# "Work is the Best Medicine" Says Paul Flynn MP



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 21, 2008)

Wondering what people think of this response to the governments new draconian green paper on Welfare Reform, I thought it was pretty thatcherite! Generally considered Flynn to be one of the more left wing Labour MPs in Wales.

*Work is the best medicine*
Dole inertia

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/07/work-is-the-best-medicine.html#comments

BBC Wales has been trawling through their list of Welsh Labour MPs to find one who will condemn tomorrow’s announcement on welfare. I did a Radio Cymru interview but I will not be heard in English. 

Understandably, Good Morning Wales is looking for a lively attack on Purnell’s  proposals. Most of the media are gleeful at the prospect of major Labour revolt. It will not happen.

All MPs know from our daily contact with constituents that there is abuse in the welfare system. The Tories in the late eighties encouraged 100,000s of redundant workers to sign on the sick so that they would not swell even further the embarrassingly large unemployment totals.

The habit of living on the dole becomes ingrained. Many have had illnesses that have interrupted their working lives. Sometimes it’s very difficult to escape from the dependency culture and re-join the workforce.

Apart from a foolish piece of window dressing about drug-users, I will support this green paper.  Most other Labour MPs share the view that a million people can be moved from unemployment back into work and health. 

Work is the surest path to a full life and, also, the best medicine.

Footnote21st July) Radio Wales have not found any Welsh MP to challenge the Green Paper.


----------



## Swan (Jul 21, 2008)

I havent read what they are proposing to do fully yet so I dont know whether or not it is a good thing or not. But to be honest I have a disabled son and when he was working it was the happiest I've seen him in a long time.There is no way he could take any job and he would need support. So I suppose like most things the devil is in the detail.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 23, 2008)

I don't have time to answer this fully, the welfare system is very complex. There's a good post here

But the gist of things is that the gov. want to make it far harder to claim benefits and establish a more draconian system - Britain already has a tougher regime than any other European country, it's part of a general neoliberal process of 'welfare reform' happening in most Western economies, that they want to move from a welfare system to a US "workfare" system where people unemployed over a year will be forced to sign on every day and work for their dole money, doing 37 hours of "community service" like petty criminals for various private companies contracted to run the workfare system. Stuff like cleaning graffiti and litter, and probably stacking shelves - the unemployed will be made to do these kind of full time jobs or risk losing the dole, only unlike a proper job they will get less than 2 quid an hour, so there's also the possibility of local council using unemployed as a highly cheap source of labour effecting jobs of regular council workers.

According to the International Labour Organisation the amount of unemployed exceeds the available jobs in the British economy. As the article linked puts it:

"At the moment, the ILO estimate of unemployment for the UK is just over 1.6m (and growing). The number of jobs available in the UK economy is just over 650,000 (and contracting). (See the most recent ONS stats here [pdf]). So, even under the best conditions, with vacancies closely matching local skill distributions and educational levels, and with employers willing to accept local populations, there would still be a vast pool of people unemployed through no fault on their own part. And they should be compelled to carry out petty, punitive labour just so that they don't lose sight of what work really means? This is reactionary drivel."

The government also aims to cut those claiming incapacity benefit by a million over the next decade, which given that every serious academic study shows that this target is not meetable means penalising the genuinely sick.


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2008)

Arbeit macht frei


----------



## lewislewis (Jul 23, 2008)

There aren't enough jobs going around for all welfare claimants to be forced into work. I would much prefer the present system that encourages people into work rather than forcing them. I am concerned that because of the populist backlash against welfare claimants in the media, these proposals will appear to make sense.

Here is a thoughtful response from a Plaid branch in the north:
http://plaidcymrubont.blogspot.com/2008/07/welfare-written-off.html


----------



## fatnek (Aug 10, 2008)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3449215276


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Aug 11, 2008)

Swan said:


> I havent read what they are proposing to do fully yet so I dont know whether or not it is a good thing or not. But to be honest I have a disabled son and when he was working it was the happiest I've seen him in a long time.There is no way he could take any job and he would need support. So I suppose like most things the devil is in the detail.



I agree. My brothers job ghives him so much self esteem and independence. He's got learning disabilities and has needed support to get him placed and help him with problems like pay etc but he's very independent

What about the scary thought that *shock horror* there might be some well founded truth in what Paul Flynn is saying? I dont work full time but if I didnt work at all Id be in the house, bored, little contact with adult company,hardly ever any change of scene and I suspect bored and depressed overall.....


----------



## Fullyplumped (Aug 11, 2008)

The NHS in Glasgow is very clear - worklessness is a major factor in ill health and in particular in the greater morbidity and early death experienced by many people in the poorest parts of the city. This really matters in Glasgow as it does elsewhere - remember this?
_In Iraq, life expectancy is 67. Minutes from Glasgow city centre, it's 54.​_The most recent report of the Director of Public Health sets this out starkly, 
_For NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the process of increasing employability in a community can help deal with the social and economic causes of ill-health and with the inequality gap through attracting sustainable employment that lifts people above the poverty line. The process of increasing employability also encourages supportive and encouraging environments that enable working age people to sustain and improve their health and well-being.​_as do the reports of the Centre for Population Health. 
_The relationships between work and health, and worklessness and health, have been well documented.   Unemployment is associated with a higher risk of death and increased mental health problems.  Job insecurity is also damaging to health, and has been linked to higher rates of hospital admissions, increases in heart disease and deterioration in mental health.  In addition to these quantified relationships between unemployment and health, the presence or absence of employment has a range of consequences for people’s lives, materially, socially and psychologically. 

For those in employment, work which provides fulfillment and offers individuals a degree of control over decisions brings benefits to health.  In contrast, people in jobs which are lacking in self-direction and control experience higher levels of ill-health and death.  There is a need to illustrate the ways in which employers can support healthy working lives and also to understand better how to extend the spread of healthy working practices across different sectors.​_ The City's worklessness strategy seeks to put this approach into practice. Even the Scottish Government's health promotion strategy acknowledges the UK Government's approach as being the correct one. 

In the days of Thatcher we talked a lot about fighting the Tories with policies for full employment. Now we have developed a policy to try to achieve 80% of people of working age into a job. So much opposition to this is based on the proposal that private agencies might make a profit out of success, and the fact that under the Tories so many people who were out of work were classified as being unfit for work. If we were honest we would acknowledge that lots of people so classified are indeed capable of work, the real issue being that low paid boring work is not very attractive to people who may have got into ingrained habits. This is why MPs like Paul Flynn won't oppose the main aspects of this policy. 

But we must acknowledge the legitimate fears of chronically and severely disabled people that they could be effectively punished because of their disablity. That needs to be done through effective engagement and participation in the debate, not by the nonsense and distortions spread mistakenly by so many people. 

Everyone claiming an incapacity for work benefit will soon be asked to establish what work they could do, and what help they would need to move towards entering working life if that is possible. Rather than spread stupid fears about this, let's get involved in setting out what the ground rules should be, what support, including advice and advocacy, will be needed to make things happen, and what further protection will be needed to stop employers from discriminating illegally and what the boundaries will need to be to make sure people who are very far from working life aren't put into unnecessary stress.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Aug 12, 2008)

I am writing something in depth on this whole issue, so I won't reply properly. Needless to say that Britain already has one of the most draconian welfare systems around, so I can't really see what is to be gained by - not facilitating and helping single parents and people who have suffered bad health returning to work - but rather penalising and persecuting them.

John McDonnell MP recently came up with a slogan "attack poverty not the poor", what we are witnessing is New Labour's fundamental embrace of New Right thinking, the government are actually peddling a myth that the majority of people on incapacity benefit are not really ill. They are saying that nobody is sick enough not to work. Their claim is not rooted in any evidence, but rather based in classic new right ideology.

Firstly, unemployment is a structural feature of all capitalist societies. Serious sociological and economic research has shown that there are simply more unemployed than there are job vacancies in the British economy. As the credit crunch starts to bite, we can expect more unemployment and more illness in society.

Secondly, Since Thatcher came to power up until the pressent New Labour regime, the number of people of working age claiming Incapaticy Benefit increased from 0.7 to 2.5 million. Within the last 10 years the proportion of those claims being based on mental health have increased from 21% to 39%. There has been a massive upsurge in stress, depression and anxiety. 

Now why might there have been such a rise? One sociological theory elabarated eloquently by psychologist Oliver James is that certain societies create more mental illness, it has been shown that anglo-saxon neoliberalism creates more mental health in society than scandinavian social democracy, for example.

But for New Labour with its New Right thinking the cause of inequality and social problems is that the poor and sick have not taken the opportunities given to them. They won't tackle structural problems in the economy, or introduce social policy such as the living wage, greater rights for workers, support and welfare mechanisms etc. Instead they aim to penalise individuals in order to instil " social responsibility"


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Aug 12, 2008)

Incidentally last year the overwhelming majority of billionaires didn't pay a single penny in income tax. When was the last time you saw New Labour wage a campaign to eat the rich?


----------



## Zachor (Aug 12, 2008)

JTG said:


> Arbeit macht frei



To  use such a comment in the context of a back to work project is IMO extremely offensive to those who died in concentration camps.  There is a huge difference between saying to someone 'no contribution via labour or no dole money' and 'the wholesale mechanised destruction of thousands of people per day.

Personally I'm in favour of those who are physcially and mentally fit to do so making a physical contribution to society after a period of a year or so coupled with help in finding a permanant job and where necessary remedial educational opportunities.

I can understand why some people object to this scheme but indulging in offensive hyperbole such as using the words 'Arbeit Macht Frie' in this context do the opposition to this scheme no favours whatsoever.


----------



## Zachor (Aug 12, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> What about the scary thought that *shock horror* there might be some well founded truth in what Paul Flynn is saying? I dont work full time but if I didnt work at all Id be in the house, bored, little contact with adult company,hardly ever any change of scene and I suspect bored and depressed overall.....



I was in a position where I'd lost my business and was slipping into dole cheque driven depression accompanied by the gaining of a taste for Super Tennants and it was only being brought back into the world of work via a govt scheme and voluntary work that stopped me being depressed.

Sometimes people need a purpose not pills to reduce depression.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 12, 2008)

Not having a job is a one way ticket to depression, and anyway it should be a simple principle that everyone needs to have a job. 

A certain period of looking for the next job is fine, and a year seems fine, but anymore than that, then maybe the unemployed should go out and litter pick in exchange for their dole? 

If there are no jobs to be had then why not?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Aug 12, 2008)

While Zachor's comment above is true, we have to be clear that Paul Flynn's statement "Work is the best medicine" is deeply offensive to people who are genuinely sick and unable to work, it is also deeply offensive to people who have suffered ill health and are trying to return to work, but experiencing problems making that transition. It is pretty patronising and condescending.

To give an example, a relative of mine was out of work for almost a decade due to serious mental health problems. They have recently been trying to return to work - doing some training, doing unpaid voluntary work etc., but the bottom line is that if this individual applies for a job, and the interviewer says, "why haven't you worked for 10 years" and the individual says, "I was mentally ill" then the chances are that they won't get the job! 

But increasing there is a problem that people who are already mentally distressed are made more distressed and anxious by the draconian welfare regime that is not based on anything more than the government's embrace of populism and demonisation of the poor.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 12, 2008)

Zachor said:


> I was in a position where I'd lost my business and was slipping into dole cheque driven depression accompanied by the gaining of a taste for Super Tennants and it was only being brought back into the world of work via a govt scheme and voluntary work that stopped me being depressed.
> 
> Sometimes people need a purpose not pills to reduce depression.



Likewise, I appreciate the government schemes we have, and drugs are just a cul-de-sac.


----------



## Zachor (Aug 12, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Not having a job is a one way ticket to depression, and anyway it should be a simple principle that everyone needs to have a job.



Yup.  Everyone should be doing something.  



Gmarthews said:


> A certain period of looking for the next job is fine, and a year seems fine, but anymore than that, then maybe the unemployed should go out and litter pick in exchange for their dole?



Agreed.  After a year you should be assessed and work suitable for a persons abilities that is useful for the community should be found.


Gmarthews said:


> If there are no jobs to be had then why not?



short termisim on the part of govt and business IMO


----------



## Zachor (Aug 12, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> While Zachor's comment above is true, we have to be clear that Paul Flynn's statement "Work is the best medicine" is deeply offensive to people who are genuinely sick and unable to work, it is also deeply offensive to people who have suffered ill health and are trying to return to work, but experiencing problems making that transition. It is pretty patronising and condescending.
> 
> To give an example, a relative of mine was out of work for almost a decade due to serious mental health problems. They have recently been trying to return to work - doing some training, doing unpaid voluntary work etc., but the bottom line is that if this individual applies for a job, and the interviewer says, "why haven't you worked for 10 years" and the individual says, "I was mentally ill" then the chances are that they won't get the job!
> 
> But increasing there is a problem that people who are already mentally distressed are made more distressed and anxious by the draconian welfare regime that is not based on anything more than the government's embrace of populism and demonisation of the poor.




I think any sort of scheme like this should have considerable leniency for those with physical or mental illnesses.  However, there are people for whom the structure of work or other meaningful activity would reduce both the incidence and severity of their mental illness.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Aug 12, 2008)

Zachor said:


> Yup.  Everyone should be doing something.



Yeah, it's okay if you are very wealthy and live off your inheritance, but working class people taking a holiday for a couple of years is the end of the world! It's okay if you are a billionaire not to pay any income tax, but if you're working class and are signing on and maybe doing a little work on the side it's a crime

What? even someone who has severe mental health problems or is physically incapable? One of the key aims of the New Right driving the current welfare reform is to re-define the whole social model of sickness (more on that another time)

Rather than attacking unemployed, shouldn't we be forcing employers to pay workers a living wage, and increase workers rights? For example, as an agency worker, I am denied basic rights like sick pay and other employment protection.

Why should working class people be forced to work in call-centres (as an example) where they are treated like crap?



> Agreed.  After a year you should be assessed and work suitable for a persons abilities that is useful for the community should be found.



People are already penalised on the dole if they don't apply for jobs that they are told to by the jobcentre. The aim of the new welfare reform is that after a year unemployed will be forced to do cheap labour and "community service" for private companies where they won't even be paid the minimum wage - if you're gonna force people to do a job, at least pay them a proper wage.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 12, 2008)

Zachor,
don't blame JTG, search for the use and abuse of the term on this forum


----------



## Gmart (Aug 12, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Rather than attacking unemployed, shouldn't we be forcing employers to pay workers a living wage, and increase workers rights? For example, as an agency worker, I am denied basic rights like sick pay and other employment protection.



Europe is continually trying to get the UK government to accept better legislation on this kind of thing, but they refuse, and with the help of the anti-EU press they get away with it.



Udo Erasmus said:


> if you're gonna force people to do a job, at least pay them a proper wage.



They should certainly get their benefits while they are litter picking - I would be horrified if the government decided to dock their dole AND sent them out to little pick


----------



## lewislewis (Aug 12, 2008)

I agree with what Udo says really.

There might be genuine reasons why some people are claiming incapacity benefit when they are capable of doing a job, but I think any way of giving these people a purpose and some direction away from the potential pitfalls of drug & alcohol addiction, depression and mental health problems would require a qualitiative improvement of the welfare system, which means more money for it and less money for war, nuclear weapons and militarisation.

Let's be clear, the UK govt's reforms are about trimming down the welfare state and making it cost less to the Treasury so that they can deliver tax cuts for the rich and the better-off, rather than building up the welfare system and qualitatively improving it so that it does a better job.

The welfare system and particularly the jobseekers system is going to perform less well if it is cut down and privatised. This is a logical point. To perform better and move more people into work it needs to be expanded upon and reworked so that it serves the needs of individuals rather than the demands of business big or small. This means better-paid and better-trained public sector staff will be needed to run it, trips to Scandinavia to learn how those countries run their systems could be needed, and some government-funded jobs may have to be created in the community.

I personally am not against community service for people seeking work, BUT only if people do it of their own will and are paid for it, and it is linked to a community objective rather than a profit/business objective. Perhaps visible work (not demeaning stuff like picking up litter) such as making murals, organising community recycling and organising local community events/fun days/sports days would revive the community spirit that is crumbling away in many parts of Wales, and give jobless people some self-esteem as well as a valuable role in which people would respect and appreciate them.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 12, 2008)

Why is litter picking demeaning? It is NEEDED - every survey comes back with the littler problem as number one, and the unemployed are not doing anything, so they should do it in exchange for their benefits. I'm sure they would be happy to make the contribution as they will no doubt feel guilty that they haven't been able to find a job they can do for an entire YEAR!! And so I'm sure they would be happy to give back to their community who is supporting them so kindly. 

Of course the grief those on the dole get should not continue if they are doing such work, and Initially it could just be for (say) 10 hours a week. Nothing too strenuous for the poor things...

I'm sure they will continue to actively look for work during that time too.


----------



## Zachor (Aug 12, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Yeah, it's okay if you are very wealthy and live off your inheritance, but working class people taking a holiday for a couple of years is the end of the world! It's okay if you are a billionaire not to pay any income tax, but if you're working class and are signing on and maybe doing a little work on the side it's a crime



A holiday is a few weeks or at most a few months.  Not a continual doing of bugger all.  This is what is destructive.  It doesn't matter if you are a tramp or a billionaire, pointlessness is destructive.  


Udo Erasmus said:


> What? even someone who has severe mental health problems or is physically incapable? One of the key aims of the New Right driving the current welfare reform is to re-define the whole social model of sickness (more on that another time)



Severe mental health problems yes there should be some form of exemption from schemes like this but there are a whole gamut of other conditions especially depressive ones where some form of purposeful activity would be helpful.


Udo Erasmus said:


> Rather than attacking unemployed, shouldn't we be forcing employers to pay workers a living wage, and increase workers rights? For example, as an agency worker, I am denied basic rights like sick pay and other employment protection.



Its not attacking the unemployed its helping people by providing them with purpose. 


Udo Erasmus said:


> Why should working class people be forced to work in call-centres (as an example) where they are treated like crap?



Its not just working class people who have crap jobs.  




Udo Erasmus said:


> People are already penalised on the dole if they don't apply for jobs that they are told to by the jobcentre. The aim of the new welfare reform is that after a year unemployed will be forced to do cheap labour and "community service" for private companies where they won't even be paid the minimum wage - if you're gonna force people to do a job, at least pay them a proper wage.



I think that the dole system needs to be more flexible to take into account that there is much  more short term work available now but the benefit system doesn't take this into account and penalises people for taking such work as it is still a system geared up to a 1950's mindset where full time permanant jobs were the norm.

A year is a reasonable time to jobsearch indenpendently and if you are having problems then you need to a) be helped to find work / gain qualifications etc b) give something back to your community.  I see nothing wrong with people contributing to society after a reasonable amount of time.  I've been a doley and I've seen how easy it is to sink into 'jobless depression ' and also how there is a proportion of people who don't want to contribute to their society and just want to suck.  This is an unattractive way to live whether you are sucking dole or sucking dividends.  Its destructive both to the person concerned and to the society around them.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Aug 12, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> While Zachor's comment above is true, we have to be clear that Paul Flynn's statement "Work is the best medicine" is deeply offensive to people who are genuinely sick and unable to work, it is also deeply offensive to people who have suffered ill health and are trying to return to work, but experiencing problems making that transition. It is pretty patronising and condescending.
> 
> To give an example, a relative of mine was out of work for almost a decade due to serious mental health problems. They have recently been trying to return to work - doing some training, doing unpaid voluntary work etc., but the bottom line is that if this individual applies for a job, and the interviewer says, "why haven't you worked for 10 years" and the individual says, "I was mentally ill" then the chances are that they won't get the job!
> 
> But increasing there is a problem that people who are already mentally distressed are made more distressed and anxious by the draconian welfare regime that is not based on anything more than the government's embrace of populism and demonisation of the poor.



But its also equally true that there are generations of people in the valleys who claim they are sick, claim they cannot possibly undertake any form of work when all really they are is completely inexperiencedin the culture of work or in work itself-Previous governments wanted to manipulate the figures  and encouraged lots of people who werent sick to sign onto sickness benefits.
There is an ingrained 'sickness benefit culture' in the poorer areas of wales which needs to be ended- for everyones benefit.
Just because you are 18 and believe you can't get a job( so you dont try- youve never tried, your parents have never bothered trying- cos of their nerves) and are well pissed off ebout it doesnt make it true for any of you, it doesnt make you unable to work so that you should be entitled to diability benefits on the grounds of stress, depression, mental illness or anything else.
GP's have gone on record to agree they are signing peoples sick notes when they shouldnt be. That also needs to end.

what is needed is more support for people to work, get them into employment( a part time job would be enough to see the positive effects of engagement in employment) and support them to stay there and even more support for those genuinely so disabled they cannot do any work.
At the moment however thats not the situation, while people just pick up endless payments for 'illnesses' which dont actively prevent them doing any work ( as in they cannot take any job at all)

That doesnt make it wrong for Flynn or anyone else who genuinely cares about their constitutents to say "actually, I think there is excellent evidence to support the proposal that we should end the benefit dependency culture and the attuitide that we cannot work for whatever reason- therefore I must take the stance which will be best for my constituents- even if it upsets them"

If you cannot get a job and are able to work without a disability which limits your ability to work there is a benefit you should be on- its not sickness/disability benefits, ist JSA. Yes its paid at a lower rate but there isnt any argument that can or should be made for people remaining on sickness benefits just because after years of being on them they are unable to get a job.
Im a worker who has very few rights- just like you. INcreasing rights and protections is a whole other thread. Its not yet another reason not to stop the needless claiming of sickness benefits by people who arent genuinely sick or disabled- like you say, preventing those who are genuinely sick or disabled from getting the support and services they genuinely deserve.

I think people find it incredible thart people with all sorts of disabilities manage to get jobs, work hard and yes, actuively enjoy working and yet people who could take job whine on about how sick they are and how the benefits agency ( ergo the rest of the working population) should pick up the bill.


----------



## lewislewis (Aug 12, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Why is litter picking demeaning? It is NEEDED - every survey comes back with the littler problem as number one, and the unemployed are not doing anything, so they should do it in exchange for their benefits. I'm sure they would be happy to make the contribution as they will no doubt feel guilty that they haven't been able to find a job they can do for an entire YEAR!! And so I'm sure they would be happy to give back to their community who is supporting them so kindly.
> 
> Of course the grief those on the dole get should not continue if they are doing such work, and Initially it could just be for (say) 10 hours a week. Nothing too strenuous for the poor things...
> 
> I'm sure they will continue to actively look for work during that time too.



I agree it's needed, it's the council's job and they employ workers on good pay with pensions to do it as part of their other duties. Getting unemployed people to do it as well would complicate this picture.


----------



## PAD1OH (Aug 12, 2008)

a few years holiday? fucking hell.........

the most depressing times of my life were when I was stuck on the dole between jobs.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 12, 2008)

lewislewis said:


> I agree it's needed, it's the council's job and they employ workers on good pay with pensions to do it as part of their other duties. Getting unemployed people to do it as well would complicate this picture.



By this rationale, the prison population should get better pay. Though maybe they should with deductions for room and board. 

Still the government are much more likely to use the unemployed as cheap cleaners. After all who is going to fight it? Who is going to fight for the minority rights? In a country without a constitution?

The government makes good money out of using the prison population this way, so it makes sense to use the unemployed in the same way.

They would always be free to stop claiming the benefit.


----------



## lewislewis (Aug 13, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> By this rationale, the prison population should get better pay. Though maybe they should with deductions for room and board.
> 
> Still the government are much more likely to use the unemployed as cheap cleaners. After all who is going to fight it? Who is going to fight for the minority rights? In a country without a constitution?
> 
> ...



I think there's a bit of a difference between being a prisoner and being unemployed (though a cynic might add the similarities are also striking). The unemployed could be used as good cleaners and paid a decent wage I agree, I don't agree with them being exploited as 'cheap cleaners', and I certainly don't believe in forcing people into doing it.


----------



## PAD1OH (Aug 13, 2008)

<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.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2008)

lewislewis said:


> I think there's a bit of a difference between being a prisoner and being unemployed (though a cynic might add the similarities are also striking). The unemployed could be used as good cleaners and paid a decent wage I agree, I don't agree with them being exploited as 'cheap cleaners', and I certainly don't believe in forcing people into doing it.



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.


----------



## llantwit (Aug 13, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> <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 (Aug 13, 2008)

In Bloom said:


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




That's what I wanted to say!

but didn't


----------



## In Bloom (Aug 13, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

In Bloom said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)




----------



## PAD1OH (Aug 13, 2008)

llantwit said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

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 (Aug 13, 2008)

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


----------



## llantwit (Aug 13, 2008)

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_ (Aug 13, 2008)

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 (Aug 13, 2008)

llantwit said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

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


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> <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 (Aug 13, 2008)

llantwit said:


> 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.



Gmarthews said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> 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 (Aug 13, 2008)

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 (Aug 14, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> 5 things
> 
> A) It's not 'worklessness' it's unemployment or disability/ illness!
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 14, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> 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 (Aug 14, 2008)

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 (Aug 14, 2008)

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.
> 
> ...


----------



## llantwit (Aug 14, 2008)

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_ (Aug 14, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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_ (Aug 14, 2008)

llantwit said:


> *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 (Aug 14, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> 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 (Aug 14, 2008)

llantwit said:


> 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.


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 14, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> I agree. My brothers job ghives him so much self esteem and independence. He's got learning disabilities and has needed support to get him placed and help him with problems like pay etc but he's very independent
> 
> What about the scary thought that *shock horror* there might be some well founded truth in what Paul Flynn is saying? I dont work full time but if I didnt work at all Id be in the house, bored, little contact with adult company,hardly ever any change of scene and I suspect bored and depressed overall.....



So you're telling me you wouldn't be depressed at being forced to work for £1.25 an hour?


----------



## llantwit (Aug 14, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> 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!'


That's not the message I got. I don't think the piece is arguing that. It's more about accepting there are firmly entrenched attitudes to work that are also bound up with ideas of what it is to be a man or a woman in the Valleys. It's not making a value judgement as much as it's describing a social phenomenon. It's surely valid to say that service industry work is 'feminised' within valleys culture in comparison with the traditionally masculine world of heavy industry work, without implying that blokes who work in Burger King are 'feminine' yourself.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Aug 14, 2008)

I agree with Llantwit, but just leaving aside the point about gender, the general point stands and is quite poignant regarding changing patterns of work.

It comments that, in the past, someone might leave school at 16 with no qualifications and get a job as a steel worker and derrive a certain sense of dignity, self-respect and pride, but that the sons of these laid off steel workers who come into a world where the jobs on offer are stacking shelves or working on supermarket checkouts don't see these as dignified, meaningful jobs, but rather as demeaning of their dignity and self-respect.

Hence, it argues it is not so much the attraction of being able to receive money for not working - a culture of dependency - that is driving this type of unemployment, but rather a repulsion from the jobs on offer which are regarded as unmanly, demeaning and lacking in dignity. (of course, someone might reply that if there wasn't the possibility of welfare that people would take whatever job was on offer to live), but for us, we should fight for an improvement of working conditions.

More broadly in society, it is an interesting that we live in a world where people's identity is bound up in the work they do. For example, when you meet someone new at a social gathering, how often is the question asked 'what do you do'? as if your job somehow says something about you. This seems strange in a world where people rarely do a career of choice or their ideal job, but I would suggest that there is much dislocation and lack of a sense identity around young workers who will do a series of crap jobs compared to many older workers who will have done the same job for most of thier life.

Call-centres have been described as the modern factories, but there is possibly less satisfaction and dignity gained from working in a call-centre than in a factory where at least you may be producing a material product.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2008)

We need to encourage a move towards a more service economy where the cost of setting up in a shop is small.

We need to go back to being a nation of shopkeepers.

When I was in Korea I noticed that often the small shops there would stay open until 8 or 9 in the evening! Why? Because there was good trade to be had then. People around.

I appreciate that preferably we would have our ideal job, but that's what further education is there for, if you don't manage to get it the first time round.

Better late than never.


----------



## PAD1OH (Aug 14, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Call-centres have been described as the modern factories, but there is possibly less satisfaction and dignity gained from working in a call-centre than in a factory where at least you may be producing a material product.



i know where you're coming from but I know quite a few people that get more satisfaction from dealing with people than dealing with stuff.

It's intersting in all these discussions we project the jobs we personally hate the most. For me the worst "forced labour" would be a high paid/high stress office job where the reason you are paid so much is the compromises you have to make with your health, time, life, family......

surely there is more than picking litter e.g. conservation work, social enterprise work etc.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 14, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> I agree with Llantwit, but just leaving aside the point about gender, the general point stands and is quite poignant regarding changing patterns of work.
> 
> It comments that, in the past, someone might leave school at 16 with no qualifications and get a job as a steel worker and derrive a certain sense of dignity, self-respect and pride, but that the sons of these laid off steel workers who come into a world where the jobs on offer are stacking shelves or working on supermarket checkouts don't see these as dignified, meaningful jobs, but rather as demeaning of their dignity and self-respect.
> 
> Hence, it argues it is not so much the attraction of being able to receive money for not working - a culture of dependency - that is driving this type of unemployment, but rather a repulsion from the jobs on offer which are regarded as unmanly, demeaning and lacking in dignity. (of course, someone might reply that if there wasn't the possibility of welfare that people would take whatever job was on offer to live), but for us, we should fight for an improvement of working conditions.



If I've understood you properly here, I would agree - it's an interesting study but the idea that people are actively rejecting good jobs because of social pressure I find rather unconvincing, and also very "blame the victim". People, particularly young people, are good at rejecting social pressure when it's in their interests and they find what's on offer rewarding. The example of their parents and relatives having had better jobs in the past might put them off even trying to get the ones on offer, but I don't know whether that's actually a bad thing in any case.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Aug 14, 2008)

_angel_ said:


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



Proof?? Link??
where is anyone proposing people are forced to work for 1/5 of the min wage?


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Aug 14, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> So you're telling me you wouldn't be depressed at being forced to work for £1.25 an hour?



again, proof please that anyone is going to be forced to work for less than min wage?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 14, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> Proof?? Link??
> where is anyone proposing people are forced to work for 1/5 of the min wage?



Latest green paper with the workfare proposals.


----------



## xenon (Aug 15, 2008)

Regeneration?

Work in a callcentre for 12K ad infinitem. Or in a bar / restaurant. Basically take the next fucking job your given and do it until you're made redundant. Don't expect progression training or self betterment through that process. And be glad of it. Cos the POllish / Chinese will do it otherwise. 

Welcome to the world.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2008)

xenon said:


> Welcome to the world.



Or get yourself educated by hook or by crook...


----------



## panpete (Aug 15, 2008)

If work is the best medicine, then why was my mental health made worse by it. 
When I was eighteen I did a YTS course, even though I had quiet doubts about my capability. At that time, It was better for my egotistical fragile pride to sit in an office twiddling my thumbs all day, than be labelled a doley, who had the time to work on improving themselves for future work capability.


----------



## panpete (Aug 15, 2008)

> What about the scary thought that *shock horror* there might be some well founded truth in what Paul Flynn is saying? I dont work full time but if I didnt work at all Id be in the house, bored, little contact with adult company,hardly ever any change of scene and I suspect bored and depressed overall.....


For some, but not for all.
The error in which Purnell is making, is a blanket assumption, that all nonworkers are bored and depressed. It is, therefore, one sided.

The choice, for disabled people, and offerance of increased flexibility etc, is a great thing for those willing disabled people, whos only obstacle back to work, previously, was limited conditions, finance, and flexibility.

The workfare attitude, isn't about choice, it's about forcing them into situations which are clearly not suitable for some.

The real motive behind the clumsily disguised draconian measures, is control of people's time.


----------



## panpete (Aug 15, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Likewise, I appreciate the government schemes we have, and drugs are just a cul-de-sac.



I was on the drugs when I worked (prescribed pharms), now I don't need them.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Sep 1, 2008)

Our line is that while staying in watching Trish might not be good for you mental health, neither will being forced into a shit McJob!

One thing that people haven't really touched upon is the UK governments recent forecast that unemployment could rise to 2 million by Christmas due to the credit crunch. So simultaneous to a coming recession that is going to force many working class people into unemployment through no choice of their own, the government is whipping up hostility to those on benefits and introducing a more draconian regime.

I was speaking to a friend who works for an employment agency who commented on a sudden surge of people  registering in Cardiff who had been working in sectors like construction who had lost their jobs. At the same time, the agency was finding that they had less jobs available as their clients were cutting back.

Things are bleak. This is about disciplining the working class and should be fought back tooth-and-nail.

It is shameful that the trade union movement and left are doing so little to fightback against welfare reform.


----------



## ymu (Sep 1, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> 5 things
> 
> A) It's not 'worklessness' it's unemployment or disability/ illness!


Preventing worklessness sounds progressive. It's easy to work it into soundbites so that morons think "Ohh yes, that's an excellent policy!".



_angel_ said:


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


Because there aren't any jobs available to force people into. What are they gonna do - ring round the corporate donors and ask them to create 2 million new jobs?



_angel_ said:


> 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?


Sssssh. You're not meant to notice that bit. 



_angel_ said:


> 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)


Well, obviously they should just turn to crime. Better pay, same penalty.



_angel_ said:


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


They will be made redundant, go onto the dole for a year and then be forced back into their old job at a fraction of the pay.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 1, 2008)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> Proof?? Link??
> where is anyone proposing people are forced to work for 1/5 of the min wage?



Proposing fulltime work for anyone unemployed more than 1 yr or two, seemingly for ever (as well as signing on everyday - how they plan to combine the two I've no idea). It sounds like badly thought out crap.
If there's a recession a lot of people could be penalised thru no fault of their own esp the ones employers don't want (bad health record, older people, mothers who've been stay at home mums for a long time)


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 1, 2008)

I can't understand why, at the time of a recession, the govt are actively swelling the ranks of the 'officially' unemployed and a lot of people losing their jobs are going to get even harsher treatment. It's like they are trying to alienate their voters on purpose.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 1, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Now why might there have been such a rise? One sociological theory elabarated eloquently by psychologist Oliver James is that certain societies create more mental illness



Hmmm, from what I've seen of James he's not intellectually honest about the alternative interpretations of the data he uses. Which if they were obscure alternatives, perhaps wouldn't be a problem. However, the criticism of the idea more diagnosed mental illness = more definite mental illness/distress is one of the first things you look at in clinical psychology! 

Anyway, I am aware that there is data suggesting that if people can't get back to work within a certain time frame (I think it's a year) after a health problem then they're more unlikely to work again. And I do suspect that if people are given jobs they enjoy, which they are capable of, which they have time for (which say, a single mother might not) and for which they are given sufficient support, it could improve self esteem and quality of life for many. However, the problems come when you consider how many people targeted would acheive all of those things. I suspect the answer would be few, and working a job which you hate, that pushes you beyond your capabilities and for which you have insufficient support will have the opposite effect on mood and quality of life.


----------



## PAD1OH (Sep 1, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Our line is that ......



who is "our"?


----------



## samk (Sep 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I can't understand why, at the time of a recession, the govt are actively swelling the ranks of the 'officially' unemployed and a lot of people losing their jobs are going to get even harsher treatment. It's like they are trying to alienate their voters on purpose.



They could be planning to create division between current claimants and the people about to lose their jobs?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Sep 2, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> who is "our"?



Well, I'm a member of Cardiff Left Alternative and we oppose the current welfare reform 110% but I was just being needlessly rhetorical.

Isn't it incredible that at a time when the government is predicting that unemployment will reach 2 million by xmas with thousands of workers being made redundant that they now want to introduce tougher penalties?

In my opinion, the coming recession is also going to lead to an increase in  mental health problems. All that stress over getting a job or keeping the one you have, wage cuts, paying the mortgages. rising food prices and bills all are going to have a detrimental effect on public health. But then you face a much tougher regime with the abolition of incapacity benefit etc.

The government has also made an assumption that most of the people on incapacity benefit are capable of working with no evidence other than New Right rhetoric to back it up.



> Hmmm, from what I've seen of James he's not intellectually honest about the alternative interpretations of the data he uses.



To be honest, I don't find Oliver James a very theoretically rigorous writer. Though given the complex social issues, any data is going to be contradictory or open to different interpretations. I find his writing interesting in the sense that he tries to understand mental illness in society sociologically and link it in with trends in wider society/economy


----------



## PAD1OH (Sep 2, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Well, I'm a member of Cardiff Left Alternative and we oppose the current welfare reform 110% but I was just being needlessly rhetorical.



fair enough.



Udo Erasmus said:


> Isn't it incredible that at a time when the government is predicting that unemployment will reach 2 million by xmas with thousands of workers being made redundant that they now want to introduce tougher penalties?
> 
> In my opinion, the coming recession is also going to lead to an increase in mental health problems.




Are we a bit naive (me included) to link micro/meso-policies and outcomes (welfare/mental health) with temporal macro-issues (global economic downturn)? 

Maybe I don't understand the nature of dynamic and reflexive policy development and delivery but continually changing policies because of potentially short-term events seems a tad reactive and short-sighted. no?


----------



## ymu (Sep 2, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> Are we a bit naive (me included) to link micro/meso-policies and outcomes (welfare/mental health) with temporal macro-issues (global economic downturn)?
> 
> Maybe I don't understand the nature of dynamic and reflexive policy development and delivery but continually changing policies because of potentially short-term events seems a tad reactive and short-sighted. no?


Well, no. If you run an economy that has too few jobs to go around, expend a disproportionate proportion of press release inches to benefit fraud (compared to, say, corporate tax fraud) demonising those you have made workless by design, force benefit claimants into low paid dead-end jobs whilst forcing others off those same dead-end jobs onto benefits in order to force them into another, even lower paid, dead-end job, forcing others onto benefits... Then yeah, you are going to get more mental health problems amongst those who are being continually fucked over without any realistic prospect of a proper social democracy forming any time soon. Stress does that to people.

As for the rest, you seem to support this move as economically necessary. I disagree, but I guess it depends what kind of society you want to live in. I don't want to live in one that is continually siphoning money from the poor to the rich. Capitalism does not work well in conditions of full employment - there is no chance on earth that this government is trying to achieve that with these measures. If there was ever any danger of such a thing occurring the CBI would simply demand relaxation of immigration controls to create unemployment and force wages down.

It is entirely likely that this move will "boost" the economy, but that's a meaningless statement unless you look at where the increase in GDP actually goes as a result.







Forcing those who have the least into increasingly low paid and insecure jobs in order to make just the top 5% richer is a shit policy, IMO. I can understand why the rich and greedy support it, but why anyone else would is beyond me.


----------



## PAD1OH (Sep 2, 2008)

ymu said:


> Well, no. If you run an economy that has too few jobs to go around,



I sort of get where you are coming from but I don't see the causality as clearly as you probably do. If I'm right, you seem to be suggesting at the top order there isn't enough jobs to go around so "the government" demonise people into working in jobs that didn't really exist in the first place and this creates mental health problems because people feel demeaned by working in jobs that have been handed to them by the state. Is this what you are saying? 

The dynamics of inequality in capitalism are well known and nobody disputes this. It would be interesting to follow your line of thinking above in the context of whatever system you are trying to propose as an alternative.



ymu said:


> As for the rest, you seem to support this move as economically necessary. I disagree



i'm not sure if this is referring to me. I don't think I have supported anything yet. My last post had nothing to do with economics but was questioning reactive approaches to policy making and delivery.


----------



## ymu (Sep 2, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> I sort of get where you are coming from but I don't see the causality as clearly as you probably do. If I'm right, you seem to be suggesting at the top order there isn't enough jobs to go around so "the government" demonise people into working in jobs that didn't really exist in the first place and this creates mental health problems because people feel demeaned by working in jobs that have been handed to them by the state. Is this what you are saying?


You might want to reread and/or think about the process. Capitalism requires unemployment - it keeps wages down, maintains a pool of workers ready for new work that becomes available. When we come close to full employment, the government steals a few more workers from the former colonies and/or relaxes immigration controls. This is why the CBI went apeshit when the Tories started talking about immigration quotas a couple of years back.

Forcing people into jobs that do not exist for a fraction of the minimum wage does not help them back to work, it just puts them under even greater stress by denying them the time or opportunity to find anything better or get training whilst doing nothing to improve their already stressful financial situation. These people are extremely likely to be used for the sort of work already being done by unskilled minimum wage workers, trapping both groups on a merry-go-round of low paid job -> dole -> lower paid job.



PAD1OH said:


> The dynamics of inequality in capitalism are well known and nobody disputes this. It would be interesting to follow your line of thinking above in the context of whatever system you are trying to propose as an alternative.


Why do I have to propose an alternative system in order to point out that the current one is crap?

I want a government that is elected by the voters, not bought by big business. I want politicians whose wages are fixed at the median of those that voted them in. I want a social security system that actually provides security. I want a system that doesn't spend disproportionate amounts trying to catch people claiming paltry benefits whilst ignoring those who are stealing billions. I want a government that requires industry to provide training for their own employees and to pay the full market value for the privilege of being allowed to squat in our society. I want a government that doesn't run a corporate tax haven overseas to allow the super-rich to siphon their profits out of the economy. I want a media that explores the implications of policy rather than regurgitating neo-liberal sound-bites to convince the moronic that this time they'll benefit, despite having seen fuck all in the last 25 years of economic growth.



PAD1OH said:


> i'm not sure if this is referring to me. I don't think I have supported anything yet. My last post had nothing to do with economics but was questioning reactive approaches to policy making and delivery.


It was referring to you. I may have misunderstood, but you seemed to be arguing that short-term negative effects are not a reason for government not to implement sound long-term policy. If that's what you meant, you have to think it's a sound long-term policy in the first place. That requires some justifying.


----------



## PAD1OH (Sep 2, 2008)

ymu said:


> I want a government that is elected by the voters, not bought by big business. I want politicians whose wages are fixed at the median of those that voted them in. I want a social security system that actually provides security. I want a system that doesn't spend disproportionate amounts trying to catch people claiming paltry benefits whilst ignoring those who are stealing billions. I want a government that requires industry to provide training for their own employees and to pay the full market value for the privilege of being allowed to squat in our society. I want a government that doesn't run a corporate tax haven overseas to allow the super-rich to siphon their profits out of the economy. I want a media that explores the implications of policy rather than regurgitating neo-liberal sound-bites to convince the moronic that this time they'll benefit, despite having seen fuck all in the last 25 years of economic growth.



i don't know anyone that actually wants this and I think most people would agree with you. I'm trying to simplify the issue.... Can you package your list of wants into a coherant system and then explain how your system will actually improve the situations we are talking about in this thread? How do we get from a list in our heads to sometihng real.



ymu said:


> It was referring to you. I may have misunderstood, but you seemed to be arguing that short-term negative effects are not a reason for government not to implement sound long-term policy. If that's what you meant, you have to think it's a sound long-term policy in the first place. That requires some justifying.



you're right I wasn't clear, sorry. I was pointing out that basing long-term social policies on, what appear to me to be, external macro-level problems that nobody (except a few clever sods) can predict how long will last is not good policy making.  It is reactionary and knee-jerk and I can't see how it solves the problems we are all concerned about. This has nothing to do with the content of the proposed policy.


----------



## ymu (Sep 2, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> i don't know anyone that actually wants this and I think most people would agree with you. I'm trying to simplify the issue.... Can you package your list of wants into a coherant system and then explain how your system will actually improve the situations we are talking about in this thread? How do we get from a list in our heads to sometihng real.


Well, I framed my list of wants above in reformist language - so I'm pretty obviously talking about social democracy. Whether or not true social democracy can be achieved through reform, given our current starting point, is another question. However, there are plenty of countries with _more_ social democratic systems than the UK, and they tend also to be amongst the richest countries in the world as well as those with the lowest income inequality. You're going to have to convince me that it'll never work before I worry about inventing a whole new system for you. 



PAD1OH said:


> you're right I wasn't clear, sorry. I was pointing out that basing long-term social policies on, what appear to me to be, external macro-level problems that nobody (except a few clever sods) can predict how long will last is not good policy making.  It is reactionary and knee-jerk and I can't see how it solves the problems we are all concerned about. This has nothing to do with the content of the proposed policy.


As a general point, that's fine. But what does it have to do with the argument? There's no point in dismissing the potential for harm (of which this is only one example, obv) as trivial/unknowable unless you're trying to argue that the benefits of the policy outweigh the harms.


----------



## PAD1OH (Sep 2, 2008)

ymu said:


> However, there are plenty of countries with _more_ social democratic systems than the UK, and they tend also to be amongst the richest countries in the world as well as those with the lowest income inequality.



Sweden?



ymu said:


> You're going to have to convince me that it'll never work before I worry about inventing a whole new system for you.



ah here, are you a politician?  I might just do a jeremy paxman on you and keep repeating my question (whatever it is)  I'm not suggesting that it doesn't/won't work. I'm just trying to tease out how we actually get it.

I admit to having a habit of challenging people I fully/partially/barely agree with to see if we can strengthen the "consensus". It usually means I end up being told I'm defending the policies/systems I don't agree with... 



ymu said:


> There's no point in dismissing the potential for harm (of which this is only one example, obv) as trivial/unknowable unless you're trying to argue that the benefits of the policy outweigh the harms.



this is a valid point. maybe I'm being a bit lazy in expecting those that are challenging a policy to convince me (robustly and in as clear language as possible) of their argument and alternative.


----------



## ymu (Sep 2, 2008)

PAD1OH said:


> Sweden?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You seem to think social democracy is a whole new untried and untested concept? 

And no, it's not just Sweden. Here's an old post on the subject because I've done this before.



ymu said:


> It depends on your point of view. But if you were a middle-class well paid worker type with typical middle of the road politics, it'd be because as a society, extreme income inequality damages your quality of life and is a very bad thing for your (personal) financial stability.
> 
> [-> cut'n'paste mode as we've done this a few times recently]
> 
> ...


----------



## PAD1OH (Sep 2, 2008)

i have been labelled a social democrat in the past..... the dark misty past. 

I mentioned Sweden because I have Swedish friends.


----------



## lewislewis (Sep 2, 2008)

Loads more countries than Sweden are more equal, wealthier and fairer than the UK. Social democracy works, it's the UK's bizarre Anglo-American unequal economy that doesn't work (well it works for the rich, the ordinary people get fucked over on a massive scale though). Most countries in Europe that aren't 'social democracies' are also more equal than the UK. Even the Republic of Ireland, where capitalism has had very few obstacles and has had a very easy ride, is slightly more equal than the UK. 

In a small country like Wales it's perfectly feasible to have far more equality than we do now. We don't need to be spending on nuclear weapons and defence for starters. I read that Wales' contribution to the UK's Trident replacement will be £1billion. Why does a country of 2.9 million people need any kind of involvement in nuclear weapons? 

Here are some interesting graphs re; Military expenditure 






The UN's entire budget (aid agencies, administration, emergency relief funds, etc) is equivalent to just 2% of the world's military expenditure.

I think the global picture of what we spend on welfare systems is paltry compared to nukes, tanks and guns. I don't know how Wales can change the world but opting out of the arms race would be a nice start. Our £1billion contribution to Trident is enough money to resolve most of Wales' problems with the welfare system.

How come New Labour are saying we can't afford a welfare state, but we can afford one of the largest military budgets in the world?


----------



## PAD1OH (Sep 2, 2008)

lewislewis said:


> Our £1billion contribution to Trident is enough money to resolve most of Wales' problems with the welfare system.



i wonder what the situation is with the peace tax people - http://www.peacetaxseven.com/


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 3, 2008)

The next phase is rolling back on housing benefit for unemployed people:
http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/review-of-housing-benefit/

Traditionally if you are unemployed or sick, you get some money towards your rent as a separate housing benefit. It is rather logical that people who have no source of income will need help paying their rents. But now the government is moving towards statements that 'Housing Benefit could be a disincentive towards work" etc.

The housing benefit system has always been a rather odd system, rather than pay the full amount, the Council decide what is the "fair rent" which is usually between 10 or 20 quid less than you pay.
(the concept of 'fair rent'  only exists in the paying of benefits, as central gov and councils no longer do anything to force private landlords to charge a fair rent)


----------



## Zachor (Oct 3, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> The next phase is rolling back on housing benefit for unemployed people:
> http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/review-of-housing-benefit/
> 
> Traditionally if you are unemployed or sick, you get some money towards your rent as a separate housing benefit. It is rather logical that people who have no source of income will need help paying their rents. But now the government is moving towards statements that 'Housing Benefit could be a disincentive towards work" etc.
> ...




I hear what you say.  I happen to think that housing benefit is a disincentive to work but the answer isn't to clamp down on HB but to make it overlap with employment for about a year to allow people to get back on their feet.


----------

