More Money Likely For Workfare Parasites if DWP Reward Work Programme Failure

Even the skiving Employment Minister Mark Hoban, a man who makes Chris Grayling look busy, was dragged from his bed yesterday in an attempt to justify the floundering Work Programme.

As has been widely reported, the number of people finding sustained work through the Work Programme is a pitiful at just 2.3%.  It is hard to overstate just how dreadful these performance figures are.  Much of the media has pointed out that this misses the target of 5.5% and therefore the scheme is getting less people into work than simply doing nothing at all.  But 5.5% was not the target, it was the minimum acceptable level providers needed to reach to ensure they kept their contracts.

Mark Hoban has claimed the private sector poverty pimps running the Work Programme are ‘on notice‘.  Apparently warnings have been issued that if the figures do not improve then those companies performing poorly will lose contracts.  Yet all of the providers are performing poorly and all should have lost their contracts according to yesterday’s figures.

When the Work Programme was announced the DWP claimed that 36% of participants would be placed into long term, sustainable employment. Whilst this percentage covered the full two years of the scheme, plus a year’s tracking period, it is clear that providers are nowhere near the real Work Programme target.

Even these targets are derisory.  Ever since welfare-to-work parasites like A4e took over providing any help for unemployed people, the performance standards in the sector have been deliberately eroded.

Around the turn of the century Employment Service Programme Centres, many of which were run by charities, local authorities and community organisations, were expected to place 45% of participants into employment.  This was a twelve week scheme which provided basic training and job search facilities and was a mix of both mandatory and non-mandatory contracts.  The tracking period under which organisations could claim job outcomes after the provision ended was just 16 weeks.  In 2001 Programme Centre Providers were achieving a 45% job outcome rate in just six months.

Around the same time Off the Streets and Into Work – an organisation which bid for Jobcentre and European money and then subcontracted to homelessness charities – was providing training and jobsearch for street homeless people.  The target figures for those expected to find work was 10%, again in just six months.  The client group included people with literacy problems, heavy drug and alcohol users, people who hadn’t worked for decades and those living on the streets.  Four times as many homeless people were finding jobs under this scheme as the private sector are managing to place those without these difficulties into work on the Work Programme.

Many of the organisations who provided these services closed down when big money moved into the sector and muscled out the competition.  As the welfare-to-work cartel gained control of ever increasing government funding, targets were steadily lowered, workfare and sanctions replaced genuine training and long time unemployment began a relentless climb upwards.

Now there is nowhere left for the DWP to go except leeches like A4e, G4S, Ingeus, Reed and Manpower.  With government ministers now held firmly over a barrel by the welfare-to-work industry the most likely outcome of yesterday’s dismal news is that yet more tax payers cash is set to be shovelled in their direction.

ERSA, the body which represents the welfare-to-work racket, published their own figures yesterday claiming that 200,000 people had found work on the Work Programme.  What the trade body didn’t make clear is that most of these jobs were short term.  Some could even have represented just a couple of days work.  There was a time when these would be considered job outcomes, a situation the welfare-to-work sector rather liked.  Simply put, it’s far easier to cook the books by bullying someone off benefits (under threat of sanctions) into a couple of days agency work than it is to demonstrate sustained employment.

It is plain to see that ERSA are attempting to re-establish payments for any old job outcome, even if it means that the participants will be back on benefits within a fortnight.

By dangling these figures on the day of the Work Programme embarrassment they simply baited a trap that the inept Mark Hoban walked right into.  The DWP is cheering ERSA’s figures in a crude attempt to hide the truth about the Work Programme.  Expect more money for welfare-to-work parasites to be announced soon.

Not that Iain Duncan Smith will mind.  His stupid Christian think tank, which came up with the Work Programme, is funded by the welfare-to-work sector after all. 

Yesterday’s long awaited Work Programme figures were swiftly followed by today’s news that sick and disabled claimants are now to face workfare. This comes of top of the launch last week of the new Universal Jobmatch snooping system which is to be used to police how claimants look for jobs.  It appears that the DWP is using the headlines generated by the Work Programme disaster to bury some of the most brutal and insidious aspects of welfare reform.  They know doubt hope that tomorrow’s Leveson report will further keep welfare off the front pages whilst the Christmas break will dampen any ongoing resistance to the reforms.  We must not let this happen.

About these ads

96 responses to “More Money Likely For Workfare Parasites if DWP Reward Work Programme Failure

  1. Lies damn lies and Statistics

  2. I’ve just been made redundant and am having to sign on. After four years of freedom I’m going to be back under the jackboots of the Jobcentre Minus again! Oh joy!

  3. I think someone should remind the people that they said no more money for these schemes.. if they fail get rid of. i am saying its another begathon

  4. The irony is, if you weren’t signed up to the scheme you would be more likely to get a job.
    More money down the drain.

  5. What is the point of these fucking “schemes? They always have been, always are and always will be shit. All they are is a gold-plated vehicle for ££Emma Harrison££ and her greedy chums to trousers “shedloads” of hard-working taxpyers ££CASH££

  6. I hadn’t realised Manpower was associated with Working Links whose former auditor reported that fraud had reached “a farcical situation” and was “endemic”. I recently attended an interview with Manpower who thought they might be able to place me with a single company on full time and regular hours. When they explained that I would be self-employed and that I would save tax etc I said politely that I would rather just be simply employed (from previous experience in my trade working for one employer on regular hours was never considered self-employment). They then suggested that I could be employed through a front company of theirs but it would mean I would now be paid around £2-3 an hour less but I would still save on meals and transport as this would be tax free. I told them that I wanted to pay tax etc. but it didn’t seem to penetrate. They then phoned me asking how much I wanted to to adopt either of their schemes to work with the company the y would charge a commision but I told them that it seemed to be no more than simple tax evasion-avoidance and the only way I would have anything to do with them was being employed by the company who might have wanted my services and that I paid tax and NIC. I also expresed my frustration that “no wonder the country is half bust”. I never heard back from them.

    As for the Christian “Think tanks” and “charities” which exploit the unemployed and disabled for self-serving reasons all I can say is “I spit you out”. An overwhelming theme of the gospels is concern for the poor and marginalised, the sick, the mentally ill, the broken winged and the bullied. He reserved his strongest words for the hypocrites and Mammon worshippers and I certainly wouldn’t like to come before him at judgement with Work Program provider or Think tank on my cv who so twisted the gospel under the pretence of “tough love”

  7. Pingback: More Money Likely For Workfare Parasites if DWP Reward Work Programme Failure | Welfare, Disability, Politics and People's Right's | Scoop.it

  8. Johnny, take that fucking picture of Emma Butthead down please.

  9. “When the Work Programme was announced the DWP claimed that 36% of participants would be placed into long term unemployment”

    Freudian slip?

  10. IDS and Liam Byrne, Live right now in the house of commons discussing the work programme and jobs/social security debate.

  11. Well some dumb arse solutions here. 1 any good feeling towards charities will wane when public decide that they are another slave provider. Those rattled cans will contain moths before long.
    Next what happens when someone drops down dead on charity premises ,

  12. Iain Duncan Schmidt live on BBC Parliament discussing the “work programme” at the mo

  13. A minimum of 5.5% is way too low; a target of even 36% is way to low. If we must have these privateley run schemes, let them have a target of 100%- fail at less than 80% back in work. givbe a target of 36% and that is aexactly what they’ll work to!

    • It’s not about jobs, it’s about giving their friends loads of money. In order to even maintain a pretence of credibility, the figure was set at a low of 5.5%, as the government know that there are so few jobs worth having. And as there are now so many people being forced to work for nothing, there are even fewer jobs around, even shit jobs paying the minimum wage. It is said that a ‘living wage’ outside of London is no at least £7.45 an hour, (£8.55 in London) but I’d argue that anything under £10 an hour anywhere is extreme exploitation. That might sound a high hourly rate, and for many of the poorly paid, it is. But when compared with the ruling elite and top management, it’s peanuts. A system where the idle parasites who produce nothing gain all the wealth is sick. Our politicians are steadily gettign to be way beyond sick: they are evil.

      • Hourly minimum or living wage is irrelevant; I’m lucky if I get 30 hours a week, sometimes as low as 20; £10 an hour is nothing for a part time worker. Stop subsidising low wages with tax-payers money and make employers pay. The minimum and living wage should be set at take-home pay.

        • You’re not making a lot of sense. Hourly minimum wage rates and living wages are far from irrelevant, though I do agree with what I think you’re saying that what we earn should be the whole amount, and not the residual amount after tax and other deductions are taken out.

          • What I am saying is that an hourly minimum or living wage is irrelevant if your employer can only give you 16 hours a week; minimum wage should be a basic take home pay packet, not an hourly rate.

            I am lucky if I get 24- 30 hours a week, and with shift allowance my wage is approaching the opposition’s suggested living wage of £7.45 an hour but because I cannot get a full weeks work, it isn’t a living wage; we have no guaranteed hours, we go in, do the work allocated for that shift and go home, whether it takes one hour or ten- it is impossible to budget. That is why I say the minimum wage should be a weekly figure, not an hourly figure.

        • I understand you now, thanks for the explanation. I do understand your predicament, as I was in a similar situation with my own job, however my basic level of pay was somewhat more than £7.45, and as I tended to work weekends and unsocial hours I received various enhancements that bumped it up even higher. So, though I wasn’t able to predict how many hours I would get I usually managed to pay my way over the course of a month without having to make a claim. Some months were extremely good, others not so, but all in all over the course of a year it wasn’t bad at all. The pay rate certainly helped, but that ultimately worked against those of us working on the same casual basis. As our pay and conditions were exactly the same as permanent staff we were seen as ‘expensive’. The work we did hasn’t gone away, but our employer did the dirty, and undercut us by using casual staff employed by their own employment agency. Those staff are paid at a flat rate significantly less than the pay level we were on, they receive no pension rights, no weekend or unsocial hours enhancements. As an example, my ex employer would have had to pay me around £192 (before deductions) for working a Saturday night, whilst to employ an ‘undercutter’ would cost around £90, again before deductions. This undercutting scheme was implemented by stealth with no apparent opposition from the unions by the biggest local authority in Wales. Not only is this kind of activity shameful, it also undermines the whole principle of equal pay for equal work.

          I agree with you, the minimum should be set at a takehome rate, perhaps this could form a topic for debate amongst us all, what is an acceptable minimum takehome pay? I would suggest that anything less than around £1200 a month for a single person would be unacceptable

  14. Jobs and Social Security Debate

  15. Saw Liam Byrne on the Daily Politics yesterday talking about “putting more fuel in the tank” of the Work Programme, i.e., giving the providers more money. Labour? Conservatives? What’s the diff?

  16. Gangster/Bankster/Toff/Aristo class doling out taxpayer funds to each other while destroying the vulnerable for fun and profit.
    This is the reality of the dirty filthy ConDemNation and utter slags like the greedy tax prostitute Harrison.
    A corrupt and morally bankrupt state, overseen by the brothelkeepers in Cabinet & their pimp cronies in bizne⚡⚡.

  17. Liam Byrne is a Bairite Tory Lite+ slag who’d be just as happy at home in this so-called govt. Proably angling for a place in the future ‘emergency unity government’. You can see it coming with Millipede’s fascistic “ein volk” speech. Indistinguishable beige bastards in dark suits giving reign to the most psychopathic in their respective gangs.

  18. This article is very misleading especially the ascertation that under Labour 45% of claimants on the mandatory and none mandatory schemes that were run by councils, charities and community organizations were successful . Every community organization or charity that started up these schemes were exploiting the unemployed for cheap labour or in the mandatory form benefits only. The only people that were paid a decent wage as is now were council workers, community centre organizers( who are labour councillors where I live) and charity managers, all of which were chasing funding from various sources to keep themselves and family members off the unemployed registers.

    • the 45% figure relates to programme centres only, these were not workfare schemes, more like job clubs/resource centres. some had mandatory attendance, others didn’t. they were far from perfect and a lot of people got treated like shit, just used the figure to point out how badly the work programme is doing (by their vile standards) compared to what used to happen, not making a claim that they were wonderful back then

  19. Thanks for that jv but promoting charities, community associations or councils run by those that are feathering their own nests while having you sanctioned, is not only a disgrace but just another excuse to massage unemployment figures. What we need is a new organization to vote for, one that is not promoting state or corporate control of those that vote for them.

  20. Pingback: More Money Likely For Workfare Parasites if DWP Reward Work Programme Failure | Propaganda in the press | Scoop.it

  21. I’m afraid it doesn’t matter what we do, as long as we have the money system we are fucked.
    Where you have money you always get corruption.
    Some people will do anything for it.
    We’re continuously changing one set of bastards for another.
    Different flags but same old story. The poor pay for everything.

    “Its time for change”

    Yeah, but we never get it.

    • Not so much the money system per se, but rather control of money. Money in circulation is good. Many anarchists/non-statist socialists love being paid in cash – it’s not traceable, not taxable and if you don’t put it in a bank, (at least not a mainstream, legal bank) you don’t have to pay for the privelige of using your own money, and are free to buy goods and services from others on the same basis.

      Corruption is always a problem, whether it’s about money, power or whatever other system you choose to live under, however, basing an economy merely on the money system alone is a recipe for disaster. Money should merely be one convenient medium of exchange, but a healthy economic system also includes other methods of exchange as well, such as barter. It also includes an element of a gift economy.

      The important consideration is that the economy is controlled equally by all those involved in it on an equal basis. The present crop of so called ‘free market’ capitalists don’t actually believe in a real free market, because that would give workers, and more importantly, associations of workers power equal to them, which is why most countries severely restrict the power of trade unions, but not that of trade associations, (of employers, big business). They still have nightmares about the successes of the early trade union movement in the early stages of industrialisation where the workers could, and did bring whole industries to a halt in pursuit of better pay and conditions. Sadly, these laissez faire capitalists soon engaged the state, getting it to pass laws restricting the power of workers, and had those laws enforced by use of the army and latterly the police, backed up with the army when needed.

      Money is also encouraged to flow freely to wherever it can create the biggest returns, it has been globalised, but strangely the workforce hasn’t. Workers are not allowed to move freely. This is deliberate, as we are merely a commodity too, and of no use if we cannot be exploited. If workers were free to move, then that would make it much harder to exploit, as eventually the exploiting class would have to start paying a decent wage where they operate in order to retain a workforce at all.

  22. United StereoTypes of Unemployment (U.S.T.U.)

    Comet, a taxi making firm, ford etc have had to shut up shop.

    “3.05 million works want to work more hours each week, out of a total workforce of 29.41 million.
    (most of the underemployment is concentrated among part-time workers)”

    from BBC News 28-11-2012

    Getting a job this year is as likely as the world ending 21-12-2012

    It’s the States economy that is broken. Not yours or mine.

    So leave the State to continue re-wording THEIR acts & regulations, in order to redirect taxpayers money to repay the interest on the gilts (etc) that THEY sold to fund whatever crap that THEY bought ‘on strap’.

    Leave the taxman to chase Amazon, Starbucks etc.

    Provide a service, get paid in cash and pay your bills. Eat drink & be merry.

    Do as they do. Do what you want! Don’t get caught. & save enough money to pay the taxman if he does catch up with you. Then do it all again.

  23. United StereoTypes of Unemployment (U.S.T.U.)

    & I’ve just watched multiple party MP’s laughing, jeering, shouting and getting emotional while ‘debating’ the 97% increase in unemployment since the work programme was rolled out in 2011, and during the Coalitions economy repair plan.

    So everything we are talking about is a joke to them?

    May the Creator of this beautiful universe please pay them a visit, and take from them what they have taken from your too-trusting creations. Please.

  24. When nearly £700million of taxpayer money has been given to private companies to achieve less than if nothing had been done, to produce a negative outcome, then a major crime has occurred. Why is nothing being done about this? Why?

  25. Pingback: More Money Likely For Workfare Parasites if DWP Reward Work Programme Failure | Mental Health, Politics and LGBT issues | Scoop.it

  26. And those figures for the sick and disabled are? Difficult to find in the muddy waters. 1.2% I think it was but someone will correct me. Yup pathetic. Stick ‘wm in the WRagm sanction them and after 12 months – poof we all disappear. End of another problem. Next?
    Pat x

  27. Thing is all of the provider organisation failed to meet the 5.5% target as far as outcomes are concerned, with only Ingeus nearly managing to reach it in the East Midlands 5%. In theory then every single one if the providers could have their contracts cancelled for failure by the government. But how could this happen? We know that the Tories will never admit that they are wrong, even if thousands die, and so, in order to try to save face, they will bluff and bullshit and lie and… yes… pump much more money into the failed Work Programme rather than admit defeat.

    But listen…

    The Work Program only affects a few million people over seven years whereas the Universal Credit will impact on the lives of six time more people and we all know that UC is destined to go the way of the WP and fail similarly badly don’t we?

    Dark days ahead, folks.

  28. sibrydionmawr nov 29- 6.17

    I agree all systems even a non monetarist one which produced and distributed for need not greed could be open to corruption, but I feel it would be a better system than a monetarist system. We already have within our capitalist system a barter and gift exchange but it is predominantly the poor, due to their lack of cash that is indulging in this. The rich, who even though they have the readies, just love low paid employment, unemployment and the moonlighting black economy which they exploit to the hilt.

  29. I would just like add to my post to sibrydionmawr that the barter system is not much use to the unskilled unemployed or the sick who are genuinely unable to work, or the elderly. The gift exchange is charities and we don’t want to give up a welfare state to go back to the poor laws.

    • The charities don’t really operate a ‘gift'; system as they usually have all sorts of moral demands over who can ‘benefit’ from their ‘largess’. I detest most charities, as they serve to maintain the status quo, and even in good times their actions are severely exploitative – they don’t pay most of their workers, get all sorts of tax incentives, don’t have to pay business rates etc, and even when they do pay some of thieir workers the pay rates are disgustingly low – though to be a CEO of most of these basically parasitic organisations isn’t too bad. Many charites also use ‘chuggers’ (charity muggers) who infest our town centres, I usually look straight through them as if they are not there, or really give them nasty looks – all of them get pretty well paid for what they do. I’ve had to threaten one or two of them on a few occasions with reporting them for harrassment. People have been able to find out how corrupt most charities are for years, but have usually chosen to close their eyes and think that charity is, and of itself, a ‘good thing’. The only chariites worth bothering with are those which are totally non-judgemental, use at leat 98% of all the money they receive towards the cause they espouse, who ensure that their paid workforce is decently paid, with no parasitic management structures and no toff patrons either.

      It’s not so much about giving up the welfare state, but rather re-creating one of our own that is not subject to the vagaries of the government at least – making it proof against a fluctuating economy is a bit harder, but that could be achieved too, in time.

      • Chuggers Are Vermin

        Those “chuggers” are cunts, they run after you, grab on to you, one of ‘em even knocked me old gran over – broke her hip and ended up in hospital – they should be fucking eradicated from our High Streets – cunts!

  30. I was reading a piece on the Centre for Social Justice websted and laughed at their concern of Human Traficking in the UK and no critique given on Workfare. As far as I know Human Trafficking is forced labour through the use of fear. Isn’t this exactly what is happening now? I may be wrong but is this not the same institution that is IDS’ think tank that is supporting the Workfare?

    • That is the problem with a lot of these so called human rights based charities or concern groups. It’s not their avowed ant-expoitation credentials that are the problem, but their myopic vision. Indeed, they should be making correlations to the situation in the UK, but they have a problem: they would have to admit their own culpability in the opression and exploitation of UK citzens, as many of them will be committed and paid up members of the Guardian reader’s club and voters of the oh so caring Labour Party. Most of these ‘do gooding’ organisations are guilty of hypocrisy and cant, just like the Labour Party.

      Same with TV, BBC Four has recently had a very interesting series entitled ‘Why Poverty?’ including some very interesting doucmentaries on the activities of Swiss based multi-nationals screwing the Zambian people and American zillionaires who all made their money under very dubious circumstances, but nothing, repeat nothing directly alluding to the situation here in the UK. We do need that kind of expose about the connivance of UK based bankers and poiticians in the creation of poverty in the UK. Hopefully the series isn’t over, and that conscience will dictate that a programme will be made about the increasing levels of poverty and exploitation in the UK and the ConDem government’s central role in that – but, I wonder, are the BBC up for that, as they’d inevitably be accused of some kind of Left-wing bias… No, just giving the facts.

  31. Total paid out in start up fee’s to Private Providers as a whole from June 2011 to July 2012:

    £400 x 877,880 people = £355,152,000.00p or 1/3rd of a Billion pounds. – just on start up fees alone – this figure is just for 1 year

    And all of this money is paid by the Taxpayers – no-one else.

    So I’m sure once the Taxpayers read this, they’ll come to the same conclusion we have.

    The Work Programme is a total waste of money and the Private Providers position has now become untenable – they are wasting your hard earned money and should be closed down immediately.

    • Correction: – it’s £400 x 877,880 people = £351,152,000 total, I got carried away and made an error to the tune of £4,000,000 pounds, OOPS!

  32. Since the BBC in recent years has been guilty of right wing bias I would think some investigative journalism from a left wing point of view is long overdue. I have noticed that whenever they do broach left leaning concerns and issues they usually trump it with a right wing perspective, or show victims of cruel policies in a pathetic light.

    • Well as long as you are not that ranting rightwing loon guifo fawkes the banking industry twat.. Ok

      The bbc own view is that its stuck in the middle..

      True to say the left say its right and the right say its left.

      That is born out by the BBC amongst other things overt propaganda against UKuncut re fortnums action

      Then recently simon hefferlump attacking bbc over mcalpine saga claiming they had blind hatred of thatcher
      Followed by james ( im a banana) delingpole rant at bbc because of this ad bc stuff ( his argument being is that bbc must be anti christian cos of a re think about ad bc mostly due to accuracy really, but in dellpolly world it proved a hotbed of commies cos they are all atheist aint they?
      Actually the ‘bible’ that these righties always refer to about the commie plot inside aunty beeb is a book by peter oborne or something entitled ??? guilty men cant remember the amount off hand but still.,

      • Yeah – The BBC is stuck in the middle with £145.50p of my license fee money, which I payed a month before it was due, won’t be doing that anymore, I will wait until the exact date the renew letter says on it next time.

  33. Anyone seen the item in ‘Inside Out West’ about the food bank charity in Bristol? Sad that we need food banks at all, and I hope that I never need one. But what caught my attention was how no-one in the charity adressed and criticised the underlying causes of the widespread poverty affecting those so badly that they need to go to a food bank – indeed there was ample footage of mayors in all their regalia at launches of foodbank branches, and an overweening emphasis on pressurising people to take crap jobs at minimum wage rates, as if it was the unemployed people’s fault they were in the position they were in. There was also the perpetuation of the myth that the country is short of finances. The only voice of dissent came from an academic, who sounded as if she’d swallowed the Labour Party rhetoric book, circa 1966 (sincere apologies to her if I am wrong, and she is indeed being sincere. I’m afraid I have become extremely cynical).

    I’m wondering what sort of skeletons exist in the founder of that scheme’s wardrobe. Told you, I’m extremely cynical…

    • If you caught the bbc rpt of britains hidden hungry you would have seen the food bank workers ( ppl get just three days food) just getting on with it really.. One food deliverer ws a religious type doing gods work.
      Another young girl was on street with collrcting tin who told us she would skip eating during day and eat at night, after asking for donations in street some ignored her and seemed quite rude. At times she commented how some girls looked happy and just thought about make up and had money for top clothes, she also mentioned sbout someone who had a nice rug.
      I guess it skightly left itself open to rants aimed at the telly such as ” get off yr lazy arse and git a job yer lazy b..,” but the prg did poont out that working ppl were resorting to the food banks , even a lady whose home looked well furnished was having to use foodbank as her hudband was made redundant. , but i am sure that ppl who say there is no such thing as poverty only idleness.. Would argue that ‘these ppl ‘ shouldnt have so many children..etc etc

  34. Though that’s not to say that we shouldn’t set up our own independent welfare service, not accepting ANY help from colluding bastards, (local councils, other charities etc, and obviously not government!)

  35. sibrydionmawr

    To set up your own welfare service it would require donations from the public, a public that is susceptible to propoganda as in the Thatcher years when Gingerbread charities were penniless due to the demonization by Thatcher of the single parents. I think we still need the welfare state, funded adequately by national insurance CONTRIBUTIONS but run independently by those that are in a welfare situation. Housing associations which now have charitable status should be run by tenants not self serving civil servants most of which own their own homes or have mortgages.

    • The public is an odd creature,and not always predictable. Yes, of course you are correct in thinking that a lot of them will believe the lies of the Tories and rags like the Daily Heil, but not all of them. Many memebers of the public do not lose their moral compass, and would be more than prepared to help out. (Think of the alternate welfare system the miners set up when they were on strike in 1984-85). We also have the resources to help out oursleves. I know that £71 a week is hardly riches, but if you are careful you can easily live on that – I appreciate that for some it will be hard to manage as they may have debts to try and manage etc, but even those kinds of things can be overcome, e.g. if your debts amouont to £5000 or less you can apply for what is called an Administration Order, which usually amounts to you having to agree to pay off a percentage of your debts at a rate of something like £5 a month, and no more hassle from your creditors, which is very reassuring when your debts could include things like Council Tax which can carry a prison sentence if you don’t pay. If we, as a marginalised group can mamage to contribute a small amount as and when we can, it could form an important basis of providing a very basic safety net of our own. There are people attempting this sort of thing up and down the UK, and I can see that idea spreading. It’s not going to be an easy system to develop, but I think for the forseeable future it’s all we’re going to have. We are just not going to get the kind of political support that would ensure your suggestion of a welfare system paid for by contributions collected by the state and then administered by the community, (though is a good idea, and welfare operates in that way in Denmark).

      Not all housing associations have charitable status, and those that have become charities have done so to avoid the possibilty of being liable for corportation tax, (they claim). The cynic in me also believes that they took that route because it also reduces the democratic accountability towards tenants, as a charity is prohibited from being controlled by the recipients of that charity, and ok, so that’s total bollocks where housing is concerned. The truth is that housing association management, and their government masters are TERRIFIED of any kind of real tenant control. I totally agree with you by the way, housing should be controlled directly by the tenants. When I first started to rent the home I live in now some 20 odd years ago the HA was tenant controlled, (but sadly had weak controls over removing officials who threatened to bring the association into disrepute) but a situation developed and as tenant control was not what the government of the time approved of, they took advantage of that and put their own people in key positions with a mandate to make sure that the association ‘behaved’. This resulted in being mandated to hold a ‘democratic’ referendum over what was laughingly called a ‘merger’ (I remember being in the management meeting discussing terminology, and being appalled at the duplicity involved) There were actually three possible options, but because of political pressure only one was promoted, extremely heavily promoted. From being in a situaiton where the association was extremely lax in discharging its duty to ‘communicarte with tenants’ (four newsletters over a five year period!) the propanda machine went into overdrive. There were some voices of opposition, but as you have pointed out, many people seem incapable of thinking for themselves. Officially, as a member of the committe of management I was gagged, but unofficially there were a few leaks, not that it ultimately did any good.

    • I thought that housing associations were private companies set up by ex councillors out to make a few big bucks from there previous job..

      • Not exactly, (or actually) true bobchewie, they just act like they’re private companies at times, and a good few tenants do think there is actual corruption taking place. I would agree that there is, but only within the context of a corrupt system, as an example, it seems to be a bit of a game amongst housing association CEOs to head up bigger and bigger housing assocoations, as the bigger the HA, the bigger their salary. Most HAs seem to me to be way overstaffed, (a bit like many, but not all council departments) and certainly they are in no way democratically accountable to their tenants. They are supposed to consult with tenants, but about the only bit of that is any way true most of the time is the ‘con’ bit. Example: every year we get invited to go along and discuss that year’s rent rise, which it usually does, and by the maxiumum amount allowable by the Welsh Assembly Government – not that they have to raise it, they can lower it too, but they always raise it. The consultation is merely a sham. When the HA that I rent from was tenant controlled (until the turkey tenants voted for Christmas) we did have rent reductions a couple of years running and a rent freeze for a while too – the HA still made a surplus, which was put to good use. The HA nowadays makes even more of a surplus, but tenants only get what the HA decides is what they need. It’s a case of rampant paternalism. One of their officials once had the stupidity to ask me what I did with the quarterly magazine they send out when it arrives – I said it immediately goes into the recycling.

        I’m fairly sure that as time goes by that HAs will become more and more ‘corporate’ in their structures, and that no doubt the idea of ‘partnership’ with the private sector will become the norm. I challenge mine whenever I can, and recenlty we got our service charge breakdown of costs notification. On it was a sum for the electricity used by the communal lighting in a block of eight flats. The lights are low energy, and on a time switch, so they are only on for a few minutes at a time. The bill, according to the HA was £2,600 for a year. I know that they think we’re stupid tenants, (well, we gotta be haven’t we, we live in social housing, and ‘everybody’ knows that we’re all layabouts who drink and smoke cannabis all day, and that the females of our ilk are busy popping annual babies – it’s gotta be true, it was printed in the Daily Mail) but we aren’t quite that stupid. In this block there are propotionately more graduates than are employed by the HA! and those of us without the dubious benefit of higher education are hardly slouches in the grey matter department either.

  36. Sibrydionmawr

    you also state in an earlier comment that corporate capitalism is a moveable feast but workers are not, tell that to those that have been put out of work due to immigrant labour in this country from Europe, I know my brother who lives and works in London would agree with me

  37. The immigrant labour from Europe is made up of EU citizens who do have the freedom of movement. However, my argumement is still valid, as many of those European workers are quite possibly working for less than the legal minum, and in casualised and insecure jobs. I know from having worked with homeless people that it was very common to meet workers from Eastern European countries here for work legally, but who had not yet worked long enough in the UK to claim benefits when the financial meltdown happened. Many were reduced to complete destitution, ‘without recourse to public funds’ as the terminology goes. It sickened me to have to explain this to people, and I often felt terribly ashamed to live in what is supposed to be a civilised country. It’s not immigrant labour that causes the unemployment of UK workers, but our common enemy, which is the capitalist system, which will try to set worker against worker. I have suffered from having my work undercut to the point where I have lost my job too, but that was by a conniving employer who used cheap UK labour employed through an employment agency set up by themselves. The nationality, race etc of those taking jobs is immaterial, and I for one will not begin to indulge in the kind of scapegoating you appear to be suggesting we do – that is to adopt exaclty the same position as IDS and Cameron and chums. All workers deserve equal treatment, and that is a base line. Anything that divides us, weakens us, and we must adopt the motto ‘An injury to one is an injury to all’

  38. I only mentioned migrant labour as an example of those who are travelling to find work, I most certainly was not scapegoating them, but they were as you pointed out forcing down wages for people here and yes it is the capitalist that is to blame.

  39. ok, point taken, thanks for illuminating, I hadn’t assumed that you meant anything in particular. That kind of thing has happpened since time immemorial, and one of the blackest periods of Welsh history was in the 1840s Irish migrants fleeing starvation were scapegoated for undercutting the wages of Welsh ironworkers.

  40. I can see what will happen when the disabled people are forced into voluntary/mandatory work.
    Their disabilities will get worse which will stretch the NHS to the breaking point.
    Imaging a disabled is starting ‘work’ and after a day or so is injured, or the disability gets worse, at the ‘workplace’ and taken to A&E. This happen despite of ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ‘support worker’ (whatever this is as I doubt it exists, I haven’t heard of anybody having a ‘support worker’).

    Now my question is, who is legally responsible for this? The DWP, ‘The Provider’ or the work place?
    What legal protection has the disabled? Will he/she be able to take legal action and get compensation for injury?

    I doubt any considerations will be taken by DWP regarding disability before referring them to ‘providers’ who will disregard it anyway.

    • Ultimately they will have to be held accountable, as tragically it won’t be long until people start to collapse and die, or end up in hospital seriously ill, and will be taken to court.

      IDS and the rest of the Tory scum know what they are doing, and know that it is wrong, but they just think that if they can convince those whose intellects are challenged by the profundity of the Sun/Daily Mail then all will be well.
      We need to tell them otherwise.

    • All of them are responsible – and don’t you think for a second their not, because the unfortunate person’s solicitor won’t, they will take the DWP, the Private Provider and the firm they are injured or collapse at for all they can in a CROWN COURT of LAW.

  41. Pingback: More Money Likely For Workfare Parasites if DWP Reward Work ... | Disability Campaigning | Scoop.it

  42. Now I really wholeheartedly DO NOT want to upset anyone who is disabled, this is the furthest thing from my mind.

    But, it’s going to take someone who is disabled (not fit for work) to actually be injured or collapse or even die whilst on a mandatory placement via the Work Programme with a firm, to make firms that take disabled people withdraw from the Programme completely.

  43. In fact I think if that unthinkable scenario should occur, the Work Programme would be shutdown for everyone as the firms wouldn’t even take the chance that even the able bodied unemployed people would be a liability.

    • Working Links are Fraudsters and Cunts

      Working Links sent one of their victims to the docks – he was DECAPITATED!!

      • I agree that the Private Provider in that case should have been hung out to dry (so should the DWP) and the distressed family of that person will probably be pushing for the Work Programme to be shutdown and the case will be with the family solicitors right now and not open to any comment due to the legal procedure taking place at the moment.

  44. obi wan kenobi

    love your optimism about what solicitors would do if a disabled person was injured. For a start no legal aid. Perhaps a disabled charity could help to fund their court case but would they or would they tell the disabled not enough money in their coffers?

    • Guy Fawkes:

      If you have a TV, then I’m sure you have seen solicitors advertising there services as NO WIN, NO FEE! – there you go my friend.

      • And there are also some lawyers who also happen to be human beings who would take this on regardless whether they got a fee or not . They are in one of the few professions who can vary their rates to suit, and could always choose to charge some rich bastard a huge amount to ‘subsidise’ their work for decent people.

  45. Guy Fawkes:

    I don’t know if you know this but anyone on any kind of benefits get 1.5 hours free consultation at any solicitors – this includes any legal letters that need to be sent on your behalf to anywhere.

  46. In Bradford we have an organisation called The Law Centre – it’s free of charge for anyone to go to – it consists of solicitors who donate their own time for people to use free of charge – in the past me and my friends in a house consisting of bedsits went to them (because the landlord wanted to sell the building and wanted us out so he could sell it, outcome : all 4 of us all got £3,000 each)

    Everyone needs to check if the city or town you live in has something similar to this, if you have, go see them, CAB will be able to tell you.

  47. I hasen to add, at that time we were all working.

  48. United StereoTypes of Unemployment (U.S.T.U.)

    What planet do these people live on?

    conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/11/jill-kirby-if-the-work-programme-is-to-work-the-government-should-be-more-realistic-and-get-cracking.html

    “we must persevere…”, “when I was young we’d only get 8 weeks benefit…” etc

    Balaclava. Silence. & no mobile phone.

    Create jobs; or can the State tell the public the truth, which is; There will never be enough jobs and that the animation ‘Ants’ was dreamt up to groom our kids into living their ONE life as servants to the State & co.

    I serve my family. My acquaintances. & I serve my allies and kindered spirits.

    & the £’s. Because the pounds keep the roof over our head. £’s keeps me & them clothed, fed, hydrated, warm, clean. The £’s give us the freedom to travel. The £’s pay for us to communicate with each other, to exercise, to buy medicine from a pharmacy. £’s feed the animals that we eat, & the £’s grow the fruit that we buy. £’s do everything. Most of all, £’s enable us to earn more £’s.

    We would use up every resource on Earth without the monetary system.

    If you’ve read/ seen Stephen Kings ‘The Stand’ you know what is coming, & that we wont all survive.

    Cameron can distract the public with talk of Aids, Press Regulation, Syria, energy, police commisioners etc.

    The public will soon abandon the State-ship when the wind changes direction, and they can’t eat.

    & if the Government thinks I’m going to pay a extra £100 to Energy supplier- while the energy burning shops, factories and offices avoid any extra charges- they are wrong.

    Treating consumers like drug users, and manufacturers/ pen pushers like drug suppliers is a betrayal of the powers that they don’t actually have.

    It’s all in the mind. Free yourself.

    I don’t mind spending free money. & I’m not talking about benefits.

    Socialites. Here I come.

    • Why does is say comments (0) for all the articles on that blog?

      • Well they all scroungers arent they? Conservative home put its this way :

        The most positive outcome from the Work Programme so far, but one which the government is rather wary of trumpeting, is the fall in the number of benefit claimants. Although only 3.5% of participants found long term employment, a remarkable 25% stopped claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance. The requirement to participate in a back-to-work scheme was enough to deter them from claiming. The government should not be embarrassed about this. After all, one of its objectives was to introduce an element of conditionality into welfare support, and end the “something for nothing” culture.

        That would be ATOS PIP contract in scotland where they farmed it out to a non profit company but pocketed the cash.

        Oh maybe all these companies getting free labour is ‘something for nothing’ too..
        Irony is lost on these tory twats.

    • Did anyone go through the links i posted with regard to illness and injury in the workplace? Bit lengthy grant you but i was looking up legislation and laws with regard to these matters…see if any attempt to change , amend or subvert them..

    • Welcome to Tory Britain: foodbanks on the increase but save the children is just left wing propaganda and dont instruct the so called on welfare benefits dependancy culture..,nice eh?

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/09/nick-cohen-starving-children-charity

    • This from the LA Times last year telling us that working for free is such a good idea…

      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/03/work-for-free.html

  49. The only way working for free is a good idea is if there was an end to a gloabal currency system of any kind and that jo public took control of the means of production and distribution. Who would be willing to produce and distribute to IDS et al. – certainly not me.

  50. CAMERONS BIG SOCIETY
    So what has ‘call me Dave’ actually presided over during his term as Prime Minister ,amongst other things ALS ,A4e ,G4s ,NHS Cancer Research , HM Coastguard and last but not least McDonald’s and all have been disaster after disaster with the exception of McDonald’s depending or not if you are a shareholder .Firstly we have ALS the new G4s ,this was a guy Gavin Wheeldon who set up a business from his bedroom and persuaded Government Ministers to part with £300 million to supply legal translators .He had no legal training and could only speak English – millions of pounds to put right as well as compensation paid out and prisoners walking free from court .A4e Emma Harrison head of a company that was supposed to help people into work ,her salary was £365,000 per year with an £8.4 million bonus for getting 4 per 100 into work .Another Government bailout and rethink .GS4 the security firm that was paid £284 million to provide security for the Olympics which did not deliver so the army took over,they also provided tagging security ,tagging one prisoners wooden leg ,all Nick Buckles lossed was £50 million and not the whole £284 million .NHS Cancer Research (a charity) was part of a deal when the Royal Marsden Cancer Hospital was taken over by a private company ISS ,so the worlds biggest Cancer Research charity is now in the hands of a private company ,do the donors to the charity know they are supporting a private company .HM Coastguard ,in its rush to implement austerity measures a mess up on dates now mean the UK’s coast is inadequately protected ,it is closing half of Coastguard stations around the UK and a new centre will operate the remaining stations from Farenham ,the only problem is that the station won’t be fully functional until 2014 .McDonalds – unemployed people are being forced to work for McDonalds or be sanctioned by Jobcentre Plus whom are given bonuses ,therefore the Tax Payer are supplying slave labour to a company that earn Billions and pay little tax . But at least they come over in the Media as competent whereas Labour seem to be lacking on Policy and are not as PR competent as the Tories .Probably had enough of Campbell’s rhetoric under Blair. http://www.brokenbritainundertories.com

  51. Obi Wan Kenobi

    With regards to solicitors on t.v., I have exhausted every avenue in an effort to get at the truth and attain justice and have contacted a couple of the solicitors off t.v. who say I do have a case to answer but they have insufficient funds to fight the case. Nobody wants to take on public bodies even when you have a genuine case, don’t forget the government make the unfair laws which solicitors are reluctant to challenge. We used to have a law centre for the poorest in society it closed down leaving the nearest one 15 miles away.

  52. Pingback: WHY THE MEDIA AND OPPOSITOIN ARE QUIET ON WELFARE REFORM CUTS « brokenbritianundertories

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s