Tories order Police to halt workfare demos

[minimathsmouse]

In the mail on Sunday it is reported that IDS has ordered the police to step in and stop ANY demonstration against workfare.

I think this seems to be an attack on freedom of speech, I wondered if other people think the same or do you believe that even in a democracy the state should have the power to stop "some" opposition.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106601/Tories-order-police-halt-workfare-demos-MP-makes-formal-protest-BBC-bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html?ITO=1490

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9105325/The-Government-should-stand-up-to-the-rent-a-mob-campaign-against-unpaid-work-experience.html

I found this blog post after a bit of Googling. Passionate but maybe not well written. Sure she/he means well

I think im most disappointed that the press are not making much of the fact that workfare isnt just for the younger able bodied age group.

We and anyone who cares to google it know that sick and disabled people will be forced to do it, but the majority who find what they know about it in the papers will think its just the younger unemployed and quite probably agree with the concept.

Thats been reinforced by CG and that silly woman on newsnight blatently lying about what workfare is and who it affects.

I knew this anyway but this just shows how utterly immoral this government is.

Lying lying bastards.

Yup.

Can we have bumper stickers too? And t-shirts?

"Shhh darling, Mummy is infiltrating Mumsnet working"

Or perhaps "Workfare? Fuck off to the far side of fuck, and when you get there, fuck off some more."

Wow! I always thought my MIL was a nice old lady who enjoys bird watching and jam making. Now I see her opposition to workfare means she is somewhere to left of Stalin I suppose I ought to keep the DCs away from her. Phew! Glad I found that out before she initiated them into her fiendish plot.

Being serious, it's typical Tory tactics: demonising any opposition and politicising the police.

Does chris grayling really think the frothers are a front for the socialist workers?

Why would the socialist workers even have a front anyway? The ones I remember from outside the student union back in the day were very happy to stand up and campaign as socialist workers.

Right - which one of you extremest infiltrators did this?

So a compaint has been made to the BBC about biased reporting what a joke.

So they can smear and say what they like about the disabled and people who disagree with workfare, in all of its forms.

A single politician against three extremists on Newsnight were they watching the same programme? Of the three people, one thought workfare wasn't that bad, one barely spoke and one tried to get his point across but wasn't very articulate (neither would I be on the TV).

The programmes discussing Workfare, have barely mentioned that the biggest age group are the over 24's and WRAG hasn't even been mentioned.

I am planning on attending the demo on Sat, my first ever protest. Who else is going?

I am here to announce that "We don't have any Money" that's why you can all get off your leftie soap boxes and work for nowt. How else can the shareholders increase their wealth.

More blatant "right wing" propaganda in The Mail this morning. Front Page, Ex boss of M&S and Melanie Phillips
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2106888/Jobs-welfare-BBC-went-battle-Socialist-Workers.html

The world according to Melanie: BBC are in cahoots with the SWP to create mass destruction
last time I checked socialism was about creating mass equality

Apparently it's a 'campaign of intimidation against work'. What on earth does that actually mean?

Also, socialist workers are very keen on work. The clue is in the title.

at

"Can we have bumper stickers too? And t-shirts?

"Shhh darling, Mummy is infiltrating Mumsnet working"

Or perhaps "Workfare? Fuck off to the far side of fuck, and when you get there, fuck off some more.""
Brilliant.

JustineMumsnet gives the it-is-good-for young- people response on Custardo's thread in Politics Occupy Mumsnet.

Comment on Daily Fail,

For the people who say they have to pay 40% of their salary in tax to fund lazy people on benefits you don't pay 40% in tax you get the same personal allowance and pay tax at the same rate as somebody not on 40% tax until you reach the 40% limit and if you are lucky enough to earn way above thye NI contribution ceiling then you only pay small proportion of your earnings in tax and your tax burden overall will be around 23% whereas somebody who does not pay 40% tax will have to pay the full rate NI contributions out of their pay and their overall tax burden is around 36% so all the high earners complaining about your 40% tax to fund laze people on benefits you are a lot better off when it comes to your tax burden compared to somebody working in £land and a hell of a lot better off than the poor people being punished for being unemployed being used a slaves. I think that goes for the stuart roses in this world.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106897/Sir-Stuart-Rose-tells-firms-defy-Right-To-Work-militants.html#ixzz1nZwnW6Mp

Love the bumper sticker idea.

I just wonder whether any of the politicians or top company bosses would be prepared to do their current job for no pay. No thought not!

My first job was cleaning turkey sheds. It was low skill and not very nice. I still got paid though. There are three reasons people take a job. First off for money to live on and spend on things they want, secondly for the enjoyment and thirdly to gain skills.

Workfare stacking shelves for no money and no prospect of a job at the end fullfills none of those criteria.

My first job was in McDonalds. They stuck you on probation for the first month while they trained me, but they still paid me (the pricely sum of £2.88 an hour, which I though was pretty good as a 16 year old). Surely all companies can manage that?

"For the people who say they have to pay 40% of their salary in tax to fund lazy people on benefits you don't pay 40% in tax you get the same personal allowance and pay tax at the same rate as somebody not on 40% tax until you reach the 40% limit and if you are lucky enough to earn way above thye NI contribution ceiling then you only pay small proportion of your earnings in tax and your tax burden overall will be around 23% whereas somebody who does not pay 40% tax will have to pay the full rate NI contributions out of their pay and their overall tax burden is around 36% so all the high earners complaining about your 40% tax to fund laze people on benefits you are a lot better off when it comes to your tax burden compared to somebody working in £land"

Not true - at least as far as the tax part goes.
Someone on 40k plus pays about 30% income in tax, comapred with circa 25% for someone on £35k, 20% for £20k and8% on £10k. For high earners, if you are on £100k you will pay around 35% in taxes. (for puposes of acluculation , I have included income tax and NI).

http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

Opinion polls show a majority of the UK population in favour of "wokfare".
" there is majority support for both the voluntary work experience system (supported by 59% and opposed by 34%) and mandatory work placements for long term unemployed people (supported by 61% and opposed by 32%). On the principle of whether companies are making a positive contribution by taking part in the scheme or exploiting the unemployed, 52% think it is a good thing for companies to provide unpaid work, 34% think it is a bad thing."
ukpollingreport.co.uk/

The protests that IDS has asked the police to stop are illegal - theses are not "demonstartions", but people turning up at shops en masse with placards to try to intimidate people into withdrawing from these schemes.

A little tune to celebrate annoying the Mail.

apologies for typos in above post.

gosh. do we get a badge? I'd like to laugh at how disagreeing with a Govt idea gets one labelled extremist (and I disagreed with Labours approach to this too) but its a bit alarming.
Fuck off Big Brother

And here's the delightful Polly Toynee on the subject of "workfare":

"The Tories were right: workfare really works"

"[Workfare] was stopped by political cowardice and by Treasury short-termism, afraid it would cost too much to provide make-work jobs for all. Now, though, we can see how the money saved in benefits will come pouring in"

Ok, Ok... that was from 1997. But seriously, why all the protests now? Labour had very similar schemes and no-one ever seemed to grumble about them then.

Online protest against workfare if you have fb here.

I have just noticed Aberdeen are having a protest - still quite far away from me but I might go.

Oh good God this workfare malarkey is getting more and more ridiculous by the minute.

I started an anti-workfare thread a couple of weeks ago. Does that make me an extremist? According to the DM and Chris Grayling, it does. Well I voted Lib Dem in the last election, as I have done all my life. Does that mean that the Tories have united to run the country with a hardline left-wing extremist party? Guffaw! I'm sure Cleggy would like to see himself as some sort of radical, but I'm not convinced that even he has the capacity for that level of self-deception!

It is extremely worrying, IMO, that, rather than address the genuine concerns raised by many people over the way this scheme is being run, the Tories are instead trying to whitewash over it. They are treating us like idiots; but worse still, the only reasonable comparison I can find for this sort of behaviour is with anti-democratic governments. Our government is only in position because we have put them there, and they have a responsibility to treat the voting public with respect and intelligence - the opposite of what they are doing over Workfare.

I have criticised the Blair and Brown governments on this website, and as far as I can recall, the only government I've ever said any positive things about is the present one. But I will damn well also criticise the Coalition when they get things wrong. If that makes me an extremist, they can lock me up.

" Our government is only in position because we have put them there, and they have a responsibility to treat the voting public with respect and intelligence - the opposite of what they are doing over Workfare."

But the majority of the public support the government's stance on "workfare". How is it anti-democratic to contniue with a policy that enjoys majority public support?

Anti- workfare protest on Twitter too.