New Labour POLICY requirements: Are they bullshit or not?
New Labour POLICY requirements: Are they bullshit or not?
We have recently received a very long post from “Cocheese” which in order to give it justice I have decided to give it a new post!
I have linked this to the original comment page…
New Labour POLICY requirements: Are they bullshit or not?
Regarding the question of “Bullying” by the D.W.P, I believe many unemployed people are getting themselves into lots of unneccesary trouble by allowing themselves to be pressured into signing draconian “Your ass, our hands”-type contracts with PRIVATE-SECTOR “service” providers in the belief that this is a LEGAL requirement for continued receipt of state benefits. I have read (or at least tried to read) the relevant benefit LEGISLATION and can find no such stipulation anywhere – the nearest thing to it seems to be a requirement to attend “courses” for the purpose of helping you find work, which by no stretch of the imagination amounts to the same thing. Of course, these legislative documents are a combination of legaleese and buraucratese, making them largely inpenetrable to the layman/sucker – one suspects they may be written this way quite deliberately, allowing ponderous incomprehensible word-salad to be interpreted as meaning whatever the “proper authorities” want it to mean…
My own experience less resembled bullying than a scam, hustle, grift, etc. First, I was told I had to attend an interview to discuss my “options” – turned out I didn’t have any but they were “delighted” to inform me I was required to attend my New Deal course placement or lose benefit entitlement – they then told me I was being signed-off JSA. I specifically stated that I was still elegible for JSA and I did not want to be signed off but they said I had no option. Ok…
I then attended my required course on the required day. First, they softened us up with a couple hours of hardcore-boredom. Insulting halfwit tests, fire procedures, getting to know you chit-chat, etc. And rules, rules, rules, rules, rules. Dark comedic relief was provided by inspirationally reimagined Nazi workcamp slogans decorating the walls (“The harder I work the luckier I get! Be successful” is substantially similar to “Arbeit Macht Frei” & “Everyone has a dream but no two are alike. Be yourself!” is reminiscent of “Jedem Das Seine”) Not making that up but it was a couple of years ago now and the PC/PR-obsessed dipshits responsble may have since woken up to their inadvertent honesty and removed them. Then came the appalling contract.
The scheme providers informed me that to be ALLOWED to attend the scheme I would be required to sign a contract with them. When I refused to do so, they pestered me about if for quite a while (“You need a job!”), an experience reminiscent of a conversation with a high-pressure salesman. What’s wrong with this picture? People attend because they are REQUIRED to do so as a condition of continuing to receive benefits. Either a person is required to attend these schemes or they are not. Either government has the neccesary authority to instigate schemes ON THE BASIS OF EXISTING LEGISLATION or they do not. Since when has government had the right to extort signatures out of people under threat of illegitimate punitive action when they feel that the LAW is inadequate, that they deserve more authority in order to pursue their twisted initiatives? Under these circumstances, government has two choices:
Option 1: Change the Law.
Option 2: Go to hell (preferred option).
Option 3: If there is no option 3 then there is no “New Deal”. Nu Labour
doesn’t like the existing laws? I don’t like degenerates in power.
Disappointment is a part of life.
That is what the “New Deal” is really about: creating a state of affairs in which benefits are no longer payable on the basis of UK legislation but are instead payable on the basis of Nu Labour POLICY, a convoluted dance in which crappy people who have bullshitted their way into power then bullshit themselves out of legislative limitations and restraints. There is nothing remarkable about this – when wretched little men with big shoes to fill inevitably encounter difficulties with governance they will always conclude “We need more power!” and never “Perhaps we should just crawl away and die?” It has always been this way.
I cannot believe it is legal for THEM to withdraw benefit entitlement on the basis of refusal to sign such contracts. Think about it – if the government can do this legally then the law itself is a joke, nothing more than a springboard, a blank canvas to be replaced by whatever obnoxious garbage (a.k.a. “Policy”) spews out of the word-processors of champagne socialite psuedo-socialists (Emma “Tax Mansion” Harrison? Big Smile!) and haughty, naughty ex-public schoolboys (or “Rt. Hon.” Members of parliament, if you really must.) If this is the case then government (in collusion with motley bands of PC private-sector cut-throat scum) can change the rules to anything they like, can do anything they like, without reference to either judiciary or civil service. I don’t think the proposition has been properly tested as claimants sign these POLICY contracts because they are either foolish enough to believe (this shitty) government is “honest” or because they have been led to believe sole alternative is having nothing to eat. Once they SIGN the question dissappears. Except it doesn’t.
The other thing to remember is the role performed by the service providers – specifically that of PERSONAL REPRESENTATION. A personal representative is someone YOU empower to speak and act on your behalf, someone who works for you, someone who takes instructions from you, someone you do not take instructions from and someone you can DISMISS at any time for any reason you like. Examples of personal representatives include: lawyers, estate agents, stock brokers, union reps, & employment agencies uncorrupted by government intervention. Take the challenge: can you think of any examples within (“free”) society of personal representation that do not meet the above criteria other than the “service” provided by “New Deal” representatives?
These people are mercenaries, their loyalty (for want of a better word) is to the hand that feeds them – the government – and as such these are the people they represent, not the people forcibly subjected to their creepy attentions. “New Deal” service providers accept payment from a third-party (government) to REPRESENT people who do not want to be kept locked up all day, who do not want them reporting to the government (or anyone else) about their personal business, and who do not want their services. It is one thing to be forced to accept the attentions of a ‘civil service auxiliary’ in the context of education or training, perhaps even spiteful daytime detention and other pantomime activities but personal representation? In knowingly accepting money from the government to represent people against their will the service providers demonstrate contempt for those they would “help” and the evident proffesional ethics of sewer rats – people who will do and say more-or-less anything with a greasy smile in order to make a fast buck. People who quite likely originated from a commission-only, cold-calling, high-pressure sales background. People who (when not working for the government) probably get followed around by Trading Standards people urgently handing out warning notices. Nu Labour kind of people. I wouldn’t touch them with a stick.
I had hoped that with the inevitable decline of the Nu Labour’s bullshit, debt and immigration fuelled “Economic Miracle” that they would put a stop to this nonsense but no – the merry-go-round is about to begin again. I have been about five times and it is always the same – They sign me off JSA, I attend the course, I refuse to sign dodgy contract, they eject me from the course, I sign onto JSA again, the government accuses me of “misconduct” (the only reason ever given me for “sanction”), I request clarification on the legality of dodgy Nu-contractz, they ignore me and then deduct two weeks money. Ho Hum.
In the past I have always forfeited two weeks money for failure to sign myself into purgatory but it is unclear whether this is due to the contract issue or because I was foolish enough to tell the scheme providers exactly what I think of them – they just go blubbing to the DWP with it, who will cheerfully use this as a pretext to “sanction” you. This time I will be smarter about it – no matter how much my skin crawls I will be polite but firm when I decline to sign, even if they ask me twenty times. No more excuses. My real worry is that they will sever benefits for refusal to sign whether contracts are legal or not. Wankers.
With regard to the benefit “sanctions” regieme, it is a ‘cattle prod’ to be used to shock disobedient bovines into line, a statement of power: “Do as we tell you or else!”. The thing is, once they hit you with it, if it doesn’t work they have noplace left to go. It is difficult to survive without money for two weeks, (particularly when you are given no notice of impending “sanction”) but it is not impossible. Claimants need to chose between taking steps to ensure they can survive a “hit” from the cattle-prod or, alternatively, simply accept that slimy governmental tossers will use their favourite toy to break you: do as you are told when you are told with no arguments and no recourse. Like a good dog.
Maybe the “Flexible New Deal” has changed things a bit but since it is not yet operating in my area it makes no difference to me. Only really wrote this because it offends me to read of people getting upset as a result of mistakenly trusting this sinister public/private cabal in the first place. If you don’t stand up for your rights they will just walk all over you – the longer you leave it to do so the harder it gets. The “service” providers have demonstrated contempt for the unemployed through their choice of profession – why regard them with anything else? The government has made it clear they will except no more nonsense from the unemployed – reciprocate by refusing to tolerate any of their extra-legal contractual nonsense, without which their witless schemes cannot function. If you are pressured to sign a bullshit contract write something like the following letter:
“I am willing to comply with any and all legal obligations under existing and subsequent employment benefit LEGISLATION but categorically refuse to comply with any governmental POLICY requirements that exceed or superceed the selfsame legislation they supposedly reflect and respect. I categorically refuse to SIGN anything at all that is not an official governmental document or has not submitted to and endorsed by propper judicial authority. I do not believe that existing legislation gives the govenment the authority to force me to enter into a contractual relationship with ANY third-party, including “New Deal” providers. I believe this government is not to be trusted where proper administration of benefits are concerned and as such will regard ANY document I am supposedly required to sign that is not clearly legitimate as most likely illegitimate. It is regrettable but unsurprising that UK citizens cannot trust their government to behave properly. I will always comply with all clearly LEGAL requirements for receipt of JSA and provide no grounds for benefit withdrawal.”
That should scupper their contractual monkeybusiness without providing a pretext for benefit exile. It seems that many politicians upon gaining power operate on the assumption that, for the “little people” there is no meaningful distinction between their policies and existing legislation – this is nothing more than a fantasy. Legislation is the law of the land wheras policy is politicians doing what politicians always do – spouting self-righteous, self-serving crap. Not remotely the same thing. Legislation trumps policy every time.
