltime for about 1/5 of the minimum wage?

D) At least criminals get told how many hours community service they should do. This idea means anyone living in an area of high unemployment could do community service indefinitely, just for the 'crime' of not finding a job (poss due to disability)

E) What happens to all the people currently paid to pick litter/ sweep streets?

 

[PAD1OH]

The use of the term 'scroungers' to decribe those claiming dole is a term which has historically been reproduced and circulated by right-wingers of various stripes.

That's fair enough. It's semantics. Everyone in my family has been on the dole or claimed child benefit at some stage over the last 20 years - it is a fact of life. Scroungers are the careerist dole claimants - and don't try to deny they don't exist.

The statement from my 'oul one was equating the people who are dodging tax (i.e. ripping off "society") with those careerist dole claimants (ripping off "society") i.e. both ends of a spectrum. This is also a fact of life.

Nothing in the statement made a claim on how to deal with the issue and if it did then we could sit here bandying claims of right/left or whatever.

 

[llantwit]

Fairy nuff mate. I was assuming she was caling all doleys scroungers. Sorry to you... and yer mum.

 

[Gmart]

<parental controversy> my mother said that the scroungers on the dole are just as bad as the rich tax dodgers. They both steal from middle ground working people and we shouldn't appease of condone either.

At least the scrougers have 'being poor' as the excuse for taking the money.

Rich tax dodgers could survive without and are just playing the system to get as much money as poss.

The availability of jobs is an important factor and should be considered, but picking up litter is also an immense problem.

The fact that prisoners get paid about £5 a week at times for their cheap labour, I suspect that the government would consider such a policy as a vote winner, with only the relatively few unemployed being unhappy about it.

 

[PAD1OH]

Fairy nuff mate. I was assuming she was caling all doleys scroungers. Sorry to you... and yer mum.

ha ha. she's a tough cookie.

At least the scrougers have 'being poor' as the excuse for taking the money.

Rich tax dodgers could survive without and are just playing the system to get as much money as poss.

i know what you're saying - everyone has their reasons for pulling fast ones - rich and poor. I just don't think any of the excuses really cut it because at the end of the day you are taking from your neighbour and from those in genuine need.

 

[Gmart]

i know what you're saying - everyone has their reasons for pulling fast ones - rich and poor. I just don't think any of the excuses really cut it because at the end of the day you are taking from your neighbour and from those in genuine need.

Stealing is indeed wrong, and is a constant crime in all societies I know.

It is the same selfish yob attitude from either end of the spectrum.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Actually, my mother was a left wing campaigner and "irish republican" before you even existed, mate. She told me about 10 years ago she got sick of the tired old ideological debates (which you seem to be dragging out - nothing has changed in decades) and the need to make excuses and defend fuckheads for the sake of a badge.

I actually expected some debate rather than some dickhead having a go at my mum.

My mum was a greenham common campaigner, doesnt mean she has the answers to every social problem ever.
How old are you? 12??

 

[PAD1OH]

My mum was a greenham common campaigner, doesnt mean she has the answers to every social problem ever.
How old are you? 12??

nobody said she had all the answers? no person/organisation/political party/apolitical party has all the answers.

I generally avoid zealots that think they know it all.

we got our wires crossed earlier over semantics there's no point drawing it out any more.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

HINT- starting any post in this board with "my mum says " is likely to get your ass hounded into next week

You are bloody lucky you said it here and not on any of the other forums

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

5 things

A) It's not 'worklessness' it's unemployment or disability/ illness!

B) Why when work-for-your-dole has it always got to be street cleaning/ sweeping up - is it a supposed punishment?

C) If you work for your dole at minimum wage thats about ten hours a week - fair enough. Why should anyone work fulltime for about 1/5 of the minimum wage?

D) At least criminals get told how many hours community service they should do. This idea means anyone living in an area of high unemployment could do community service indefinitely, just for the 'crime' of not finding a job (poss due to disability)

E) What happens to all the people currently paid to pick litter/ sweep streets?

all fair enough but as Ive outlined, there is a defined and definite sickness benefit culture in certain parts of wales which = people who arent genuinely unable to work claiming sickness benefits because "Bad nerves" appears to be a genetic condition.. whos only common denoimators are a worklessness culture and a sympathetic GP... its absolute fact- GP's ahve said so, benefits agency staff have said they have been told to put people onto sicness benefit to maniuplate the figures.

and unfortunately it means that the proposals the government have at present mean that genuine claimants are likely to be swept up in the vast net of absolute idiots who claim they cannot possibly work. Unfortunately there are many well meaning campaingers who will pander to these idiots...the end result being that people with genuine disabiliity (or special need if you prefer that term) get overlooked and underfunded.

whats needed is for those banging on about the proposals being so unjust to change their stance and campaign for genuine claimaints to get more support accross the board,sadly I dont think thats likely to happen while people believe every present claimaint is going to be in the same awful sitiuation- ( bar losing money)because thats really not the case.


There are many many people who are young, able to work and are convinced they cannot get a job- so have never tried and claim they have 'bad nerves- like my mam/dad ( Oh the times I was told that living in the valleys) and are permenently signed off as sick... that situation is farcical, damages genuinely disabled and sick claimants and MUST stop so that people who need support and help to be in work ( people like my brother who has downs but works part time - 2 days a week) or those ( like the girls who share a house with him- who cannot work) do not get caught up in the legislation.

 

[PAD1OH]

You are bloody lucky you said it here and not on any of the other forums

why? because the welsh are so forgiving?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Pad1oh, don't you think that it is a little silly to compare those ripping of the system at the top and bottom of society?

Consider the fundamental differences in power, social status, life opportunities, class etc of someone on around £3-4000 a year & a billionaire (the majority of whom in Britain did not pay a penny in income tax last year). Your billionaire ripping of the system may own a chain of supermarkets, be making hundreds of people redundant, be funding a mainstream political party, can travel all over the world, has a strong impact on social policy 'cos the government sees these parasites as "wealth creators". and has the power to shape the political and economic direction of our society. The individual may have also inherited their wealth, gone to the top public school, know the "right" people, never had to work long and hard hours coming home exhausted, struggled to pay the bills and feed his or her family etc.

Compare to someone who dreads working in a deadend routine job and chooses the option of living on a very low income (ie benefits) as an alternative (accepting the consequent low status and social stigma), there's no comparison. What social power does such an individual have? what ability to shape social policy in this country?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Re. LMHF, I was reading an interesting article on this theme:
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/05/masculinity-and-dependency-culture.html

I'd like to take a look at this idea of dependency culture. Firstly, blaming the unemployed for being unemployed is incredibly stupid. Unemployment is a structural characteristic of all capitalist societies. It predates the rise of state-financed welfare provision and continues to be endemic in societies where unemployment benefit ranges from the meagre to the non-existent. Secondly in Britain the dole was easier to obtain in most of the post-war period than it is today, in a period where unemployment was nowhere near the scale of what Thatcher and her successors have presided over. Simply put, welfare does not encourage joblessness, it does not generate cultures of dependency.

That said for all the ideological hay neoliberals make of dependency culture, there is a rational kernal inside the mystifying shell. There are many working class communities effectively thrown on the scrap heap after their big employers have either moved or closed. There are pockets of persistent long term unemployment. Take Stoke for example, in Bentilee - one of the local BNP strongholds - about half of the ward's residents do not work. If we are serious about solving these problems we have to understand why joblessness remains high, even when new industries have come in to the area. Only then can effective strategies can be developed.

Such an investigation has been carried out by Valerie Walkerdine in an ESRC-funded project. She was at Birmingham University presenting her findings in a paper titled Masculinity, Femininity and Shame in the South Wales Valleys. The anonymous town she looked at saw its steel works closed in 2002 and very little coming in to fill the void. Six years on the unemployment visited on the community has persisted and crossed the generational divide. Unskilled young men who left school without qualifications have inherited the joblessness of their fathers. Why?

For Walkerdine, it is not just a question of a lack of opportunity. The loss of work impacted heavily on the community's cultural infrastructure, and particularly how gender relations are constituted. Being a steel worker required a certain toughness, resilience and strength. As jobs they unpleasant and occasionally dangerous but it allowed for a certain kind of working class masculine identity, where the nature of the work, the all-male workplace camaraderie and the relatively high wages ticked all the manly boxes. A steel worker was strong. A steel worker provided for his family. But take that work away and these gender dynamics are thrown into crisis. For many workers, they went from bread winner to house husband. As they lost their jobs their spouses and partners had to take on work. Women went from nurturers to providers while the men were 'feminised' by their unemployment. They became the dependents.

Young men were affected by this fluctuating climate. From the standpoint of a masculinity defined in terms of steel working there is a severe cultural clash between steel and new jobs. Whereas young men could leave school with no qualifications in the 1980s and still find a sort of male dignity at the mill, no such pride exists among service industries. These had previously been coded as 'women's jobs' and took place in what had hitherto been marked as feminine spaces. The 'nurturing' nature of service work, compulsory uniforms, the subjection to micromanagement and the emasculation of trade unionism were a world away from 'men's work'. Young men reported a perceived sense of shame if they ended up working as shelf stackers, checkout operators and trolley attendants down their local Tesco. It was a shame enforced by their peers and their families. Despite the fact their fathers were out of work there was still an expectation young men adhered to received masculine codes. Older men could draw consolation from having once 'been a man'. Younger men could not. Therefore, rather than being seen to trade their masculinity in for a wage, they can escape humiliation by refusing to work. In other words, a culture of shame fuelled persistent unemployment, not welfare dependency.

If the Tories get the chance to implement their policies, the issues sustaining long term unemployment will go unaddressed. Using Walkerdine's findings, one can surmise that forcing young men into 'feminising' work on pain of losing benefits will create all kinds of problems. There will be resistance to it, but this resistance is more likely to assume pathological, individualised forms in the absence of an upsurge in class struggle. Crime is a route out for some. For others, drink or drug dependency offers an escape. Others will prefer to sign off and fall back on family support, which will lead to more conflict and pressures in the very institution the Tories claim to champion. And forcing young men on to community work programmes is more likely to alienate rather than engender any kind of local community spirit.

How then to reintegrate this layer of working class men back into the labour force? Walkerdine said the findings would be taken back to the local council to inform its youth workers and develop a localised strategy. But as far as I can see this is only part of the solution. We need a radical overhaul of the welfare state tied to a programme that aimed at changing workplace relations themselves. This is not simply a case of demanding more benefits and higher wages, though this has its part to play. The bottom line is the empowerment of our class vis a vis the state and the bosses. It was the left (albeit the New Left) who pioneered the critique of the disempowering and atomising effects of welfare, but as welfare came under attack from the late 70s onwards the left's criticisms were subsumed by the need to defend existing provisions. This effectively ceded the language of empowerment to the neoliberals of the centre and the right. But as experience has taught us their 'a hand up, not a hand out' rhetoric has been a cover for dismantling provision and the institution of workfare measures.

The left needs to reclaim this language.

 

[llantwit]

I'm not sure I buy the over-riding importance given to the 'gendering' of jobs in the service industry. Surely it's more to do with the fact that the 'new' jobs are mainly shit-paid with no strong unions to protect job security, benefits, pay and conditions, and fight for better. That's an interesting piece, though. Ta Udo.

 

[_angel_]

all fair enough but as Ive outlined, there is a defined and definite sickness benefit culture in certain parts of wales which = people who arent genuinely unable to work claiming sickness benefits because "Bad nerves" appears to be a genetic condition.. whos only common denoimators are a worklessness culture and a sympathetic GP... its absolute fact- GP's ahve said so, benefits agency staff have said they have been told to put people onto sicness benefit to maniuplate the figures.

and unfortunately it means that the proposals the government have at present mean that genuine claimants are likely to be swept up in the vast net of absolute idiots who claim they cannot possibly work. Unfortunately there are many well meaning campaingers who will pander to these idiots...the end result being that people with genuine disabiliity (or special need if you prefer that term) get overlooked and underfunded.

whats needed is for those banging on about the proposals being so unjust to change their stance and campaign for genuine claimaints to get more support accross the board,sadly I dont think thats likely to happen while people believe every present claimaint is going to be in the same awful sitiuation- ( bar losing money)because thats really not the case.


There are many many people who are young, able to work and are convinced they cannot get a job- so have never tried and claim they have 'bad nerves- like my mam/dad ( Oh the times I was told that living in the valleys) and are permenently signed off as sick... that situation is farcical, damages genuinely disabled and sick claimants and MUST stop so that people who need support and help to be in work ( people like my brother who has downs but works part time - 2 days a week) or those ( like the girls who share a house with him- who cannot work) do not get caught up in the legislation.

Sadly, I just don't think the government cares really, between the 'genuine' and 'non genuine'. They both get treated the same. The idea that they want to knock 80% or so of IB claimants off their benefit tells you, they think everyone is basically lying. Their default position, sadly is that everyone is lying.

Oddly enough the people you describe (have never worked) aren't at current time affected by this, because IB is only payable to someone who has paid enough NI contributions. They are targetting ill people who have worked enough to claim a contributions based benefit and lone parents (regardless of whether they have childcare or not) This is plain stupid.

And no-one seems bothered about making people work fulltime for 1/5 of the minimum wage, which is sad.

 

[_angel_]

I'm not sure I buy the over-riding importance given to the 'gendering' of jobs in the service industry. Surely it's more to do with the fact that the 'new' jobs are mainly shit-paid with no strong unions to protect job security, benefits, pay and conditions, and fight for better. That's an interesting piece, though. Ta Udo.

I'm not sure either. The message seems to be 'it's ok to be in a crap low paid job if you're female, you can't expect men to do it though!'

 

[PAD1OH]

Pad1oh, don't you think that it is a little silly to compare those ripping of the system at the top and bottom of society?

I don't know about it being silly but it is difficult thing to defend/discuss because it is a simplistic questioning of one of the traditional comfort zones of both left and right. It can be hard to discuss values and "rights" when ideologies are so entrenched and entangled. I think we should be free to challenge everyone/everything at all levels of society.

by the way your next post RE LMHF... is v.interesting and part of a larger programme of research -

http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/identities/researchprojects.html

includes -
Social identity and social action in Wales: The role of group emotions. - http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/identities/projects/spears.html
Does Work Still Shape Social Identities and Action? - http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/identities/projects/strangleman.html
Regenerating identities: Subjectivity in transition in a South Wales workforce - http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/identities/abstracts/walkerdine.pdf
Work, identity and new forms of political mobilisation: - http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/identities/projects/wills.html

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I'm not sure I buy the over-riding importance given to the 'gendering' of jobs in the service industry. Surely it's more to do with the fact that the 'new' jobs are mainly shit-paid with no strong unions to protect job security, benefits, pay and conditions, and fight for better. That's an interesting piece, though. Ta Udo.

I thought the piece was interesting, it doesn't mean that I agreed with it 100%. I agree with the way the 'gender' issue was phrased, maybe implies that it is okay for women to do menial work, but not men. More pertinent is the phrase where it talked about the sons of steel workers not feeling a sense of personal dignity or respect in the community from working in Tesco's. (By the way, I'm not knocking people who work in Tesco's, my father is a low paid supermarket worker).

The piece also doesn't expand on the conclusion - empowering our class, and changing workplace relations.