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

Brad, I am referring to their refusal to address genuine concerns about it. They are using cheap propaganda to fight people's very reasonable queries, rather than listening and engaging.

It's like this:

"Mummy, why can't I have a biscuit?"
"You only want a biscuit because your brother told you to ask for one. Go away."

As opposed to:

"You've already had 3 biscuits; if you have any more you could get constipation."

See?

You know what.

I actually don't know what to believe anymore.

On the one hand we have the govt clearly saying that people have a choice. That they can withdraw within a week without sanction. Others are saying it's no such choice.

I also don't understand why Workfare is wrong whilst work experience is a great idea.

I don't understand why it's better to leave people to fester on the dole than offer unpaid work experience which may lead to a job. Something which the DM (i know....) say that half of the people later stop claiming JSA. That's a pretty good success rate if true.

I guess for me the key thing to understand is whether or not it's true that it's compulsory under the threat of sanctions. And secondly how are they targetting suitable 'volunteers'. It would seem crazy to target a middle aged, newly unemployed degree educated professional to stack shelves at Tesco but quite reasonable to target someone with little skills/work experience.

Its actually quite frightening to think that if you fail to agree with this Govt- then you must be an 'extremist'.

Why doesn't Dave C just be done with it and change his name to Mugabe?

Bastards.

"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?"

Bradbourne if this is true, it is because people are not receiving the full facts.

Why are the BBC failing to ask the right questions about "the Work programme" and why when they fail to ask are they being attacked by the Torries.This is an attack on any impartial reporting and a way to make media curtail any reporting other than Torry propaganda.

Why are all regular newspapers not reporting the bare facts and allowing their readers to form an educated opinion?

WHY? because the state is manipulating the press and media to only focus on the elements of "workfare" and the details of the "voluntary" work exp for young people because that is the only aspect of this policy that is in any way acceptable to their electorate.

Well, maybe I'm just a bad mum, because I do sometimes give answers like your first one. (And even the dreaded-I-swore-I-would-never-say-it: "Because I said so!").

Seriously, how is the government meant to "engage"? From what I recall, the "workfare" idea was in the manifesto - and it has already been used by Labour in the form of the "New Deal".

"We will end all existing welfare to work programmes and create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.
We will ensure that Jobseeker's Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work are referred to the new welfare to work programme immediately.
We will ensure that receipt of benefits for those able to work is conditional on their willingness to work." http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Jobs_and_Welfare

The LibDems also pledged to create ?a work placement scheme with up to 800,000 places to ?ensure that young people have the opportunity to gain skills, qualifications and work experience?. Participants would be paid £55 a week for up to three months."
indusdelta.co.uk/story/labour_and_conservative_manifestos_contain_few_welfare_to_work_surprises/4195

Niceguy2 and morebeta (imo two of the most prolific Conservative ? supporting posters) both have doubts about workfare schemes .

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1415806-Has-anyone-here-gone-to-a-Workfare-protest

^^

Shamelessly plugging my own thread here!

Anyone?

Niceguy if you have time please take a read through the "make tescos pay thread" you'll find links to the DWP documents that actually prove without doubt that "workfare and the work programme is not voluntary.

What is being focused on in the media (manipulated by Grayling and IDS) is work exp for young people. This is a different scheme under the same "work programme" but this is offered to young people exclusively.

If they fail to take up the offer they are placed on the mandatory schemes whereby they have no choice.

Aside from all of this, the biggest group of mandated work for nothing labourers will be made up of 24 years plus, sick and disabled, young parents on low incomes who work but under U/C do not generate enough income, SAHM who's DH doesn't earn enough and carers of children with SN.

Quite frankly, I won't claim U/C because I won't be mandated to work ( I'm part time self employed) why make everyone a potential claimant? because that way more people can be mandated to work for nothing!

I haven't read the whole thread but I must say I'm goggling at the claim that Mumsnet has been infiltrated by extreme leftists in the workfare threads. I'm another one who was on one of those threads and voted Tory (though I doubt I would next time) - you don't have to be even mildly leftwing, let alone extreme, to see that 1. the coalition is not being honest about the true nature of workfare; and 2. the way the scheme is working is very, very wrong.

I have also been gobsmacked by the stuff I have read in support of workfare in the Times and Telegraph in the last few days. They're just trying really hard to cover up what's been happening, haven't they?

Workfare? Leeeaaave the bastards!

LOL Tapse...

In principle I support unpaid work experience but on a voluntary basis and targetted at the right people. If you are genuinely looking for a job then I'd jump at the chance.

Mandating them to go may work for the lazy/idle but not really much good to Tesco etc. to have a lazy git turn up who has no inclination to learn anything.

There's quite a few Tory policies I think they have wrong such as charging for CSA & child benefit changes. But on balance I still think they are better for the country than Labour who are still seemingly wedded to borrow now, pay later.

As for MN being infiltrated, I haven't seen it. It's the usual left wing fanatics as far as I can tell.

To be honest I think the whole thing is now quite farcical and becoming impossible to see who is really telling the truth.

niceguy you're quite right, the devil's in the detail.

I'm a big supporter of 2 weeks' work experience for students still at school. It happens one fortnight of the year, so employers are unlikely to be able to shed staff in favour of unpaid labour, and for almost all school students it will be their first experience of a work environment. And there's no penalty if you have flu that week.

I'm vehemently against the current workfare programme. It probably does supplant paid jobs, it's imposed on people who have already worked, and the sanctions if you have flu are that the JobCentre can at its sole discretion remove food money.

Summary of workfare programmes:
? Work Experience for 16-24 year olds, first week voluntary, after that penalised for dropping out.
? Work Programme, for everyone on JSA and about to be introduced for over half the people on ESA (ie those found unfit for work even by new harsh criteria), includes "How to write a CV" courses and Mandatory Work Activity ie actual work. Mandatory and penalised very severely.

To be honest I think the whole thing is now quite farcical and becoming impossible to see who is really telling the truth

Niceguy read the links on the tesco thread, they are links to DWP documents that clearly state it is not voluntary

Its there in black and white for anyone who is intrested enough to find out the truth.

The gov is lying.

I have a idea. Rather than scrap workfare......let's expand it.

It seems to me most of the objections revolve around 'why should Tesco get their shelves stacked for free'

OK, instead of scrapping it and offering no opportunities for even those who WANT to have a go, let's try to get MORE companies involved.

Bear with me. How about encouraging companies like Rolls Royce, BAE, British Airways, Barclays etc. all to design a workfare scheme for their companies?

This way, the job centre have more varied roles they can target at the right people. More opportunities.

Those companies can then get a load of people to try out and employ if they show themselves to be good workers. Even if they don't, they have a better work experience to show than stacking shelves at Poundland.

SerialKipper - thank you for setting out the key difference between the under 24 and over 24 groups.

I was beginning to get suspicious about why Govt is constantly taking about '16 - 24 yr old' group and deliberately not talking about over 24 yr olds. I wondered why that was and now I know.

It is pure manipulation of the news media to avoid talking about the compulsion issue by only talking about 'youth unemployment'. There are loads of older very well qualified people who really want a job and I have no doubt in my mind that stacking shelves for a retailer will do absolutely nothing for their skills, self esteem or employability.

I would like a job, am going for an interview next week and am highly qualified and highly skilled. If I signed on for JSA it would do nothing at all for my skills to stack shelves. As Niceguy says, it has to be targeted.

I agree that someone who leaves school with no skills/qualifications should not be allowed to just sign on for JSA forever- they clearly have no chance of getting a job and in that case paying them JSA in return for going on a proper apprenticeship might well be a good thing but not someone who has good qualifications and really wants a job. No point in targetting someone with a disability who can only do a limited range of jobs. Better to work with them to help them get into a job that suits their physical ability - not punish them.

niceguy - problem is if we keep on expanding the scheme then pretty soon no one will be paid to work. Firms will just keep laying off their paid workers or cutting their hours and replacing them with workfare. The people that are made unemployed or under employed will then in turn be forced to apply for unpaid workfare jobs themselves.

Indeed, reading the other workfare thread it is clear that is already happening. Paid workers being replaced by workfare and in turn ending up on workfare themselves and sometimes even being sent back to work for their old employer for free but subsidised by the taxpayer.

problem is if we keep on expanding the scheme then pretty soon no one will be paid to work

Exactly

If the jobs are there for all this 'work experience' then bloody well pay people to do the jobs!

I don't see what's extremist about a fair day's pay work for a fair day's work. I really don't.

Does mumsnet have evidence of being infiltrated by extremists?

And I don't remember posting that but never mind...sigh

Anyway time for a name change I reckon

Another Socialist Worker Party sleeper? ?Workfare? scheme slammed by Archbishop of York "he said that earning a living wage should not be an optional extra, but should be seen as a basic necessity."

let's try to get MORE companies involved Living up to your NN there Niceguy2. This is what they've done in the States, where those on benefits have to travel up to 50 miles to work for their benefits. As a consequence, poverty is growing, the poor are even poorer, and the benficiaries are the corporations. Yep, let's have that here.

:o:o Fuck sake, what a caring guy you are.

the 'Mumsnet infiltrated' thing is very similar to what was said about the feminist section at one point by a bunch of male rights activists who claimed to have found evidence the site had been infiltrated by rad fems because of course mothers couldn't really be feminists and (shock horror) some of the posters don't even have children!

I guess the thing is that Mumsnet is seen by so many people as representative of mainstream (middle class?) opinion so that's pretty scary for the ConDems.

If they write it off as a few extremists their shock will be all the nastier come the next election.

Tunip - I think the Tories and their cronies are a bit taken aback by the groundswell of public opinion against these work for your benefit schemes (Workfare) - I don't think this is a politically affiliated group - I think ordinary people (of all political persuasions) are standing up for people's basic rights.

A wage for work, seems pretty straight forward to me. Asda, Tesco, Boots, Royal Mail etc have huge profit margins they can afford to create jobs and pay staff instead of having people working 25-30 hours per week for benefits.

exactly Tapsel.
I think they thought it would play well with the 'hardworking families' in the 'squeezed middle' . But it isn't.