George Osborne Gets Booed Handing Medals at the Paralympic Athletics Medal Ceremony

[ttosca]

The nation boos at the Tory scum:

Right, the information is spread all over the place, so the most compact account I can find is the DWP answering a journalist's questions here:

"DWP insists that the work-related activity group (WRAG) scheme is part of the Work Programme ? which the young people?s scheme is not ? and that any work experience will only be carried out with the agreement of the disabled claimant, and would usually last for two to eight weeks."

"DWP has already admitted that there will be no upper limit to how long the WRAG work experience could last."

"It says the WRAG scheme is not 'workfare' ? being forced to work for your benefits ? because participation will be voluntary and 'not coercive', although sanctions will be available for those who drop out halfway through for no reason."

That's about the current not-entirely-mandatory workfare, called here "work experience", just as it was for the young people's scheme which drew such a storm a few months ago. Note this is different from "voluntary work" which people have done on ESA/Incapacity Benefit for years. Two hours a week on the helpers' desk of your local hospital has always been fine - it doesn't say anything about your ability to work 40hrs/wk.

Will see if I can find a link re thoughts of making it compulsory - but from memory the best one of those was a minister blurting something on Newsnight, which may no longer be available.

Orange, thanks for finding those.

The first article you linked to says that the only people who are asked to do this work experience are those who have been assessed as being capable of it, or of maybe being capable of it in the future. It also says that people will only lose benefits if they break their agreement without Good reason.

If this is true, (which I will take at face value for now but I realise it might not be) then I still can't see a problem with the policy. It still sounds like the problem is with the way people are assessed and the fact that they are being assessed wrongly. This could be corrected without scrapping the whole idea of encouraging people to work.

It seems like scaremongering to say that people will lose their benefits if they can't comply with the programme. The article says that they won't lose any benefits if they have good reason not to attend their work experience, and I would apply common sense and think that good reason includes anything related to their disability. Again, I know the way these systems are run is crap, but that could be solved with the right will and without scrapping the policy.

I think its misleading to say that this will happen to people on ESA. It won't, according to your link. People who have been found to be incapable of ever being able to work will not be affected, so this only applies to some people on ESA.

You can see how these things are confusing for those who are not personally and directly affected.

Is it really that unreasonable to expect that children help to look after their parents as they get older - must people would see this as their own responsibility rather than that of government (being as they looked after you when you were a child)?

Merrymouse, of course it is not always easy working when you have a disability, and by no means, will it be easy to find a job in an ever more challenging environment, all I am saying is that it is not impossible.

I have also not advocated the cutting of benefits to the genuinely disabled, in fact I think they should probably receive more support.

If someone believes they have been discriminated against in a work environment/ recruitment process due to a disability then I would suggest they seek legal advice.

Mini - what do you think a 'fair' rate of tax would be, given that the top 10% of earners already pay 55% of all income tax raised?

I think it is most unreasonable yes. My father worked and paid taxes all his life and has never claimed a penny for anything. I also work and I contribute too but my ability to work is impeded by my caring responsibilities and I won't be getting a tax break for saving this government money.

More than that, the role of caring most often falls to women, is that ok? feminists in the 70's campaigned for better state support for people with disabilities, the sick and the elderly but more than that paid caring, provides work opportunities and greater income and NI tax receipts. Or do we want to prevent fit and healthy women from meeting their full potential and see women return to the home and a greater division between private and public sphere with women being sidelined and used as FREE labour. Why? so we can save the wonderful 1% the bother of dipping their hands in their pockets.

Is it really that unreasonable to expect that children help to look after their parents as they get older - must people would see this as their own responsibility rather than that of government (being as they looked after you when you were a child)?

The problem with this is that caring is NOT VALUED in this country. Carers Allowance is the lowest paid benefit. As soon as you mention that you are a carer people automatically assume you are a scrounger. There is also the insinuation that "anyone can be a carer" as displayed in some of the posts above. Maybe if caring was more valued in this country more people would be prepared to do it.

The reason that only 10% of earners pay 55% (if indeed the stats are correct) of tax is because of the inequality of income. If we didn't have workers on £6.50 an hr and the boss on £500,000 a year then the stats would be very different, no?

Just to make that clear, if 100% of workers earned the same than 100% of workers would contribute 100% of the tax raised. It is income inequality that means that the 10% contribute more to the treasury.

Ugh, I hate the way people describe caring as 'saving the government' money'.

It is a vile way to describe taking care of someone you supposedly love. And it completely contradicts itself. It wouldn't be saving anyone any money if they weren't prepared to do it in the first place. And it's not the governments money, it's taxpayers. Wonderful a Jon as you may be doing, you aren't doing it as a favour to me as a taxpayer. You are doing it because you care about the person that needs it.

I am at home as I chose to leave work before starting a family so that I could fully commit to that role. I still feel that I am meeting my full potential in my new role as a parent.

I am sorry that you find it unreasonable to look after a parent, but if you feel no obligation, why do you think anyone else will? If he needs significant care, is a care home not a better option for you both?

So what do you consider a 'fair' rate of tax? You refer to the 1%, who dip their hands into their pockets to the tune of 24% of all income tax receipts.

And here's the link to the leaked DWP docs discussing mandatory "Work Experience and Work Placements for ESA Work-Related Activity Group".

I urge you to click through to the actual DWP documents if you don't like reading the Guardian.

We can't all earn the same though, and we shouldn't expect to. The work I do, which I believe is undervalued at £7.something per hour, isn't going to generate money. It's not a job that everyone could do, but it's a job that a hell of a lot more people are capable of doing than they are of being a CEO of a multinational corporation.

Thank you Orange. I think I might save that reading for tomorrow

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos and isn't that what Cameron and Co use.
they know we won't just park our disabled family members in the street so they know that we will carry on caring even if we get nothing.
and yes it does save the tax payer/government millions/billions

I'm sorry but why do you have to be paid to look after someone you care about?

Yes Mini, I understand that not everyone gets paid the same, but given top rate taxpayers already handover half of their income in income tax alone, before council tax, road tax, VAT, etc etc how high do you want tax rates to rise to?

Yes, it saves the taxpayer money because the taxpayer would be prepared to do it with or without you. So why make a dig at them?

Is it what Cameron and Co use? I don't know, you tell me. Either way, it's still a horrible way of putting it.

On caring - the issue is it so often is not a choice. People don't always have a choice to go into a paid profession or to go to care for someone. If they start caring for someone very young it can impact their own education and earning potential. Sometimes those choices are thrust upon you.

Interesting the point about mandatory economics lessons.
The way typical politicians handle the economy is to look at measures of production - like gdp and assume that in a capitalist economy people have real choices. They often simply don't.

Ofcourse the real value of carers like so many other people is marginalised and not accounted for properly. Just like many stay at home mums are undervalued economically.

Whereas ofcourse if you have a massive war with carnage and all that stuff voila suddenly you might find that you get an increase in GDP because someone has to produce stuff like weapons. Ecological or social damage or consequences are not really accounted for at all in many economies.

Suggested reading might just be a book called IF WOMEN COUNTED - The book argues that mainstream economics does not account for women's work, nor for the value of nature.

Jeremy Warner:

To understand what?s really happening here, it is necessary to revisit the underlying causes of the crisis. The consensus is still very much that the main mischief was years of Thatcherite deregulation, which allowed bankers to run riot. In this Brownite narrative, there was nothing much wrong with the pre-crisis economy which sorting the banking system wouldn?t fix. Get the money moving again with repeated rounds of monetary and fiscal stimulus, and demand would quickly return to the way it was. Confronted with the uncomfortable truth that bankrupting governments with deficit spending has failed to work as predicted, proponents argue either that there was simply not enough of such spending, or that it has been withdrawn prematurely. The reality is that the unemployment rate in the US has turned out worse with the Obama stimulus than he predicted it would be without it. There?s a shock.
Regrettably, there is a much more painful and altogether more plausible way of looking at the crisis and its causes than this ?get out of jail free? approach. Confronted by a steady loss of competitiveness, governments in many advanced economies started spending more than they could afford to support growth, and they actively encouraged households with low interest rates, credit expansion and misguided social policy objectives to do the same.
Unsurprisingly, this growth has proved unsustainable. To believe that the crisis can be corrected simply by doing more of what got countries into such a mess in the first place is to descend into fantasy.
The mistake that both the financial markets and many economic commentators continue to make is to think that governments, providing they intervene enough, can somehow magic away the problem. In fact, the best politicians can do is simply get out of the way, thereby allowing the natural resourcefulness of their citizens to show through. In attempting to prop things up, governments are only borrowing from the future and delaying the recovery.
Instinctively, the Right tends to recognise these arguments better than the Left, yet they do not make for a popular message. Securing support for an agenda which sweeps away the state and destroys the mollycoddled world voters have grown used to is quite an ask, especially when up against the siren calls of Labour?s ?something for nothing? alternative. I?ve long believed that the 2010s are going to feel much like the 1970s, with Western economies in a state of more or less permanent crisis, lurching from one ineffectual government to the next.
Today?s half measures on supply-side reform won?t suffice. Something much more radical is required to restore lost competitiveness and get growth going again ? but conditions may have to get a great deal worse before we and our leaders are galvanised to make the necessary changes.

Reading through your post, Freddos.

You seem unhappy that I've said this "work experience" will apply to people on ESA because it won't apply to the Support Group.

But it will apply to the WRAG. Who are the vast majority (iirc in the region of 90%, but am willing to stand corrected) of the people on ESA.

You say "the only people who are asked to do this work experience are those who have been assessed as being capable of it, or of maybe being capable of it in the future". If they've been assessed as being capable of work, they won't be on ESA. And while some people on ESA will be capable of work in the future they aren't right now, that's why they're on ESA.

A JobCentre clerk is not in any position to tell someone who is on ESA that they are fit to do work experience/placement. They don't even have access to the medical reports - and would have no way of interpreting them if they did. In the same way that a normal HR bod is not in a position to make their own Health & Safety judgements on staff with disabilities but needs Occupational Health specialists who consult with the staff member's medical team.

Sanctioning: "ESA Sanctions, Official Statistics November 2011" But as this document points out, it doesn't distinguish the different reasons the 10,480 sanctions were applied to ESA claimants in the WRAG between 1st September 2010 and 31st August 2011. So we don't know what the sanctionable actions were.

But more importantly, you state "I would apply common sense" wrt to sanctions. I'm sure you would. Others wouldn't. The set-up is that Rules Is Rules but JobCentre staff can choose to make allowance.

So even if the JobCentre clerks did have the information and competence to make medical judgements, it's still down to their individual discretion: there's no consistency and the individual clerk can apply what criteria they see fit. The stories which are coming out about behaviour of JobCentre clerks aren't encouraging - with some scheduling clashes between two mandatory activities for JSA claimants and then sanctioning the claimant for failure to attend one. It would be naive to imagine ESA recipients will be immune from this sort of treatment.

Bear in mind this isn't about who gets punctuality awards at the end of term. This is about who gets made destitute while physically unable to earn their living. Protracted and complicated appeals procedures aren't adequate remedy for leaving people without income.

Very interesting thread. I can't contribute as I am from another country, but the politics fascinate me. I am very concerned for the disabled and carer in your country. :(

Abitwobblynow, unfortunately I fear that you are right.

I'm not unhappy about anything you have said, I'm just giving my interpretation of what it says in the article, and highlighting why it's confusing for people who aren't involved or affected.

I realise that the reality of these things often doesn't come across in newspaper articles.

I also thought it was the idiots at ATOS that decided which catergory people on ESA were put in, but you say it's the job centre.

I'm not disputing anything you say, Im not in a position to do that. You clearly know more about the subject than I do. I havent read the bigger links you posted yet, but will when I have a bit more time to digest it.

sleepneeded yy, so well said, agree on every point.

Sammy, I gave up work when DS1 was born despite earning twice what DP did. ( I work now) For some reason, subject to family and societal pressure I felt it was my "responsibility" to care. Many women still feel like this and it does us all an injustice and provides society with a lot of unpaid and undervalued labour.

The fact is that if you devote yourself to paid work you earn money and you eat, if you devote yourself to the unpaid work of caring you still need to eat without an income. IT IS the responsibility of a civilised society to reward and acknowledge the work of caring, either financially through support or by actually lessening the physical and emotional burdens by providing practical support.

Sammy in the absence of a money economy I would applaud your opinion but the fact is many women do not have men who earn enough to keep them, also what makes you think that women want to be kept in money but also in servitude by men and the rest of society.

Yes, they don't make it easy to follow what they're up to do, do they?

Fit to Work decisions.

These are made by a two-stage process. The ATOS tester (a doctor, nurse or physiotherapist, randomly assigned except for people with neuro probs) fills in a multiple-choice computer questionnaire which awards points for inability to do different activities. There are spaces for tester comments, but these are often not used and when they are often contain comments on entirely different testees (my last one had a reference to me using a mobile phone during the interview and handling a packet of tablets - neither happened).

The test and score then go to a back office of the DWP where clerks called Decision Makers who have no medical knowledge look at the number of points and if it is over 15 award ESA, if it is less than 15 do not award ESA.

This creates a nice blame-boomerang. The ATOS tester is only filling in their questionnaire, it's not their fault what the Decision Maker does. The Decision Maker is only going on the number of points, they can't be expected to interpret medical reports.

Information does not seem to be shared with the separate clerks in the JobCentre part of the DWP. I was called for a JobCentre Work-Focussed Interview while awaiting proper classification - my test above having been set aside by ATOS as not fit for purpose. The WFI bloke ("Disability Advisor") and his JobCentre boss were most surprised when I informed them I was still awaiting testing. At one stage they were asking me to have a correspondence with the Decision Makers and "copy them in" on it, to demonstrate I was telling the truth. I pointed out that they were the DWP, the Decision Maker was the DWP, perhaps they could ask their own colleague directly, especially since the basic premise of their request was that they wouldn't believe info when it came from me. There was very clearly no Data Protection issue stopping them doing this as the data was still within the DWP and anyway the ESA application form requires you to sign permission for your data to be shared with the postman a large number of agencies plus any we think of later.

By the way, two specific issues about the ATOS test give the game away that it is not "in good faith".

The ESA form asks for permission to approach your GP/others for medical reports, and they used to send the GP a standard form - I've sat in the surgery while the GP filled it in. The requirement to seek these medical reports has now been removed. I was completely unaware the last time I was tested that ATOS hadn't approached my GP, and I was therefore not in a position to independently supply a GP's report. But appeal cases make it clear the testers often don't read reports even when they are supplied.

The second thing is the way some of the questionnaire scoring has been changed. If you're interested I'll dig out the details, but in brief, the question about going up and down stairs used to attract different points for 4 or 5 different levels of capacity: cannot go up one step, can go up but must rest halfway, etc These gradations have been stripped out and the Qs are now (iirc) 1) Can you go up two steps? 2) Can you not go up steps at all? So people who can climb steps but slowly, with pain and needing to rest half-way will now be graded the same as a mountain climber. This was not an inadvertent oversight; it was a specific change from an existing test. Someone sat down and decided to do this.