You might already have concluded that Esther McVey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Read this piece in the Liverpool Daily Post, and not only will your suspicions be confirmed, but you might wonder whether the stupidity is deliberate. You see, sanctions (i.e. being made destitute) are in the best interests of the unemployed, much like a detention handed out by a teacher who just wants her pupils to learn their lesson. And anyway, there's an independent review of the sanctions process going on. Dame Anne Begg, chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, points out that the review won't look at "the appropriateness of sanctions". The rest of the article, and the people quoted, put McVey's nonsense into perspective.
As do the figures elicited by Stephen Timms, the ineffectual Labour minister, for assaults against jobcentre staff. They've gone up from 228 in 2009/10 to 476 in 2012/13. Frankly, I'm surprised it's not more. As far as I'm aware, this has only been reported in the Yorkshire Post.
There's an excellent article on the Guardian's Comment is Free site today by Jeremy Seabrook. I have often compared the mindset of the elites today about "welfare" to that of the people who introduced the Poor Laws of 1834. Seabrook draws the parallels with what was called "pauper management" in a serious historical examination with the activities of A4e and the like today. None of what is going on in 2013 can be properly understood unless you grasp that it's a reversion to past attitudes.
The guardian article is excellent - as are most of the "after match" comments.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Emma reads The Guardian? I particularly liked this "The poor have often been eyed covetously by enterprise, as they represent an apparently enduring group in society, out of whom it must surely be possible, in one way or another, to make a profit,"
Seems the rich have always regarded the poor as stock to be exploited. Plus ca change....plus c'est la meme chose (with apologies for the lack of accents ... I have no idea how to type them and life is too short to learn)
In comparing sanctions to school dentention McVey has admitted that they are a punishment. Unemployment Benefit is designed to be the minimum that a person can live off. If you take this away a person has no income. Does this not conflict with the concept of a benefits 'safety net'? If you have paid NI are you are entitled to JSA unconditionally.
ReplyDeleteI was initially astounded at Mcvey's comments. But I think that people have to come to terms with the fact that this isn't just empty rhetoric. The vilification of the poor is a central part of the government's social security policy. Mcvey and her ilk are beneath contempt
ReplyDeleteInterestingly today the EU has warned David Cameron over his "nasty" plan to limit new migrants' benefits eligibility to having been here for at least a year. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25114890
ReplyDeleteI can sympathise up to a point as it's practically impossible for UK people to claim a reciprocal benefit in another EU country.
However I don't think that's Cameron's reasoning ..... He's just wants to win votes at the next election ..... He's despicable.
I think most people would agree that immigration levels needs to be better managed but as you say that is not Cameron's intention. His plan is simply part of a wider right-wing attack on benefits.
DeleteAs to whether his plan will help the Tories at the polls, well, if there are as many immigrants in the UK as the right-wing think then it is arguably a vote loser!
While we're talking about the 1800's there is a story in my local paper (Chorley Guardian) this week which details the increasing demand at a local food bank. Set-up a year ago demand has risen from 12 referrals a week (from the dole) to 101 in October. The food bank is run via a local church partnership.
ReplyDeleteThis is the same type of charity that attempted and FAILED to deal with 19th C. and inter-war poverty - hence the creation of the Welfare State. The same institution that the Tories want to abolish.
Esther McVey has no idea what she is talking about – as usual. Neither have IDS or David Cameron – also as usual. Have politicians always been so dishonest, deluded and dozy, I wonder?
ReplyDeleteI suspect that this week’s rhetoric about restricting the “rights” of “EU migrants” to claim Benefits in the UK is probably only a crude, clumsy device designed to conceal an intention to deny these “rights” to British Citizens as well. According to the i/d page in my current passport, which was issued by UKBA in December 2004, I am a British Citizen but the front page of my passport burbles about the EU at the top, before the document even mentions the UK. I was born on British soil to British parents and my birth was registered in the UK but am I primarily some sort of “EU migrant” as well, nowadays?
I signed on today. Only been on the dole for 5 weeks and my advisor has already tried to sign me up to an unpaid work placement at the poundstretcher across the road from the dole office. this is such nonsense- i start december 9th [next monday] and have to work through until 13th january. just in time for the xmas period!!! This is madness
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly did your advisor say? Why did you agree to it? Call me cynical, but it seems like a very convenient way for Poundstretcher to avoid paying temporary staff over Christmas. The whole thing stinks- both for you who are being exploited but also for students etc who would traditionally hope to earn extra money over the holidays by doing jobs such as this one.
Deleteim so scared in the dole office that all i want to do is get out. my advisor said that i wasn't doing enough to look for work even though i had arranged two interviews and applied for 28 jobs through universal jobmatch. she gave me some paperwork to sign and told me that i needed to report to poundstretcher next monday for an induction and after that id be working through until 13th january. she said it would be better than having a gap in my cv and that if i didnt go she would have to raise a doubt against my claim. it wasnt that i agreed to it, more like i just didn't want to say no incase she stopped my money. i can't really afford to lose any money this close to christmas.
DeleteIt sounds as if you were bullied into it- she should not have tried to get you to take part in any scheme without explicitly telling you whether the scheme was mandatory or not. If it was mandatory, you should have been given a letter stating that this was Mandatory Work Activity- anything else is voluntary, and you should have also been informed of this.
DeleteIt is also very unreasonable of her to push you into doing an unpaid work placement when you have obviously been making significant efforts to find a job, plus you have not been signing on for very long at all. As for the claim about her 'not wanting you to have a gap on your CV,' a month at Poundstretcher would unfortunately not be regarded as worthy of note by most employers. I have worked for the odd month in admin roles and, even though these were paid, I haven't included them on my CV or I have lumped them together with something else. Advice for completing an employment history on a CV or job application form always was that you should try to avoid drawing attention to jobs where you only worked somewhere for a particularly short amount of time, as a lot of employers consider that it shows someone lacks 'staying power'.
I don't know whether you're on Facebook, but there are some very supportive groups on there where you could get more advice about this. There is a page for Boycott Workfare but also others, such as Benefit Claimants Fight Back. If you're not on Facebook, it might be worth contacting Boycott Workfare via Twitter or by sending a message via their website. I'm sure they would be very interested to know about this.
I should also add that, not having been informed explicitly about the nature of a work scheme (ie the name of the scheme and whether it was mandatory or voluntary), as well as not having been given a letter (if you haven't received one) would surely give you very good grounds for refusing to do the placement. I don't know if you're aware about the Cait Reilly case, but it was brought because she was coerced into taking part in a placement at Poundland due to not having been told the nature of the placement. The judge found in her favour on this, stating that jobseekers must be clearly informed about the nature of any work placement the Jobcentre is seeking for them to go on.
DeleteThanks for the advice mate. Is there any way I can avoid doing this placement? I live down south and was hoping to go and see my family [i'm from nottingham originally] over the christmas period but this won't be possible if i have to work at poundstretcher [including a christmas eve shift!!!].
Deleteplease please please let me know if this is possible.
I have to say that I find it sickening that you might be deprived of spending Christmas with your family to work unpaid for Poundstretcher. You could refuse to do the placement on the grounds that you were not clearly informed of the nature of it prior to being signed up, but you would then probably immediately be sanctioned. However, you might have good grounds for an appeal, although you would be without the money in the short term. You could visit your local Citizens Advice Bureau to see what they have to say- if you're going to do this, get there first thing tomorrow or Friday, as it's likely that they will be very busy. If you have been given any written documentation at all regarding the unpaid placement you should take it along with you, as it would help CAB if you can show them anything you have been given regarding the placement.
DeleteThanks. I'll give it a go.
Delete