The law around the war upon the poor….

This is S.I. 2013 No. 276 – Social Security replacement regulations for the work programme. Now what struck me was not so much the legal language but look at the top of the page:

Made 4.19 p.m. on 12th February 2013

Laid before Parliament 6.15 p.m. on 12th February 2013

Coming into force 6.45 p.m. on 12th February 2013

It was “laid before Parliament” at 6:15 and came into force by 6:45pm. So much for meaningful debate. The Court of Appeal criticised the government due to bypassing Parliament, surely they have done it again with these rushed through replacement regulations? Legal issue leads into a wider concern such as sanctioning an individual’s benefit. These people have not committed any criminal offence yet they are being penalised and punished in a serious way i.e. taking away their benefit. But the ConDems don’t care as we can see with them pushing these regulations through Parliament bypassing democracy.

Ideologically, it’s the poor who are being blamed. Unemployed people are blamed for being unemployed. The poor blamed for being in poverty. Mandation and sanctions are giving out this ideological message. Rules of social security operate by secondary legislation, when regulations get rushed through the rules get rushed through. And that’s not good for democracy.

 

 

Harriet struggles while Mister Ed triangulates….

Osborne is continuing class war on the public sector.

The rich will have their pain eased somewhat with the ditching of the 50 pence tax. Though even with NL they didn’t squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked….. Unfortunately!!

With all this happening just what is our illustrious leader of the opposition Mister Ed saying? While don’t ask Harriet Harman, that’s for certain. You see, Mister Ed has this brilliant idea, possibly dawned on him during an Eureka moment sitting in a private box rubbing shoulders with the rich watching the footie, like you do. It’s not anything new… it’s compulsion. You may get paid some pathetic and meagre amount, it’s still compulsion and coercion.

The policy – under which anyone aged between 18-24 and unemployed for a year should be required to do a minimum of 25 hours a week of paid work on a six-month government scheme, or lose their right to benefits – is the toughest welfare measure Miliband has backed since becoming the Labour leader.

Here’s Harriet Harman’s spin on the policy:

However, she struggled when asked the exact cost of the job scheme, saying: “I haven’t got quite the … I know that we have worked out that figure, I’ll have to get back to you on that, but it would finance all those who have been unemployed for more than 12 months.

“I haven’t got that actual figure to hand, but I can absolutely assure you that Ed Balls has, our shadow chancellor, and so has Ed Miliband – so that’s not an issue.”

Well, that’s alright then, the two Eds have the numbers but Harman, dear old Harriet, didn’t have the gumption to ring Ed B or Ed M. and ask either for the costings. Joined up government? Disjointed headless chickens more like.

But let’s go back (yes, let’s) to Mister Ed’s brilliant plan. What happens when there are no jobs in certain areas of the country for young people? Currently this recession is impacting on young people with high levels of unemployment. How the hell is compulsion and coercion gonna instill motivation and incentivisation? It aint. The scheme, one sideward step from workfare, is not about giving people real prospects, support and decent pay it’s about punishment. Mister Ed forever beholden with triangulation continues the lies about “culture of dependency” and desperate measures means more lies in pulling in swing voters. Who cares whether the hideous rubbish being peddled was created by right-wing ideologues with their own nasty axes to grind (Charles Murray et al).

Unfortunately, the leader of the opposition can’t get his head out of the triangulation zone as it is quite a right-wing populist wheeze, vote winner and good fun blaming the unemployed and disabled for the state we are in. Who cares whether the lies peddled has increased negativity, violence, hate crimes and abuse? You know, if the ConDems said they wanted to bludgeon the poor, instead of outrage and disgust, I am sure Mister Ed would let his salivating excitable attack-dog, Liam Byrne, off the leash who would respond by saying that not only would they bludgeon the poor but would make sure there’s jagged sharp edged glass stuck on the end of the bats to cause more pain and damage …. “Yeah, top that ConDems”!

We have no opposition! No challenge of the neoliberal consensus…..just triangulation. Why break a habit of a lifetime.

How to work the benefit system…

There are benefit scroungers who exploit the system but not the ones politicians and the right-wing media say it is. The mounted hysteria that points the collective finger at the unemployed and disabled. No, it’s corporate capitalism, big business. Most readers of this blog would say, “Duh! You don’t say”… But a powerful media peddles a lie where alternative voices are silenced or just ignored. “We have a deficit”, they cry and “tough choices have to be made”… So the constant drip-drip-drip lies saturate the morning papers with the drip-drip-drip whispers of “benefit cheats”, benefit scroungers”, “benefit cheats live in a mansion”, “disabled benefit cheat not really disabled”… “benefit cheats living off the tax payer”… then the whispers build up into an almighty crescendo of hate. That’s how lies are perpetuated.

Obviously, we don’t see headlines splashed with the “rich tax evader living in a mansion at the tax payer’s expense”. Scapegoating is about demonising the powerless not the powerful. Distract people from the bleeding obvious to point the finger at the already vilified.

On the other hand the story still in the shadows is the taxpayer funded gravy train that is the Work Programme. People on Employment and Support Allowance are now getting called to work focussed interviews. The first anecdotal evidence accords with the recent Guardian article. The interviews and the support offered is little more than a session of being moralised at. Often this is done in a group session so as to save the Work Programme provider company as much money as possible. Little seems to be on offer of practical assistance such as provision of free or cheap broadband, transport to interviews etc. There seems to be little interest in either what discovering people have to offer or what are the real obstacles that people face.

The structure of the Work Programme with long chains of prime contractors, a middle “wholesale” level of contractors and then further subcontractors who are supposed to do the supporting all taking a cut. It seems an expensive way of getting a group of people together to receive a dumbed down lecture consisting of bits and pieces of culture of dependency theory.

Perhaps the Taxpayers Alliance would be interested in checking out how much is paid out in management overheads along the Work Programme supply chain?

So what of  JSA? The future is workfare. The future is unpaid labour.
The approach seems to be a turbo-charging of the way the Flexible New Deal was being used to restructure the bottom end of the labour market. In particular there is a pressure put on people to accept 16 to 20 hours work each week. People are told off for wanting full-time jobs. The reason for this pressure is simple. In the world of social security and tax credits 16 or more hours each week counts as full-time work. A person working 16 hours each week can claim JSA. They lose entitlement to this benefit once they work 16 hours each week. Instead they may become entitled to tax credits.

For example say there is 80 hours worth of work going at the local chicken plucking factory. If you get employment for 2 people you only get two people back into work and only collect two lots of payments from the government for reducing the JSA count. If you split the work into 5 lots of 16 hours each week you collect 5 payments from the government.

Now if two people on minimum wage start working 40 hours each week they will be paying tax and national insurance and doing their bit for reducing the deficit. They will be two extra ragged trousered philanthropists channeling money back to the bankers. Their tax credit/housing benefit and council tax benefit entitlements are also much reduced.

The five people working 16 hours each week pay no tax or national insurance between them. They may well be getting a relatively large amount of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

This is the real way to work the benefits system: get yourself a Work Programme contract. Spend some of your plush salary on a photo of Charles Murray to worship.

What is either ignored and hidden away in a liberal leaning newspaper is the realities of this continued class war, such as, “Councils fail to spend thousands earmarked for housing poor tenants” or Local Authority’s cutting social care, rationed or withdrawn completely (this began to happen under NL). Birmingham Council, for example, changed the criteria for care as “super critical”  but backed down after protest  however will still increase its threshold from substantial to critical. It is nothing more than a cut cutting exercise that puts disabled people at risk. See this report about Elaine McDonald to illustrate the barbarity of these cuts.

So there you have it, private companies making a quick buck in profits while the powerless get shafted and blamed…..

Vigil outside Parliament – Welfare Reform Bill

I attended the vigil and lobby outside Parliament regarding the Welfare Reform Bill and the ongoing attacks on welfare benefits.

Workfare … welcome to the nightmare

Every time I go to a supermarket I wonder how many of the staff are on workfare placements and how many are paid a wage. And it is no surprise that retailers are taking liberties when it comes to exploiting unpaid labour especially ones whose profits are nose diving. There’s an excellent piece by Anne-Marie O’Reilly and Warren Clark on plans to extend ‘welfare-to-work’ (it includes first hand experiences of workfare). False Economy will be publishing a series of posts on workfare with journalist Kate Belgrave’s post on workfare in the USA.

Workfare is building momentum. Retailers, councils and charities are seeing unpaid labour as a way of beating the cuts coupled with the ideology of attacking pay and conditions, driving down salaries. Legal challenges are in the pipeline and it will be interesting how the courts interpret “forced labour”. To fight workfare we need an organised political campaign with the trade unions at the forefront as, to reiterate, it’s a wholesale attack on pay and conditions, workers rights, criminalising the unemployed and it’s all ideological. One day we will wake up finding ourselves part of an unpaid labour force.

In the coming months:

People who have been unemployed for more than two years and haven’t secured sustainable employment could be referred onto compulsory community work placements under plans being considered by the Government.

As Boycott Workfare state:

In a clear sign that the government intends to use forced labour to replace the gaps left in public service delivery, the provider guidelines suggest that a community placement would be appropriate at  Local Authorities and Councils, Government Departments and Agencies, Charities and third sector organisations, Social Enterprises, and Environmental Agencies.

If your council isn’t involved in “work placements” there’s a good chance they will be. It is imperative that we put political pressure on councils and councillors to refuse to take part and pledge that they won’t engage  in compulsory work-for-benefits placements. And you may remember Islington Council a couple of months ago stated:

We are also not a work programme contractor, so will be asking the DWP to correct this mistake. The council did look into the programme when it was first announced, but the decision was made many months ago not to proceed. 

Yet look at what they are proposing now, child labour. Gosh…. the stench of the Dickensian is becoming more and more obvious.

Schoolchildren as young as 14 are to be offered adult jobs such as repairing roads and clerical work in a bid to give them a “work ethic”.

Islington council wants to pay new “junior assistants” £25 to work up to eight hours a week, which it hopes will break the cycle of unemployment in deprived areas of the borough.

Council leader Catherine West said: “It may be entry-level jobs like delivering post to schools or helping with highway repairs or photocopying and filing, or making tea and coffee for meetings. These are real council roles and it’s about trying to develop a work ethic earlier than 17 or 18.

“We hope young people can get into jobs before they get a lot of free time on their hands and start mixing with people who may not be the best mentors in the world.” She added that child staff would be supervised by adult workers and hoped the move would lead to the council returning to being the “employer of choice” of local people.

Furthermore

The Labour-run authority faces an £18 million cut in its government grant and will soon sack 140 more staff, but denied using children to fill adult posts. Islington’s bylaws state that 14-year-olds can undertake light work as long as their safety or education is not compromised.

Child labour dressed up as instilling young people with the “work ethic”. This will have an impact specifically on working class young people, working for peanuts when education should be integral not child labour. And this coming from a Labour controlled council! These are shocking proposals and we should be challenging it. Even the opportunistic and hypocritical yellow Tories don’t like it.

Opposition Lib-Dem leader Terry Stacy said: “This project is ill thought-out and a return to Victorian workhouses. How many council roles happen after 5.30pm or on Saturdays? What they should be considering is viable work experience linked to the curriculum.”

Combined with all this:

Contractors delivering the programme also have to gain approval before making any press announcements
Charities and other groups delivering the Work Programme have signed up to a contract that says they will “not do anything which may attract adverse publicity” for the Department for Work and Pensions, Third Sector has learned.

And

The provisions came to light after an employee at a charity delivering the Work Programme, who had been in contact with Third Sector, said she could not speak about the programme because she had learned of the restrictions in the contract.

The provisions are in the contracts between the DWP and the Work Programme’s prime providers. Third Sector understands that the adverse publicity clause has been passed to some charity subcontractors through a condition added by some primes that all terms in their own contracts with the DWP also apply to groups in their supply chains.

Interesting. I wonder if the private companies involved in the work programme have put pressure on the DWP to include this clause? This is a problem when the state brings in the private sector to mess up the public sector.  Private companies will be able to gag you with the bourgeois defamation laws and corporate confidentiality, combined with wielding power and control over people and what they say/write (claimants who speak out and expose the behaviour of contracted-out providers of the benefits system… and the result being they get gagged…). There will be increased secrecy, transparency and accountability will be fundamentally eroded.

Welcome to the dystopian present/future of workfare!

H/T regarding Islington Council and child labour goes to Mark from Boycott Workfare. Boycott Workfare have a meeting tomorrow (unfortunately I can’t attend)

Wednesday 11th January, 7pm, 11 Goodwin Street, Finsbury Park, N4 3HQ

To keep informed about Workfare check Boycott Workfare and Corporate Watch regularly.

The nightmare of “Hard Times” workhouse – a christmas tale

A chill wind blew through the cracks in the already disintegrating new workhouse building. Mister Bumble paced the corridor muttering at the shoddy and shabby peeling paint and silently wishing they hadn’t used unpaid labour to build this workhouse. But it was estimated that thousands would be saved if qualified and skilled labour was junked in favour of unpaid labour. “Oh well”, thought Mister Bumble, “at least my office is warm”. As he walked quickly towards his office shivering as gusts of wind rattled through the windows more cost cutting as insulation and draft excluders are not worth the expense for these people. Mister Bumble shook his head vehemently while pursing his lips thinking about “these people”.

When Mister Bumble attended the job interview for jail keeper (well, in the advertisement said it said, “facility manager”..) he was asked a number of questions by the board of private trustees who run the “facility”. Three of them, one was the Personnel Manager, Mrs. Corney, a middle-aged woman with a pinched face peering intently at Mister Bumble. Mister Limbkins, a rotund man red in face staring at the plate of Hob-Nobs in the centre of the table and Mister Heep, a polar opposite to Mister Limbkins, sitting straight tapping his bony fingers on the table.

“Good morning, Mister Bumble, I am humbled that you could attend at the last moment”, said Mister Heep

“Now, Mister Bumble, the job entails overseeing of this new exciting and efficiently run facility, which, as you know, was only opened recently by Iain Duncan-Smith”, cooed Mrs Corney

“Do you think you have the capabilities for this job, Mister Bumble”? asked Mister Limbkins

“You must also have some knowledge of the type of people being admitted here”, sniffed Mrs Corney

“Yes”, interjected Mister Heep, “these people, they just don’t try. There are jobs, unpaid jobs. But will they take them”?

Mister Limbkins tutted and shook his enormous head, “Indeed Mister Heep, they won’t do what they are told. They demand pay and conditions. PAY AND CONDITIONS”! shrieked Mister Limbkins spluttering bits of biscuits.

“Workshy, that’s what they are. Scroungers too. They want their benefits but won’t do anything, just lounge about at home, watching Jeremy Kyle and going out shopping in Oxford Street. SHOPPING IN OXFORD STREET”… Mister Limbkins coughed violently and looked like a coronary was on the cards.

“Well, the ConDems soon put an end to that nonsense. If these lazy workshy scroungers couldn’t get a job then NO BENEFITS, and the workhouse”, grinned Mrs Corney

“An absolute money saver, no shelling out benefits or housing benefits or tax credits or disability benefits. Just warehouse the lazy blighters in this state of the art detention centre”, said Mister Heep

“Ha! Erm…no Mister Heep, I think you mean state of the art facility”, interrupted Mister Limbkins.

“Oh yes, humble apologies”, stated a startled and embarrassed Mister Heep

“Well, Mister Bumble, do you think you keep these lazy miscreants in order”? asked Mrs Corney

Mister Bumble sat there, he too was staring at the ever diminishing plate of HobNobs, eventually breaking out of the spell of the desire for biscuits and chocolate and nodded his head.

“Of course I can, it is important to instill order and discipline and I can keep my beady eye on these scroungers. Making sure they work their fingers to the bone for their keep”, maintained Mister Bumble….

That all seemed like an eternity as Mister Bumble sat in his luxury well heated office. Unfortunately, his room couldn’t keep out the cheap and nasty stench of the food given to the inmates. Fortunately, for Mister Mumble his food was tasty and aromatic. He was pleased with himself, he had passed his probation period, discipline and order was top priority and this workhouse has been awarded most productive (though there had been rebellions which thankfully with the help of the TSG, water canons and plastic bullets was quelled quickly).

“Oh yes,” thought Mister Bumble as he sat back on his chair, “another year is ending and another is approaching. The workhouse, ah yes, the way forward for the 21st century, totally breaks the human spirit”… He checked his drawer just to be on the safe-side that it was well stocked with plastic bullets and tasers… just in case, you know some aren’t broken enough.

Merry Christmas to you all…..And a happy New Year

War on the poor: then and now

Map of Shoreditch workhouse

My partner, Tony, told me that his father had a real fear of the workhouse. He once showed Tony a workhouse. Workhouses didn’t exist any longer when Tony was growing up but his father was fearful of them. I asked Tony whether any of his ancestors was in a workhouse, he said he didn’t know. On the spur of the moment, I checked the 1881 Census and there was one of Tony’s relatives an “inmate” at the Late Shoreditch Industrial School, Brentwood. He lived with his parents in Shoreditch during the 1871 Census yet by 1881 he was at the Industrial School. What had happened in those intervening years? I couldn’t find any documentation at the London Metropolitan Archives to find any answers or a clue why he ended up there. I did find the original register for 1877 onwards, and he’s featured there. Entering the “school” at 10 (there are two dates regarding his birth) and eventually being “discharged” at the age of 16 (though he may have been 14).

As I was reading through the endless names of the children registered I became overwhelmed at the sheer number of boys and girls. Their name is entered, district, religion and discharged or death date. Thankfully, Tony’s relative was discharged, unfortunately many were not so fortunate. I wondered still why he had gone there. I was told that there may be an explanation if I read the 1867 minutes of the Board of this “school” but it was still a long shot. But no, nothing.

The 1834 Poor Law Act made arrangements for the education of paupers. Children were separated from their parents. I assume Charles (Tony’s great-great grand father) the same happened to him, his father was a “wood carver” (documented in the 1871 Census). Could he no longer afford to keep his children? I read some truly horrific stories of new mothers being separated from their babies. The sheer harshness and brutality of these hell holes made me shudder. Industrial Schools had the Protestant work ethic at the forefront of its ideology. Children who were destitute but who had not as yet committed any serious crime. Originally, Industrial School were voluntary but the The Industrial Schools Act of 1857 changed that:

This gave magistrates the power to sentence children between the ages of 7 and 14 years old to a spell in one of these institutions. The act dealt with those children who were brought before the courts for vagrancy in other words for being homeless. In 1861 a further act was passed and different categories of children were included:

Any child apparently under the age of fourteen found begging or receiving alms [money or goods given as charity to the poor].
Any child apparently under the age of fourteen found wandering and not having any home or visible means of support, or in company of reputed thieves.
Any child apparently under the age of twelve who, having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment or less.
Any child under the age of fourteen whose parents declare him to be beyond their control.(5)
The act stated the child had to be ‘apparently’ under the age of fourteen. This was because children often lied about their age if it was advantageous for them to do so. Some children genuinely did not know how old they were. It was not until 1875 that it became compulsory to register births.

I don’t know if Charles committed any crime (I still can look at court reports of that time). He may have become destitute, along with his siblings and parents, and ended up in one of these “schools”. Again, it is possible to check documentation of workhouses in that period and I may find the parents of Charles.

Boys were taught a specific trade (Charles’s occupation in the 1891 Census is “cabinet maker”) while girls were taught washing, housework, knitting and sewing. Girls being taught in the traditional Victorian way on how to be a woman.

Brentwood School was established in the 1850s but by the 1890s was subject of a scandal. A girl “inmate” died of her injuries after being pushed down the stairs. Nurse Elizabeth Gillespie went to jail.

Regime of terror that had reigned for many years, with the head mistress giving the girls black eyes and beating them with a ruler.

These institutions were an excuse for violence and abuse as these children were possibly deemed as nothing of importance, their life was of no value or consequence. Parishes were giving these ne’er do wells an education. The ideology of these “schools” operated like prisons therefore it’s not surprising in the least that cruelty and violence was part of the bargain. Children being punished for being poor yet given a very basic education, without any care or compassion. Victorian paternalistic and moralistic society was extremely barbaric and cruel if you were poor and destitute. I wondered what horrors Charles had witnessed or experienced? It seems like the fear of the workhouse was passed down the generations. This “school” was eventually shut down and became a hospital.

There are parallels with then and now, along with the fear that history will repeat itself. Poor being punished for being poor. We may have moved on socially and politically from those bad oh-sad-oh days of Victorian society. But the whiff of the workhouse politics is never too far away. Demonising the poor with politicians lying about benefit claimants. Unemployment rising specifically for young people and women. Jobs disappearing yet Tories blame the unemployed accusing them of “popping out to the shops when they should be looking for work”.. This bilge was uttered Wandsworth housing leader, Paul Ellis, as he passed plans to evict unemployed tenants from council houses. New council tenants will be told they will lose their homes unless they get a job or enrol in a training scheme.

On top of the draconian plans to make the unemployed homeless, Cameron wants to force claimants to do community work or else they will lose their meagre benefits. More exploitation and blaming for the unemployed for not looking hard enough to find a job. ConDems do not want to take responsiblity for the fact the jobs are just NOT OUT THERE!

So it’s more conditionality, coercion, exploitation and sanctions. In the 19th century there was no welfare state to support people yet that is hanging from a thread with various greedy private sector companies circling like nasty little vultures that they are. The lies and vilification continue while people get poorer, it is estimated 133,000 households in capital will be unable to afford their rent under proposed welfare reforms, according to London Councils. Depressingly, people are increasingly using food banks when benefit payments are delayed, according to the Trussell Trust.

We have people who are going without food in order to feed their children sometimes for days, for all sorts of different reasons, but fundamentally because their incomes are too low to support their basic needs of housing, clothing and food.
And the bureaucratic support that’s available simply takes too long to kick into gear on occasions.’

And of course we have this hilarious Big Society con which is all about cuts and privatisation, voluntary sector and private sector taking over. What really worries me is dismantling the welfare state and the public sector you end up with a society based on Dickensian Poor Law legislation, industrial schools and workhouses. Private and voluntary organisations deciding whether you are deserving or undeserving poor. ConDems and NL obsessed with this ridiculous lie called “culture of dependency”. Sometimes I feel we are sleep walking to Serco run workhouses and that there will be modern-day versions of Tony’s ancestor, Charles.

Interesting article about the conditions of a workhouse in Shoreditch

NB: I discovered that Charles’s mum, Frances Elizabeth died in 1875 and he ended in as an “inmate” at his Industrial School. I also find a reference to Charles’s father, John, in the 1911 Census where he is still an “inmate” at Shoreditch workhouse, described  as a “wood carver” and “widower”. He was 79.  He died in 1918, in Shoreditch, not sure where.