ATOS

[shetlandpeat]

Another view, though, I think there will be many....

 

Yesterday evening the bulk of the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster followed instructions and abstained on a vote about the government’s widely disliked workfare scheme. Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne is not a popular figure on the left – or even in the centre – and if anything the list of rebels who voted against was smaller than might be expected.

 

After all, it is not hard to understand the principle that work without pay is immoral, anathema to Labour values, and Labour should oppose it at all costs.

 

And indeed the wailing and gnashing of teeth has been loud and long, and Byrne is probably only spared a more vicious bout of in-fighting by virtue of the fact that the budget will take over the headlines tomorrow.

 

But why would Labour fail to oppose workfare? Why would we abstain on a measure which is clearly an undermining of the fundamental right to fair pay? The answer, it seems to me, is that this vote was not about workfare or the right to fair pay. It was, as real life often is, far more complex, and messy, than a choice between right and wrong.

 

First of all, we need to remember that last month’s judgement by the Court of Appeal did not rule workfare to be forced labour, for all the rejoicing at the outcome. In fact the court ruled substantially in the government’s favour, only failing them on how they described the schemes in regulations. So far from welcoming this judgement, we should have been regretting it, because all the government needed to do was change the regulations – which they did the very same day – and then work out how to avoid repaying docked benefits, which was always going to be relatively easy for a government with a working majority.

 

And that solution – not workfare as a whole, not the principle of withholding benefits, just the issue of avoiding repaying previously docked benefits – was the subject of yesterday evening’s vote. So Labour did not abstain from a yes/no vote on workfare after all. Workfare is already in place, and the result of the vote would not have changed that.

 

Byrne has been criticised most vocally for asserting that Labour agrees with the principle that the DWP should have the power to impose sanctions. This has been painted as a shift to Tory ground. But in reality, Labour’s flagship programmes of recent decades – including the widely praised New Deal – had sanction provisions. This is no change in Labour policy, and those making hay out of it now must surely know that.

 

Messiest of all, Byrne believed he could, in return for abstention, secure concessions from IDS which flat-out opposition would not achieve. Among them, he sought a guarantee that wrongly sanctioned JSA claimants could still appeal that decision. And he asked for an independent review of the sanctions regime, to report to parliament quickly. Most significantly, he called for a Real Jobs Guarantee for young people, involving a paid job for six months, rather than unpaid workfare. It remains to be seen whether these concessions have been achieved, but they are surely worthy aims.

 

There is no question that yesterday evening’s vote didn’t look good, and those who want to will be able to make trouble within the party over it. And Liam Byrne may quite reasonably be unpopular for past choices. But if we are to debate the rights and wrongs, let us at least do so with reason. This was not a vote in favour of unpaid workfare; it was abstention on an issue the government would win anyway, in order to try to achieve a slightly better outcome for those affected.

 

That’s not a great soundbite, is it. But aren’t we always saying how much we hate soundbite politics? Here is politics in the raw. It’s an ugly thing and people get hurt by it. Let’s make sure we argue it honestly, and place the blame correctly.

 

http://www.betternation.org/2013/03/the-byrne-legacy-the-messy-reality-of-the-workfare-vote/

[paulb]

using words to hide the fact that the labour party has become a clone of the tories.

 

peat if you can't admit that your party is betraying the poor. then wait a year and deny it then. opposition means just that to oppose.

 

what would the founders say about how labour is behaving.

 

i was a labour person never would i have voted for another party but when that party betrays its founding principles then its time to change. looks like the snp has my vote. that from an English person.

[shetlandpeat]

Local issues are really what concerns me. What ever happens in London, we have to deal with it. Sadly though, national policies can affect the folk who are on the ground making a difference. Nothing I can do can change that.

I wonder, what would have happened if Labour had objected, would it have made any difference to the suffering of people? I doubt they would not stop going hungry or cold as they are.

I have however seen that in politics, there has to be give and take, as the article mentions, giving a little may reap further benefits down the line, it happens all the time. This also happens with community funding, which I am involved with. Sometimes, to get the money, you may have to move your goal posts, take advice and compromise, or you may get nothing at all.

I personally think the Workfare is corrupt, until it is proved, there is little but to campaign at a local level. Writing to my Tory MP has served little purpose except to keep the postman busy. Yet, I can go and speak to the neighbouring Labour MP at any time when he is in town.

 

I am busy enough here though without banging drums elsewhere. That takes up much of my time, as well as having to work for a living.

The Labour Party did take on a huge program of addressing it self, it seems however, not enough members with thoughts similar to yours Paul did enough. however, if you are not part of it, how ar you going to change it?

 

How you vote Paul is between you and the ballot box. Many of the national parties with exception of the DimDems do not get a footing, your councillors will not put any affiliation on the voting slip.

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/d994bc58-3041-4c50-a29b-18ccf3f72440_zps9f933b6d.jpg

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/21/jobcentre-set-targets-benefit-sanctions

 

Jobcentre was set targets for benefit sanctions

 

• Inquiry launched after league tables revealed

• Leak shows pressure on staff to refer claimants

 

A manager at a jobcentre has leaked an email revealing the existence of a league table in her region for referrals to the stricter benefits regimes. Photograph: Rui Vieira/PA

The government has launched an inquiry after it was forced to admit that jobcentres have been setting targets and league tables to sanction benefit claimants despite assurances to parliament this week that no such targets were being set.

 

A leaked email shows staff being warned by managers that they will be disciplined unless they increase the number of claimants referred to a tougher benefit regime.

 

Ruth King, a jobcentre adviser manager, discloses in the email that she has received "the stricter benefit regime" figures for her area, adding: "As you can see Walthamstow are 95th in the league table out of only 109" – the number of jobcentres in London and the home counties. The employment minister, Mark Hoban, had assured MPs on Tuesday: "There are no league tables in place. We do not set targets for sanctions. I have made that point in previous discussions."

 

The league table could only have been drawn up through information provided by senior managers in the Department for Work and Pensions.

 

Hoban had told MPs that decisions on sanctioning claimants "need to be based on whether people have breached the agreements they have set out with the jobcentre, and there are no targets in place".

 

Faced with the email, the DWP said: "We are urgently investigating what happened in this case. If a manager has set a local target for applying sanctions this is against DWP policy and we will be taking steps to ensure these targets are removed immediately."

 

King says in her email: "Our district manager is not pleased … because senior managers are under pressure to improve our office output and move up the league he has to apply some pressure downwards." She continues: "Guys, we really need to up the game here. The 5% target is one thing – the fact that we are seeing over 300 people a week and only submitting six of them for possible doubts is simply not quite credible."

 

The email reveals that along with other area team managers King had until 15 February to show an improvement, adding that if she does not do so she will be subject to a performance improvement plan, the first stage of disciplinary action.

 

She says if she is threatened with disciplinary action to improve performance, she will have to threaten her own staff in the same way. She writes: "Obviously if I am on a PIP [performance improvement plan] to improve my team's Stricter Benefit Regime referral rate I will not have a choice but to consider implementing PIPs for those individuals who are clearly not delivering SBR within the team."

 

She also discloses that the jobcentre customers manager is looking for about 25 referrals a week. "We made six last week and so far this week have made four. There is a shortfall here."

 

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, is due to raise the matter in parliament on Friday. He said: "This explosive letter lays bare the climate of fear in jobcentres as league tables and threats of disciplinary action are used to perpetrate a culture of sanctioning innocent people to hit targets. That is just plain wrong and must be stopped now. Either ministers have no grip on their department or they misled parliament. Either way they must now face the consequences."

 

The Labour MP for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy, said: "We have to get to the bottom of this. It is quite horrible that jobcentre staff feel they have to set people up to fail."

 

The DWP maintained that this was an isolated case. Hoban said: "I'm clear there should be no chasing of targets because I believe we should be making the right and fair decisions."

 

In the email King sets out ways jobcentre staff can catch out claimants, saying: "You should consider every doubt – if you are unsure then please conference with me." Her advice includes: "Do not accept the same job search every week, do not accept 'I dropped off CV to shops like Asda or Sainsbury's', listen for telltale phrases 'I pick up the kids', 'I look after my neighbours children/my grandchildren' or just 'I am busy' – all of which suggest that the customer may not be fully available for work, even cases where a parent shares custody can be considered."

 

She says someone can be deemed not to be actively seeking employment, and therefore subject to sanction "if someone is going away from home, but is not willing to return to take up employment, not willing to leave details of how they can be contacted should a job become available or not looking for work whilst away".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet again the DWP & Government have been found out to be unfairly targeting some of the poorest people in our society!

[go.oot.by.dog]

HELP STOP THE UK GOVERNMENTS PLAN TO RETROSPECTIVELY CHANGE A LAW, ONE WHICH THEY HAD BROKEN!

 

On the 19th of March 2013 the House of Commons passed a Bill which will allow the Government to retrospectively change a law, a law which the Tory Government had broken, to protect themselves and ensure they do not have to face the consequences of their illegal actions. In this case it was in relation to the illegality of the controversial Workfare scheme. This Bill was passed solely to protect the Government from having to reimburse job-seekers of the money which they illegally sanctioned from them. Labour assisted with rushing through of the Bill by deciding to abstain from the vote.

 

Labour had always prided itself on the mantra of a fair days pay for a fair days work - obviously up until yesterday - when they allowed this to pass. By Labour abstaining from the vote it sends a strong message that they are no longer for the working people of Britain. The absence of courage to stand up for what was right has been noted by the public.

 

We, the undersigned, ask you and the House of Lords please, do not allow this Bill to go through any further.

 

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-the-uk-government-changing-the-law-retrospectively

[shetlandpeat]

the legal team representing the two folk in the "Poundland" case may contest the judgement and legality of the recent vote and court case. If they were successful, I would not want any part of the voting.

[go.oot.by.dog]

Jobcentre sanctions: 'Your money is stopped, you go into freefall' - video

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/mar/22/jobcentre-sanctions-money-stopped-video

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/0762e2b3-5a18-49c8-9d08-ae631c4c6cff_zpsaa8d2462.jpg

[go.oot.by.dog]

[paulb]

the legal team representing the two folk in the "Poundland" case may contest the judgement and legality of the recent vote and court case. If they were successful, I would not want any part of the voting.

 

oh come peat you know the courts cant over rule parliament.

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/d953ac50-abe2-47ea-b3a0-7a8aa872754c_zps1b37958f.jpg

[go.oot.by.dog]

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/46f807dd-c0e7-44af-8ed3-f88eb7122d6c_zpse09aef2e.jpg

[go.oot.by.dog]

Mr Iain Dipsh*t Smith assures us there are no league tables or sanctions being forced unfairly on jobseekers....

 

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/131781238?access_key=key-se4dktipprv1cf0rjc

 

More Lies

[shetlandpeat]

http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/magnacube/d953ac50-abe2-47ea-b3a0-7a8aa872754c_zps1b37958f.jpg

Sadly you are wrong again Paul The ruduction in F.I.T.s was deemed against the law annd the Gov capitulated.

That is two times now you have been completey wrong. You may need to sheck out my sig.