Actually not in the news, but should be...

(33 Posts)
ItsAllGoingToBeFine Wed 20-Mar-13 13:08:39

Why the feck is no one talking about that nasty piece of retrospective legislation pushed through Westminster yesterday?

You know the one... Judge rules workfare illegal, meaning those sanctioned whilst on it are entitled to compensation... Government pushes through retrospective legislation negating this...

This is a scary precedent because,

1)The government has shown that is can retrospectively make something that was illegal, legal and vice versa. This completely undermines the rule of Law

2)The government has done this solely to avoid paying out a relatively small amount of compensation that these people were entitled to by law.

ParsingFancy Mon 25-Mar-13 17:09:12

Those who work hard do not see why others should do nothing and still get benefits.

Really? When I was working, I could see why people too disabled to earn their living should do nothing and still get benefits. Unexpectedly becoming disabled hasn't changed that opinion.

You do know that people found Unfit To Work even by the new, incredibly narrow criteria will now be sent on mandatory, indefinite workfare, don't you?

ttosca Sun 24-Mar-13 18:42:46

Xenia-

> I think we need a lot more. Those who work hard do not see why others should do nothing and still get benefits.

They're looking for jobs.

Darkesteyes Sun 24-Mar-13 18:25:21
Darkesteyes Sun 24-Mar-13 18:23:09

The OBR hints at these irregularities in their executive summary: “The labour market continues to surprise on the upside, despite the continued weakness of GDP growth.” As a former civil servant, I would be tempted to read that as “there is something really dodgy about these figures”. Then, at para. 3.108, which talks about “people employed in government supported training and employment programmes” comes the confirmation: “Of the total increase in employment in 2012, compared to 2011, around 14 per cent reflects increased participation in those programmes.”

People on unpaid internships, training schemes, apprenticeships and workfare schemes, are counted as employed. One hundred and forty thousand of them are part of the Government’s job creation success story.

Xenia Sun 24-Mar-13 15:42:48

I think we need a lot more. Those who work hard do not see why others should do nothing and still get benefits.

ttosca Sun 24-Mar-13 13:20:34
ttosca Sun 24-Mar-13 13:16:45

Please get involved, people:

https://twitter.com/boycottworkfare

Darkesteyes Sun 24-Mar-13 00:44:35

Its abhorrent that they are doing this. And that Labour are supporting it (either directly or indirectly.
If there is a job pay a wage.

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 19:45:42

'procedural breach of the rules' - I think you mean breaking the law.

If the unemployed make a 'procedural breach of the rules' they are punished and left destitute. But if the government does it, it's fine, somehow? That's clearly unjust.

The government took money from people illegally. They should pay that money back. It's quite clear and simple.

ttosca Sat 23-Mar-13 18:28:32

Argh! *workfare.

;)

ttosca Sat 23-Mar-13 18:28:09

It's the Boycott Welfare week of action:

www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2332&buffer_share=3d6c1&utm_source=buffer

Get involved!

ttosca Sat 23-Mar-13 18:27:33

Xenia-

Seriously?

ttosca Sat 23-Mar-13 18:27:03

For what it's worth:

2 days left - Please Help stop the UK Governments plan to retrospectively change the law!!

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-the-uk-government-changing-the-law-retrospectively

Dominodonkey Sat 23-Mar-13 18:24:23

The general concept of workfare was good but it is blatantly obvious to anyone with any sense that it should have consisted of hours linked to minimum wage/benefits (ie as many hours working as meant the person earned their benefits if they had been receiving minimum wage) and that the workers should have only worked for charities, govt funded local projects or council run environment style projects. People who were already volunteering in a useful manner (such as the girl who took the case to court) should have been entirely exempt. I agree that it is abhorrent that massive companies received cheap labour.

PeneloPeePitstop Sat 23-Mar-13 18:13:53

Nice one, parsing.
I've had enough of workfare eroding the jobs market and private enterprise creaming off the profit from forced labour.

If these companies have work available then they should directly employ at minimum wage levels.

LittleFrieda Sat 23-Mar-13 18:07:15

difference

LittleFrieda Sat 23-Mar-13 18:06:43

OP you need to learn the inference between retroactive and retrospective.

And Labour support this bill.

ParsingFancy Sat 23-Mar-13 17:59:20

No Xenia, the sooner they can work for wages the better.

Atm, the taxpayer is paying for them - and keeping Tesco and their ilk in clover.

Xenia Sat 23-Mar-13 16:43:34

The state has consistently made it clear it would not pay compensation because it make this procedural breach of the rules. The courts by the way have not said workfare is illegal at all. They have said the rules must be followed.

The sooner we ensure those many skivers sitting around on benefits all day have to work for their benefits the better for those of us who work so hard and full time to keep them in idleness.

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 11:59:23

YY re. control orders but then TPIMs allow suspects to move back to the place where they've been hanging out with other suspects... I dunno, wish the government would sort out some legitimate way of allowing security services stuff to be used as evidence without the appalling way they are doing now, trying to bring in evidence that the other party isn't told about, isn't allowed to hear and that even their lawyers aren't allowed to hear. Seems to be that makes it impossible to have a fair hearing.

meditrina Sat 23-Mar-13 11:54:18

Don't know: perhaps it should be, for quite a bit of what that administration brought in was found illegal (control orders springs to mind).

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 11:49:32

was Harman's assertion ever tested in the courts, though?

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 11:49:02

Examples of retrospective legislation from that govt. briefing paper don't include any that make unlawful punishments lawful after the event. That is what is so wicked about this con trick.

meditrina Sat 23-Mar-13 11:48:38

Given what Harriet Harman set out about retrospective legislation, I don't think it's beyond existing powers or precedent, unfortunately.

edam Sat 23-Mar-13 11:45:29

I do hope if the government gets away with this unconstitutional making-the-illegal-legal-after-the-event con trick, the victims take it further - perhaps the European Court of Human Rights?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now