Weekend Edition - Saturday 5th and Sunday 6th March 2016

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 7:11 am

Good morning, fledglings!

I see HindleA picked up on Baron Gidiot's latest non-U-turn, and here we go again.....
Get a minion to announce some draconian thing there's no intention of doing, watch the media go into meltdown, don't do the thing that wasn't going to be done, announce something not quite so awful which was always the plan, get kudos for being sensible/kind/whatevs.
In this case, pensions, no change. So he'll punish the poor again/still and be lauded as a genius.

I also see that Cartoonist Sir King God Rowson has put up another wonderful artwork - this time on the Murdoch/Hall wedding.
Boris will be there. And the Govefish. And Rebekah Brooks. I'll be interested to see who else is there from the government.....

The Facebook tax deal is a joke.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 8:10 am

Morning.

Following on from one of my comments to seeingclearly last night...

Hard to believe I know, but you're correct, IDS has at times railed against Osborne's demands for even more punitive cuts...

I suppose I ought to put the record straight or at least provide a more balanced argument. I obviously have second hand knowledge, i.e. as reported by a journalist at the G; I forget which one but not important. Anyway it is of course possible that George wasn't actually demanding more draconian cuts to benefits, or assistance as I prefer. He may have been demanding greater savings from his department. After all, IDS has not been blessed with great intelligence, or so it is alleged, and pretty well all of his reforms or changes have cost more than they save or at the very least an awful lot more than expected.

Hard to believe I know, but I'm just too kind. I now appear to be defending yet another perfidious character.

Edit: I missed the all important quote from yesterday.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 8:51 am

Morning.

Scottish Tory leader abandons call for lower taxes
Ruth Davidson has undertaken U-turn after learning George Osborne is considering deeper spending cuts
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... eeper-cuts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At least she is connecting the two issues - Cameron and others have made an art of disowning cuts have anything to do with them - let alone that there is any choice to be had re raising taxes and further cuts.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 8:52 am

"IDS has at times railed against Osborne's demands for even more punitive cuts"

Yes, he has. He has often complained about what he sees as interference from the Chancellor. He doesn't want his budget cut like everyone else's.
He wants ALL the kudos that his acolytes can give him and he doesn't want it going to Osborne - he'll make his own punitive cuts, thanks.

He also wants to be seen as a social reformer - so if he makes a fuss when nasty Gidiot cuts his "support" for the poor, he can continue to pretend that he's a nice guy really and has only the best interests of the workless and feckless at heart. Then he implements the cuts anyway....

In other news......George Eustice, farming minister, is for Brexit. This is because he really cares about animals.
He cares about them so much that he has extended the badger cull despite all the evidence that it isn't working to eradicate bovine TB.

He has opined that if farm animals had a vote in the referendum they would vote for Brexit.
He reckons that all the cash saved (yes, saved) by not contributing to the EU would mean better conditions for cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens because that money could go to farmers to compensate them for looking after their animals.

These people are MAD.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 9:03 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Scottish Tory leader abandons call for lower taxes
Ruth Davidson has undertaken U-turn after learning George Osborne is considering deeper spending cuts
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... eeper-cuts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At least she is connecting the two issues - Cameron and others have made an art of disowning cuts have anything to do with them - let alone that there is any choice to be had re raising taxes and further cuts.

Ruth Davidson is one of those Tories who leave me wondering why they are Tories. Heidi Allen's another.

OGRPPFGTCC and his merry band of backstabbers are beyond arrogant on this - the "art of disowning cuts" is what they attempt, but when it all falls apart (eg. council leaders' letter, Mama and Aunt signing petitions) and they run out of people to blame, Osborne finds a few hundred million down the back of the sofa and it all goes quiet again.

Given the (albeit only a few) noises of disgruntlement from some Tories on the cuts, I wonder if we might see a few more old-style Tories having a pop at the idiots in the cabinet.
Whatever I think about the current crop of Blue Meanies, the likes of Macmillan wouldn't recognise the likes of Cameron in terms of policy and ideology, IMHO.

I have an overwhelming urge right now to vote for Brexit just to give Slimy Dave a bloody nose. Common (market? sorry...) sense will prevail on the day, as I cannot imagine what our future would be like outside the EU.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 9:19 am

Locals in Tory constituency offered £180 bribes (of taxpayers’ money) to support fracking
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/03/ ... -fracking/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently you're not eligible to attend the 'workshop' on fracking if you are known to be anti.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 9:29 am

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/sutton ... -1-7774661" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Sutton family’s disgust as disabled toddler not allowed on a bus

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 9:35 am

@ephemerid

Thanks for restoring normal service, ephe, I was of course being far too kind. Am I allowed to say, "Calm down, dear"? I only ask since high blood-pressure has become a recurrent theme, not least my own.

Regarding casting blame, the perfidy of this government knows no bounds, they are all responsible. However it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that there has been a nucleus of ministers at the heart of this and the last government that all remain in the same office, Dave, George and Idiot. That is of course not forgetting the little lady they leave at Home. Far too many other front-benchers come to mind plus the odd reappearance of former disgraced ministers who occasionally pop out of their bolt-holes. How any of them deserve or remain in politics even after elections is beyond me.

As for 'compassionate' or old-style Tories, where the fuck are they given pig-botherer only has a majority of twelve? Each and every one of them is culpable.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 10:20 am

Good morfternoon.

@rebeccariots2

What's the skinny on the roof situation?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 10:29 am

It seems that Dan Jarvis has reassured us that he is just "contributing to a debate" and no leadership moves are imminent.

Well, that's nice to know then. Though it does make you wonder why he has just accepted a wodge of cash from some hedge fund.......

And is the "senior Labour MP" quoted as talking up his prospects in recent days the same person as the "shadow cabinet member" who rubbished Jez on a regular basis until - for some strange reason - such briefings abruptly ceased at the start of this year? I think we should be told, though we don't really need to be

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 10:44 am

Glad to see Harman has eliminated male prostitution.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 10:51 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/sutton ... -1-7774661.

Sutton family’s disgust as disabled toddler not allowed on a bus

Good example of how the law can only go so far and that civilised society depends, at the end of the day, on all people playing their part and being civil. As a bus driver, my husband has encountered many incidences like this. On a good day, other passengers on the bus will back him up and shame obstructors into giving way, but if they refuse to move he has no power to compel them. The law requires buses to provide access and space for a wheelchair but there is no law against other customers occupying that space so the system is essentially relying on courtesy. Having said that, my husband has on occasion had to turn wheelchair users away because there are already maximum wheelchair users on board and that is just as frustrating for those who have to wait for another bus, just as it is for anyone who is left at the bus stop because the bus is full. So the answer is probably more buses and more adaptable spaces so more people, with pushchairs and wheelchairs, with suitcases or bulky purchases, can all travel conveniently and safely and courtesy once again becomes those little extra attentions that makes a journey pleasant rather than a necessity you are relying on in order to make a journey at all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 11:00 am

Protesters block streets over plan to embed job advisers with GPs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 11:29 am

HindleA wrote:Protesters block streets over plan to embed job advisers with GPs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No comments allowed, I note, again.....

The "Remploy employment coaches" who will be delivering this, erm, support are apparently "trained job coaches" who will be allowed to write their reports in the patients' medical notes.
If they can write in them, they have access to them and can read them too. This is a breach of patient confidentiality, and I am appalled that GPs are allowing this in their surgeries.
Islington CCG claim that the scheme is voluntary and no claimant will have to engage with it. Yeah right - for now, maybe.

At some point, I have no doubt that a GP will "prescribe" this scheme to a patient, who will then feel obliged to accept this as treatment. It's bad enough that Jobcentres are "hosting" outsourced IAPT services, and there are sanctions for non-compliance with DWP-imposed therapies as well as disallowances for people who are judged not to be doing all they can to improve their health and make themselves more employable - now it seems DWP will fund Maximus-owned Remploy staff to harass people in the one place where they should be able to expect medical care with no other interference.

To cap it all, there may be a national roll-out with no evaluation of the pilot. It's disgraceful.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 11:44 am

HindleA wrote:Protesters block streets over plan to embed job advisers with GPs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“This local pilot which is entirely voluntary, offers patients (including those who may have experienced mental health problems) the opportunity to be referred for employment advice and guidance if they feel that a return to work would be beneficial.

Why would someone who is unemployed and reliant on benefits need to be "referred" for employment advice and guidance if they wanted to get back to work? In a normal world such advice would be freely accessible to all who requested it. Indeed, when jobcentres were first invented in the 90s, they were designed as an access point for people to gain help in finding employment, and people used them enthusiastically as a means to find good, local jobs. How have we gotten to a place where such a concept as being "referred" for job advice can be expressed in all seriousness? Like "employment advice" is a rare speciality that only the most needy can expect to access? It seems clear that what is intended by this measure is not voluntary access to "employment advice" as stated because such access should be a stock fundamental of all jobcentres and freely available to any "willing volunteer" already because otherwise, what on earth are jobcentres for? (Don't answer that! I'm asking that in a theoretical sense where the face the government presents to the world isn't a false one and what they say, rather than do, is hypothetically expected to make sense!)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 11:55 am

ephemerid wrote:
HindleA wrote:Protesters block streets over plan to embed job advisers with GPs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To cap it all, there may be a national roll-out with no evaluation of the pilot. It's disgraceful.

If there's no evaluation, then that's not my (or most other people's) idea of a pilot scheme. It's more a "let's see if we can get away with it" scheme.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 12:09 pm

ephemerid wrote:
HindleA wrote:Protesters block streets over plan to embed job advisers with GPs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No comments allowed, I note, again.....

The "Remploy employment coaches" who will be delivering this, erm, support are apparently "trained job coaches" who will be allowed to write their reports in the patients' medical notes.
If they can write in them, they have access to them and can read them too. This is a breach of patient confidentiality, and I am appalled that GPs are allowing this in their surgeries.
Islington CCG claim that the scheme is voluntary and no claimant will have to engage with it. Yeah right - for now, maybe.

At some point, I have no doubt that a GP will "prescribe" this scheme to a patient, who will then feel obliged to accept this as treatment. It's bad enough that Jobcentres are "hosting" outsourced IAPT services, and there are sanctions for non-compliance with DWP-imposed therapies as well as disallowances for people who are judged not to be doing all they can to improve their health and make themselves more employable - now it seems DWP will fund Maximus-owned Remploy staff to harass people in the one place where they should be able to expect medical care with no other interference.

To cap it all, there may be a national roll-out with no evaluation of the pilot. It's disgraceful.

It's bullying. Making people feel guilty when they're sat in the doctors.

I'm hoping my doc doesn't do anything like that. I think I'd have to tell him that as a retiree it didn't actually affect me, but I didn't agree with it, and couldn't in all conscience use his surgery whilst it was in operation ....

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 12:31 pm

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/03/ ... s-savings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Service user outcomes ‘at risk’ from council plans to target personal budgets for savings
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/personali ... cial-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 12:41 pm

It is appropriation of hard fought for bottom up struggles for self directed care they even nabbed the language.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 12:46 pm

In an attempt to answer Willow's rhetorical question......

People who are unemployed and reliant on benefits are already getting "support" from Jobcentre Plus - they are, as we all know, required to comply with signing on (know known as the "fortnightly intervention") every two weeks at least; in some cases, daily.
People who are too ill to work but capable of unspecified "work related activity" are already getting "support" from Jobcentre Plus in the form of mandatory work-focused interviews, workfare, and "therapy" from outsourced "healthcare" providers.
People who are lone parents and not working are required to claim JSA not IS when the youngest child reaches 5 (to be reduced under UC) so they too are getting the "support" provided by Jobcentre Plus including the "incentive" of sanctions.

People who are ill but in work are now subject to the government's Health and Work Service, run by a subsidiary of Maximus, whose staff phone people at home and decide on the basis of no medical examination that the person is fit to come back to work.
People who claim ESA but still have a job to go to when they recover and are only claiming because they have no entitlement to sick pay must have a Maximus WCA and must also comply with the usual WRAG rules if they are allocated to that group.
People who have severe illness or disability who do not claim out-of-work benefits but who do get high rates of DLA/PIP have no jobsearch conditions to comply with - and if they want to work they can ask to see a DEA....at a jobcentre!

Obviously, all this applies to people who have the misfortune to be claiming Universal Credit in similar circumstances. They're just even poorer.

So who's left? Who isn't currently being hassled by DWP to look for work? Who gets to claim benefit and not have to do stupid stuff?
The answer is - Support Group claimants.

More people are now - rightly - being allocated to the SG after their first WCA. The fuckwits at DWP say that this demonstrates the success of the Mandatory Consideration of Reveiw; ie. after Maximus gets it as wrong as often as Atos used to (mainly because they're the same people doing the same job under a new boss) more people get the right grouping.

Well, Hoo-fucking-ray! For the first time since ESA came in, really ill people are very slightly more likely to get the right level of benefit!
Obviously, this simply won't do, will it?
So now DWP, having assured us all that it really really cares, because lookee here at all these poorly people getting their money, has to go rapidly into reverse and sort it out.
If a claimant who is in the SG decided to do some work they will prove that they can. Thus they should be claiming JSA. They are not incapable of work because they've done some.

The reason why MH patients are being targeted - not just with this GP surgery thing, but with enforced "therapies" - is because they may not be physically incapacitated (well, to the ignorant, perhaps).
It would cause an uproar if people with obvious and serious physical illness were expected to work - DWP does not insist that someone in deep coma or having spinal chemo looks for work (though it has been known for them to be found fit for work on occasion).
But the idea that work is therapeutic for MH patients is gaining traction - even though it is manifestly unsuitable for some people - and that's what this is about. IDS is convinced that work is the universal panacea for all ills, and he's starting with MH.

About 40% of SG claimants have a MH condition. If those people are moved from SG to WRAG, they will be subject to jobsearch conditionality and the sanctions that go with it.
About 60% of all ESA WRAG sanctions are imposed on people with a MH condition. At one point, the rate of such sanctions was about 100 a week, average length 12 weeks.

I suspect that this initiative, like so many others, is aimed at reducing the claimant count for ESA.
IDS has tried - changing descriptors; changing forms; changing the assessments; changing the appeals system; making various things mandatory; imposing sanctions; limiting the time for conts-based WRAG; cutting the value of ESA under Universal Credit; and cutting WRAG payment.
And still the poorly people come, in the same numbers as they have for many years.
Where better to stop them than the doctors' surgery? Hassle the busy GP to pass the patients on to "support", convince the (often suggestible) MH patients that work is good for them - and bingo! Out of the SG and on to JSA and sanctions.
Obviously, really ill people won't cope with what is required of them. They'll get sent off to mandatory training or workfare, have a meltdown, and if they do the 3 times they get nowt for 3 years.

IDS must be rubbing his grubby hands with glee.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 12:46 pm

Control,discretion as we see fit with the language of choice.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 12:53 pm

As promised, my take on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill: Impact Assessment to remove the ESA Work-Related Activity Component and the UC Limited Capability for Work Element for new claims (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impa ... 5-006B.pdf).

Firstly let me repeat an extract from IDS' letter to MPs about the Lords demands for a report of its impact, who obviously deem that what has so far been furnished is insufficient.

Second, they seek to undermine prevent [sic] the reform from taking effect until the Secretary of State publishes a report covering the impacts on a person's health, finances and ability to return to work. The majority of what is being proposed will be impossible to provide through our analysis prior to these reforms being implemented, as has been repeatedly expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. This is because the currently available data does not allow us to make any meaningful estimate of such impacts. What is possible for the Government to provide in advance of implementation - the estimated financial effect of the reforms - has already been published in the Bill's impact assessment on 20 July 2015.

I am on record as having previously stated that I have not seen national governmental risk assessments or impact assessment prior to the coalition and criticised how scant they be and their failure to address the issues. Similarly I am critical of this government's attitude to so-called red tape, generally in the form of safeguards that have taken years of practice and development to establish. I have seen many business and local government reports and change analyses, indeed have written some myself for the provision of bespoke software or computerised business services. Personally I feel this shower are lazy, incompetent and deliberately hide the truth. I cannot believe the Civil Service are entirely responsible, indeed there has been a purge of experienced staff.

Anyway just to inspire confidence the first thing of note about this impact assessment is that it comprises only 7 pages and 3 of these are half ones, so hardly an in-depth analysis. It begins with a two page summary of intervention and options, including the following.

What policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation? Please justify preferred option (further details in Evidence Base)

Two options were considered: (1) No change; (2) Removing the ESA WRAG component and the UC LCW element for new claims. Option 1 will not improve incentives to move closer to the labour market. Option 2 will further improve work incentives for those on benefits; There is a large body of evidence showing that work is generally good for physical and mental wellbeing and that, where their health condition permits, sick and disabled people should be encouraged and supported to remain in or to (re)-enter work as soon as possible. We have, however, created a number of incentives which can prolong the length of time an individual is out of work. The longer an individual remains out of work, the more likely ‘out of work’ behaviours are to become ingrained, unconscious ‘habits’ and become a factor hindering an individual’s return to the labour market. While UC helps to address some of these issues through its inbuilt work incentives, the disparity in financial payments could discourage claimants with potential to work from making the most of opportunities to help them move closer to the labour market. We therefore want to remove these disincentives while at the same time providing additional practical support to such claimants to help them move closer to employment.

Please note that "Option 1 will not improve incentives to move closer to the labour market" is all that is said on the matter with no mention or analysis of existing factors that may already benefit or achieve desired results. That's it, other than the disincentives listed under option 2 that finishes with, "We therefore want to remove these disincentives while at the same time providing additional practical support to such claimants to help them move closer to employment." What additional practical support? Other than funding it is never discussed. Moving on...

Will the policy be reviewed? It will not be reviewed. If applicable, set review date: NA

Which is then signed off by the responsible minister dated 20/07/2015.

I appreciate I said there was no further discussion of option 1 but the summary of analysis and evidence begins with a section headed 'Policy Option 1' with an estimated annual cost of £640m in 2020/21. which is shown as Exchequer savings later in the document.

The rest of the report quantifies the notional loss of income to claimants, notional because it applies to new claims with no analysis of its financial or social impact. Indeed thinking back to the bedroom Tax impact assessment there was even a section labelled Social Impact, filled in with N/A.

This from the Impact on Families and Life chances section particularly riles.

Although the proposed policy changes involve a notional reduction in Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit, we believe they are a means of achieving the policy aim of incentivising and helping those claimants with some potential for work to return to work.

It's that word 'believe' that especially riles given there is no mention other than funding of the purported additional support.

In addition the Budget provides new funding for practical support for ESA/UC claimants to make the move towards and into work, rising from £60m in 2017/18 to £100m a year in 2020/21.

I'm bemused, what new funding? in 2020/2021 the notional costs of doing nothing already match the forecast exchequer savings.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 1:08 pm

The created increased incentive to attempt to get into the Support Group seems to have conveniently passed them by...for now.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 1:17 pm

Dithyramb

Purely posted because it was a new word for me and method of using it.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 1:42 pm

Thanks, utopiandreams.

This really pisses me off - "... policy involves a NOTIONAL reduction...."
It's not bloody "notional" - it's actual.
Notional means not existing in reality, an idea, a suggestion (OED).

These non-existent suggested notional cuts are real actual cuts.
The aim is - allegedly - to incentivise people who have "some potential for work" to return to work.
It's the "potential for work" that's notional, FFS.

These claimants are not people who need incentives - they are people who, even by the warped twisted standards of DWP, are too ill to work yet.
They may have "potential" but they don't have actual ability.

This sort of nonsense is yet another debasement of our language and is disingenuous in the extreme. It's propaganda. Fascist propaganda.

This government, the last, and not a few Labour people agree with all this shit. We have quite a low number of people claiming sickness benefits in the UK - it works out at about 12% in total of the working-age population, but of those less than half claim long-term. That's not bad, you know.

This mob of bastards in charge are determined to stop ill people getting the financial help they need - and they're doing it by calling punishment and impoverishment "incentives" and "support".

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 1:42 pm

Thanks Ephemerid, a very illuminating explanation of what the DWP is up to. That use of the word "voluntary", though, makes things awkward for them as it does raise the question of why support group claimants with mental health issues or whatever can't just "volunteer" to avail themselves of employment advice at the jobcentre. There's no real explanation as to why these experts need to be in a doctor's surgery or why they need access to medical information beyond what the "volunteer" volunteers to give them. If a mental health (or any) patient has been signed off work by a doctor, that should be enough for an employment advisor to advise them to concentrate on getting well before trying to get a job and then help them explore options strictly for the future only. In a normal world, that is, where GPs are qualified professionals whose judgement can be trusted as opposed to Tory world where one minute they are the only people responsible enough to commission for the NHS and the next they are bribable quacks who hand out sick notes like (very expensive) confetti.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 2:19 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone.

@rebeccariots2
Hope the roof is okay - my love to your family

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 2:32 pm

Best laugh I've had for a while ...

[youtube]uJiDG-n5oPM[/youtube]

Jeremy Hunt: The Last Leg Tries To Present Health Secretary With His 'Dick Of The Year Award'
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 2:35 pm

Thank you for the enquiries about the roof. Mr Riots was up on it shortly after 8am ... and has repaired the slate that had slipped. We are now back to full roof satisfaction.

I've just been to a very funny and lively branch Labour meeting. We were at one stage gently told off for talking politics .... cue huge laughter and continuation of the conversation.

Bit shocked to be told that the word is local farmers are pretty much determined to vote to come out of the EU - and the NFU and FUW are starting to worry.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 2:38 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... ed-uk-says" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Myrtle Cothill: 92-year-old widow will not be removed, UK says

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 2:42 pm

Simon Danczuk - You’re Nicked
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... icked.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 2:42 pm

Willow904 wrote:Thanks Ephemerid, a very illuminating explanation of what the DWP is up to. That use of the word "voluntary", though, makes things awkward for them as it does raise the question of why support group claimants with mental health issues or whatever can't just "volunteer" to avail themselves of employment advice at the jobcentre. There's no real explanation as to why these experts need to be in a doctor's surgery or why they need access to medical information beyond what the "volunteer" volunteers to give them. If a mental health (or any) patient has been signed off work by a doctor, that should be enough for an employment advisor to advise them to concentrate on getting well before trying to get a job and then help them explore options strictly for the future only. In a normal world, that is, where GPs are qualified professionals whose judgement can be trusted as opposed to Tory world where one minute they are the only people responsible enough to commission for the NHS and the next they are bribable quacks who hand out sick notes like (very expensive) confetti.

Well, Willow - there is a reason why there's no real explanation as to why these "experts" (they're not experts, obviously) need to be there in a GPs surgery.
That reason s because there IS no explanation for it - for all the reasons we agree on. The "support" (such as it is) is already available to people who want it.

I used to work in a jobcentre. It was a long time ago, and even then the training for staff wasn't much good. It's no better now.
The DWP staff are there to sanction and harass. The word used by DWP management in the Select Committee hearings is "agitate".
They have targets for sanctions, they have targets to fail 80% of recons for sanctions, and they have no targets for job placements.

There are no more local staff taking local vacancies for local employers - all that knowledge and skill has been replaced with UJM.
There are no real employment advisers any more - that's mainly done by Work Programme providers now, who are useless.
There is no local benefit processing or decision making - that's all done in Benefit Delivery and Benefit Integrity Centres.
DEAs are disappearing, and the replacement appears to be outsourced IAPT, "therapy", and other ridiculous and useless crapola.

All that's left for JCP staff to do is "agitate" the claimants whilst competing for gold star sheriff badges and chocolate eggs.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 2:44 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... ed-uk-says
Myrtle Cothill: 92-year-old widow will not be removed, UK says

I'd like to think the U turn was made for the best of reasons and they might have learnt a valuable lesson about considering things in the round when such circumstances arise. Sadly the cynic in me thinks it's mainly to do with the dreadful PR. Never mind - she can stay and that is very good news for her and her family here.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:06 pm

Of course, as a Support Group claimant myself, I have no jobsearch conditionality.

This does not prevent the not-nearest-to-me jobcentre in Hereford sending me a letter every 6 months letting me know that I can get support to find work from them any time and they have all manner of things that will help me to engage with the world of work.

The tone of the letters is not threatening, but nowhere in them does it say that the sender is aware that I am in the SG and thus do not have to look for work. In a panic, a person could be forgiven for thinking they have to phone up for an appointment....

Personally, I would not set foot inside a jobcentre. Because I don't have to. Neither does any other SG claimant.
That's why this is so nasty - people like me don't have to go to jobcentres, but we do have to go to the GP or clinic frequently. Even if I don't have any exacerbations or some new problem, I have to attend my surgery at least 6 times a year for clinics/tests/vaccines/drug reviews etc.

What worries me is how the people who are being targeted here are going to be identified.
How is the GP going to refer people?
There will be patients like me who have not had to call upon their GPs for DWP evidence - in fact, I don't know if my GP knows I'm on ESA now.
Will the patients have to consent?
Presumably they will - then how can any doctor be certain that the patient isn't just agreeing to do this because they think it's part of their care?
Some GPs are not simpatico.

The Islington practice where the pilot is happening is part of the new semi-privatised English NHS. I wonder if they're being paid for this?
This whole thing scares me rigid. One of the few places where poorly people can go for help being occupied by bloody Maximus.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:17 pm

There is a large body of evidence showing that work is generally good for physical and mental wellbeing and that, where their health condition permits, sick and disabled people should be encouraged and supported to remain in or to (re)-enter work as soon as possible. We have, however, created a number of incentives which can prolong the length of time an individual is out of work. The longer an individual remains out of work, the more likely ‘out of work’ behaviours are to become ingrained, unconscious ‘habits’ and become a factor hindering an individual’s return to the labour market. While UC helps to address some of these issues through its inbuilt work incentives, the disparity in financial payments could discourage claimants with potential to work from making the most of opportunities to help them move closer to the labour market. We therefore want to remove these disincentives while at the same time providing additional practical support to such claimants to help them move closer to employment.

Thank you UD for your clear analysis. I would like to point out that the above paragraph is what incensed me so much yesterday, and to explain why it did so. Here you have something that purports to be a risk assessment, but embedded in it is this parapraph which is not objective at all, but is in fact an ideological stance and a justification for taking punitive measures against sick and disabled people as if in some way they are flawed characters who need to be metaphorically flogged to get them to the right position of accepting rather than refusing work.

As such I utterly reject this paragraph, and believe that thinking people should do so too. What and where is the evidence for the statement that work is generally good for sick and disabled people? How is herding such people closer to a work solution regardless of their actual condition or the state of welcome they will receive in the workplace going to affect their mental and/or physical condition? What is the justification for the term 'out of work behaviours'?

It is a sickening bit of cant, imo. It bears no resemblance to a risk assessment, there are no elements of genuine evaluation there, no separating of people with conditions that will progressively worsen with time from those who have a reasonable chance of recovery. There is nothing in this document that does anything other than produce a kind of eyewash for those who do not want or refuse to see how wrong this all is. From what other group of people could they effectively remove at a stroke a third of non housing related income with no cause? The answer is none. Even the JSA group have to be sanctioned for a perceived (albeit sometimes spurious) offence. Here the word used to justify the cut is 'disincentive' which implies as the entire paragraph does that sickness and disability are a behavioural issue that needs correction. This is the entireity of it, and I am angry beyond words that this disreputable inhumane policy is being forced upon the nations disabled and ill population at their time of need.

I am unable to join the real life fight against this, I can only do it with words and not be out there with the precious few who are trying to make a difference. I just wish that more would join them because this ideology could reach out and affect anyone at the point in birth or sickness or old age at ehich they have a reasonable expectation that this great and democratic country would be there for them, and instead will find this ideology of fear punishment and blame awaits them.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:18 pm

Home Office drops its threat to remove severely ill woman to her birth country of South Africa, where she has no relatives

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... ed-uk-says" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The simple gratitude expressed is deeply moving.
I love people.
We're capable of beautiful, loving-kindness.
There's no harm in loving like a child.
Friendliness, neighbourliness, cooperative effort - the profit from them is invaluable.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:24 pm

http://www.islingtonccg.nhs.uk/news-art ... -pilot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rking Better - Media statement

04 March 2016
The Working Better pilot is a voluntary programme run by Islington Council offering advice and guidance to patients who have expressed an interest in returning to work.

This local pilot which is entirely voluntary was developed following work to understand the experiences of local people. Patients (including those who may have experienced mental health problems) are offered the opportunity to be referred for employment advice and guidance if they feel that a return to work would be beneficial.

Employment coaches are provided by Remploy, and involvement in this local pilot will have no impact whatsoever on receipt of benefits. This is made clear by the healthcare practitioners making referrals and trained employment coaches delivering the support. If at any time, a patient decides they no longer wish to be involved in the pilot, they are able to leave.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:27 pm

http://www.islingtonccg.nhs.uk/news-art ... Better.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Working Better - FAQs

JustMom · Post by **JustMom** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:33 pm

One of my sons who went deaf some years ago,since then he's had real problems getting another job/ He signs on every fortnight but has to attend 3 times a week with the remploy people.
He has attended umpteen interviews with different companies,doing role play and all sorts of daft things. The last time he had to do 2 weeks unpaid work with M&s.
He's a 46 year old bloke but since going deaf they treat him as if he's a kid.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:43 pm

HindleA wrote:... If at any time, a patient decides they no longer wish to be involved in the pilot, they are able to leave.

Are you sure that was the complete sentence, A? ... 'and may be liable to sanction.'

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 3:57 pm

I always laugh at the out of work behaviour line,being sick/disabled is beyond a full time occupation,if you are not disciplined and organised,you die.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:02 pm

And any deviation-for instance continually having to deal with systematic attempts to deny/reduce your income and means of survival concurrent with false portrayal puts you at risk,as we keep tragically seeing.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:02 pm

At what point will the jobcentre require that people in Islington are required to 'volunteer' as part of their jobseeking commitment, i.e. to not do so will become sanctionable. We have certainly seen that type of conditionality in the work programme where voluntary and mandatory became inexplicably interchangeable and jobseekers could be sanctioned to not volunteering to do something entirely counterproductive to their own personal career development. In fact iirc the entire poundland case was based upon this manipulation of language and indeed the whole notion of having any personal agency in finding a path to work that an individual could be suitable to and invested in.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:08 pm

Please read the above links.Whatever your view is important to be factual,even if you are suspicious.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:24 pm

Having read the FAQs you posted, A, these points stick out for me. First that it is presented as a human rights issue, and next that it somehow fits with the lack of accessibility for apprenticeships, trainging work etc. for disabled people. My apologies if I'm seeing this wrong, but as I understand it the lack of accessibility has always been on the part of the providers not on the willingness of disabled people who wish to work. So where is the commensurate action to create genuine accessibility? The final point is that right at the bottom it says that it is joint funded by the council and JCP. At this point several of the FAQ answers started to look less credible, and I start seeing exactly why there are protests about it.

It is true that there are human rights issues around accessibility to all sorts of things, but this pilot is not the place to start addressing them, where are human rights when they sanction people with learning disabilities and cognitive impairment who have failed to make it to ESA? And indeed use them as the 'low hanging fruit' to achieve the targets everyone knows they have but which they continue to deny.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:25 pm

HindleA wrote:Please read the above links.Whatever your view is important to be factual,even if you are suspicious.

Yes I agree, A, which is why I refrained from emotive language in my appraisal of the earlier risk assessment. Regarding Islington however...

Where are the coaches from?

Remploy provide the employment coaches. Remploy’s local branch in Islington has a good track record of producing positive results in the borough.

Is Maximus involved?

Maximus has no involvement in the pilot and none of the coaches are from Maximus, they are all Remploy coaches. Although Maximus is the majority shareholder of Remploy, they have no input in its day-to-day running.

What is the role of JCP?

The pilot is jointly funded by Islington Council and JCP. JCP also sit on a steering group to discuss the overall working of the pilot but are not given any patient data.

Why am I reminded of a question I once put to Paddy Ashdown regarding American and British intelligence along the lines of knowing they piss in the same pot but when did that become holding eachothers' dicks? Perhaps it's John and Yoko, I mean Dave and François as recently depicted by Steve Bell (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... it-cartoon).

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:26 pm

HindleA wrote:Please read the above links.Whatever your view is important to be factual,even if you are suspicious.

Umm.....

Remploy provide the employment coaches. Remploy’s local branch in Islington has a good track record of producing positive results in the borough.

I'm afraid my basic question hasn't changed. There is already a service available, apparently it gets good results, so why do these employment advisors need to be in GP surgeries? It says they want to be where people are. What's wrong with libraries, community centres? We have a library/hub in our village which hosts various drop-in advice clinics and IT lessons very like this, in an informal setting. GP surgeries are there for all ill people, not just unemployed people. Having outside, non-medical services operating from a GP surgery invades everyone's privacy. I take your point about being accurate about the facts, but I think people's emotional reaction to this is understandable because the basic concept of having non-NHS staff working on non-medical issues in a healthcare environment is just wrong. And I'm not just saying that about this, I'm not keen about the creche that operates out of part of our GP surgery either. I've never felt it an appropriate setting for childcare, instant medical advice in an emergency not withstanding.

Edited to add I notice this comment is quite grumpy - apologies for that. I appreciated the link HindleA, it was fascinating, it's just that certain elements of it wound me up!

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:32 pm

I made the statement, A, " At what point...." As we know on many of these things the situation is very fluid, so much so that advice on such matters can be 'disappeared' without notice. Or can also suddenly appear.

These days I am less concerned with advisories due to this fluidity, and far more interested in intent. The other point for anyone not that cocerned about going to source is that Remploy is in fact now an arm of Maximus and that medical records are no longer the confidential documents we once believed them to be, but the property of government and theirs to dispose of as they will.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:53 pm

: Juncker actually said it.jpg (30.89 KiB) Viewed 7883 times

He doesn't like Cameron at all - does he?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 05 Mar, 2016 4:55 pm

Thank you,UD, for giving such a good appraisal, and non emotive. Which is why I have pointed out the very emotive core at the heart of what they are trying to pass off as a risk assessment. In contrast anyone interested could have a look at the far more objective and factual submissions made by Parkinsons UK or the MS Society and others listed in the link that A provided yesterday. They are evidence of some substance, couched in the formal language required of them, and draw upon an expertise in specific conditions and areas that they are expert in.

In contrast the paragraph I highlighted is compelling the reader towards making an emotive response towards benefits providing an incentive to being workless, rather than a provision that relates to need.

If my responses are emotive, then I do hope that my reasoning at least is understood, in short I am bloody angry to see that yet again the DWP is playing with the processes of governance in order to strip away provisions that fundamentally the majority of people actually believe should be theree. My evidence for such a statement is in the belief nearly everyone has, regardless of politics, that that provision exists for them when sickness or disability knocks on their door.