In 2011 Cameron said, “Never again will work be the wrong financial choice … We are finally going to make work pay for some of the poorest people in our society.“
What a laugh!
As you know, I found part-time work. I was quite excited by this. I’m now told my Jobseekers’ Allowance has been stopped, I’m entitled to reduced Housing Benefit and I’m not entitled to Council Tax Benefit
I’ve received a number of letters pointing out differing amounts I am or I’m not entitled to and my head is spinning but I’ve tried to calculate what this means.
And I’m £21 per month worse off by working. Add to this the money I have to find for rent and Council Tax and I’m a massive £158 a month worse off before I’ve even paid the rest of my bills.
It’s literally impossible.
I will, of course, also pay high bank charges when I inevitably become overdrawn losing yet more from my paltry income.
If my calculations are accurate, I’m at very real risk of becoming deeper in debt and, ultimately, losing my home.
Over a year since Cameron excitedly said work will pay, the reality is I’m now awake in the early hours panicking about not having any money, fretting that I won’t have fares to even get to work and questioning whether I’ll be penalised for packing in my part-time job and returning to full benefits.
Stay on benefits. You know it makes sense.
I understand I can’t get Working Tax Credits because I work fewer then 16 hours per week.
I’ve not been given any advice on alternative benefit options so don’t think there are any. I have to accept a loss of £158 per month and work.
So – for those who think the unemployed should try to get at least a few hours work – it is an impossible challenge. That is, unless you’re working as part of slave labour for multi-million companies while “earning” your benefits.
I told my Job Centre Plus adviser before I even secured the contract and he has been helpful and supportive – but unable to stop the inevitable.
All my benefits have been stopped.
This stopping of benefits happens before you have any chance to give details, to fully explain your reasoning or prove your income.
It is profitable for the government to plunge you into poverty first and ask questions later.
I’ve explained to Job Centre Plus and to the council that my income works out at just £30 more than I would get per week from Jobseekers’ Allowance. I’ve shown contracts, visited almost weekly with updates and emailed any relevant information.
Nevertheless, my Housing Benefit has been calculated to now be £1.19 per week, my Council Tax Benefit is nil and today I find my Jobseekers’ Allowance has not been paid.
Of course I immediately switched off my heating, rationed the food in my cupboards and freezer and will stay home unable to afford to go anywhere. I wonder if this is the “war mentality” of which Heseltine spoke today – workers clamouring to survive while the wealthy remain untouched by the failures of the banks and the global economic crisis of their making.
I recognise this Tory-led coalition, supported by lickspittle lackey Lib Dems, will claim that Universal Credit will end this problem but this is clearly not the case. It will simply be worse for us.
The Tory work ethic – the promise that work will pay – is a lie.
This is the second time I’ve experienced this as I try to find work, to remain active and employable. I wonder now if it will be worth doing it again in the future. I might choose to stay on benefits.
Regular readers will know that, after 20 years as a journalist, I found it impossible to secure work in the industry so I retrained as an academic and now find it impossible to secure work in higher education.
Ironically, I found out this week that I passed a post-graduate certificate in education – what a waste of time and hard-work attaining a new qualification has proven to be.
This work is only until March 2013 so all this confusion and stress will start again as soon as it ends…
As Tories gleefully claim that we’re out of a recession unemployedhack takes a look at the Tory Attacks Chart to see the hottest releases featuring assaults on the most vulnerable in society.
Children, disabled people, unemployed workers, young people, pensioners … everyone except the rich get a kicking from this Coalition government propped up by lickspittle lackey Lid Dems.
Straight in at #1:Ian Duncan Smith arrogantly concludes in a speech that domestic violence, drug addiction and family breakdown are solely working class experiences and uses benefit reforms and cuts for his warped social experiment. The rich, meanwhile, are not penalised for these issues because they have wealth.
Hot release:Benefits are destructive says top Tory – and the number of children benefit claimants can have could be capped leaving them “freed from” the decision of whether they can afford to
An unsurprising entry: Universities face a funding black hole as higher education is privatised and Tories/Lib Dems are seen to have fudged the figures
New entry: Cutting funding for Sure Start and children’s services will damage lives of underprivileged children ruining their chances before they’re even out of nappies
Moralistic non-mover: The country’s 1.9 million single parents are forced onto Jobseekers’ Allowance – as Sure Start centres close and Workfare takes paid jobs
Surprise entry: Thatcher’s Tory government included a paedophile - and Jimmy Savile spent his Christmases at Chequers
Pop summary: Tories – and their Lib Dem sidekicks – are a cruel, wealthy, self-centred axis of Eton attacking the vulnerable and defending the indefensible.
Also, Still think the Tories – and Labour – need to make cuts and are not just looking for excuses to reduce the State?
I’ve been told a few times this week that I’m whining about “compassion” or told – with an equal lack of irony – that it isn’t just for “lefties” but for ardent Tories too.
In 2008 the Tories were being hailed as the compassionate conservatives. Three years on, a Coalition in place, and attacks in the most vulnerable in society impossible to ignore and this now sounds like a bitter joke.
Adding: “Because it’s not enough to know our ideas are right. We’ve got to explain why they are compassionate too.”
I don’t know about you but – as more people need benefits at the same time as Universal Credit ensures they’re denied them - I can see the Tories changing their approach to “compassion”. I think, in much the same way as rants about “political-correctness”, they’ll soon declare it’s “compassion gone mad!” as they silence anyone defending the vulnerable.
I’m so certain of this I will bet my £71 a week which is, of course, such a huge amount of money I’m now entirely unwilling to work and, instead, happy to live in state-funded luxury with the obligatory enormous television.
Recently though I’ve found that rare species we know exists but hardly ever encounter … a compassionate Job Centre Plus adviser. He is friendly thing, doesn’t speak to me like I’m a thief, stupid or both … and he advises. Perhaps this is an indication that those who consider themselves to be in a powerful position – that is, in work – are recognising their own employment vulnerability. That they too could soon be treated with a lack of compassion and accused of whinging if they demand it.
This also to some extent explains why it’s been some time since I’ve blogged. It’s not, sadly, due to my being employed but to my feeling I have, in a way, little left to say.
Firstly, my experience is a repetitive one – I am again moving from unemployment to under-employment and so fighting the draconian measures of my benefits being suspended before I’ve even seen an employment contract. I am as ever stressed out by this but also oddly used to it. I now know how to “play the system” because you have no choice but to learn because – aside from the Lesser Arrogant Job Centre Plus Advisor I’ve just encountered – no one helps you at all.
I’ve again gone without heating – but I imagine you have too. I’ve again gone without food and have no social life – but I imagine that sounds familiar.
My experience is now a very common one: many of us are now losing our jobs; seeing our homes threatened; being treated as parasitic benefit cheats; being ripped off by utilities companies; being blamed for our poverty; watching as banks benefit from it in charges; recognising our qualifications are not worth the money we paid for them; waiting for the axe to fall or signing on then off then on then off then on then …
Update:
Chaplin is well. He is currently enjoying a catnip cigar and, thankfully, prefers Lidl and Aldi catfood to the big name brands
Luxuries I’ve bought to irritate Tories who think my benefits are too high: an electric blanket; a halogen heater and the aforementioned catnip cigar
Poverty plan: To work two part-time jobs in the hope that this means I can sign off until March 2013. Fingers crossed
The parents of Shafilea Ahmed did not kill her for “honour” but because domestic violence “transcends culture, class, race, and religion.”
This as the conclusion of the leading investigating officer – so why are our newspapers full of bold headlines and in-depth discussion about “honour killing”?
As far as I can tell –and I’m happy to be corrected – it is the media that has made the link between Shafilea’s parents’ excuse for murder and “honour” not the police or the judge.
Speaking after the sentencing, Detective Superintendent Geraint Jones, who led the inquiry for Cheshire Police, said: “Over the years, many people have asked me – is this a so-called honour killing? For me, it’s a simple case of murder.
“This is a case of domestic abuse by two parents towards their children. Domestic abuse is, sadly, something which the police have to deal with too often. “
The judge, when sentencing her parents for murder, told them: “Your concern about being shamed in your community was greater than the love of your child” but didn’t use the term “honour killing” – a term put in speech marks by most domestic violence charities and those newspapers not accepting it wholesale.
Women’s Aid says that with domestic violence: “’Blaming the victim’ is something that abusers will often do to make excuses for their behaviour, and quite often they manage to convince their victims that the abuse is indeed their fault.
“This is part of the pattern and is in itself abusive. Blaming their behaviour on someone else, or on the relationship, their childhood, their ill health, or their alcohol or drug addiction is one way in which many abusers try to avoid personal responsibility for their behaviour.”
The charity defines domestic violence as, “physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship and that forms a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. This can include forced marriage and so-called ‘honour crimes’. Domestic violence may include a range of abusive behaviours, not all of which are in themselves inherently ‘violent’.”
While “honour-based” violence, according to Domestic Violence London, “can exist in any culture or community where males are in position to establish and enforce women’s conduct.
“Males can also be victims, sometimes as a consequence of a relationship which is deemed to be inappropriate, if they are gay, have a disability or if they have assisted a victim.”
So why, if shame, honour, embarrassment and doing things wrong – or your favourite football team losing – are common excuses for domestic abuse, has the UK media whipped itself into a frenzy about “honour killing” rather than reeling in horror at domestic violence?
Women’s Aid:
1 in 4 will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions
1 incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute
on average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner.
Meanwhile, in the US a white, middle class Christian couple killed their black adopted daughter. As with police in the UK, “investigators found the Washington state couple adhered to a harsh child-rearing regimen prescribed by a controversial Christian parenting book, the prosecutor said earlier this month that religion was not relevant to the criminal case.”
There are, of course, more intellectual approaches than that of the Daily Mail – aren’t there always? The New Statesman, for example, states that “the left cannot remain silent over honour killings” and refers them as an “epidemic of abuse and violence” – so “honour” is being accepted as the distinguishing feature in this case – not domestic violence as outlined by the police.
The Guardian though produces a piece on a charity supporting women at risk of forced marriage and “honour” crimes: because many charities including Refuge campaign against domestic violence as a whole when supporting victims of “sexual violence, forced marriage, honour-based violence, female genital mutilation, prostitution, trafficking and stalking”.
It is clear that no one would suggest that Shafilea’s case shouldn’t be discussed in a wider context or that “honour” isn’t used as an excuse for violence against women and men.
One could suggest, though, that this violence be discussed in a more rational manner: perhaps we would benefit from the UK taking a calmer, less emotionally-charged and academic approach to domestic violence rather than a knee-jerk response to “honour” killing.
If you look to the news now the discussion of “honour killing” has become white noise and – if you dare to look at comments on articles – is being used for further attacks on Islam: one could almost think all Muslim condoned violence against women.
Perhaps some journalists still lucky enough to be in paid employment could report more on the experiences and understanding of those dealing with domestic violence across all cultures on a daily basis; it could look to the nuclear family as a constant in domestic violence; investigate the links between mental ill-health, such as stress, and domestic violence; or consider the role of the patriarchy across many cultures when “honour” is used as justification for domestic violence.
Remember other excuses – accepted by UK police in confronting domestic violence – include football teams losing during Euro 2012 and the World Cup.
The video below made by Refuge – a charity providing safe houses – highlights how hidden domestic violence can be in the UK as women hide their bruises, take responsibility and make excuses for the damage done at the hands of their abusers.
We need to discuss domestic violence as an experience across cultures and classes. Isolated incidents – however horrific – are examples of domestic violence within families not of broken cultures.
Because domestic violence is a terrifying and very real problem for many people in our country which “transcends culture, class, race, and religion”.
Some intense investigative reporting on my part has resulted in my having something to do other than play string with Chaplin – and in unearthing the latest questionnaire used by Jobcentre Plus advisers.
This Q&A will be used at each and every interview unemployed workers attend in the hope that they will finally collapse, demoralised and exhausted, and choose to sign off rather than face the repetitive, humiliating process over and over again. What happens to them then is of no concern.
A Jobcentre Plus unofficial, completely imaginary, spokesperson said: “When addressing the needs of customers facing deferred success and cashflow challenges, it sometimes makes sense to clarify your process using a flowchart.
“Using a customer service process flow chart can help advisers deal with customers in a way that represents Jobcentre Plus’ overall customer service outlook while, at the same time, avoiding customer intimacy or, heaven forbid, making eye contact with the employment-challenged.
“Going forward we hope that they will finally collapse, demoralised and exhausted, and choose to sign off rather than face this repetitive, humiliating process over and over again.
“What happens to them then is of no concern to us and any discussion about the validity of this flowchart will result in our effective, and government-backed, use of blamestorming.”
If you’re due to sign on remember this is how they think – even if the more wily ones don’t follow the Q&A openly …
I went to sign on today. After six months of being a part-time lecturer – with a bit of journalism thrown in – I’m now an unemployment statistic once more.
I arrived for my 9.30am appointment, clutching my CV, and “hopped” on the job points before I could be told to. I searched for lecturer jobs, journalism jobs, PR, even had a quick look for something in libraries but found nothing near where I live. Although, Salford MP Hazel Blears is looking for a parliamentary assistant, should you be interested.
There were a few jobs nationally I could apply for but were I able to afford to relocate – to get on my proverbial bike – then I doubt I’d need Jobseekers’ Allowance in the first place.
I found a seat, waited, looking around the Job Centre. The haemorrhoid-inspired decor remains. The posters haven’t changed either: we’re still promised “the work you want, the help you need”, “yes, you can get a job” and “jobs for everyone” alongside pictures of men with drills and women cutting hair.
A man arrived with an Eastern European accent. He looked as fed up as me but more bewildered as I’m an old hand by now. I wondered whether he’d be considered a threat to British jobs or a dole sponger for having rode his own proverbial bike and tried but failed to find work elsewhere: I suppose it’d depend on which right-wing fool was judging him on which day. With almost 25 million unemployed in Europe you’d think it obvious he’s not to blame.
There was a woman in a smart business suit at the job points next to a man in a beanie hat and another woman in a shalwar kameez. One man printed off reams of jobs to go for and I suspected he was new to the process and that his enthusiasm will soon wane.
After a 30-minute wait I was called to see an advisor. Some details were taken then I was asked to return in two hours for a second appointment with a different advisor. I then signed by Jobseekers’ Agreement and next week I’ll attend another interview with another advisor … at least there’s job creation at Job Centre Plus because it takes fewer people to make a Subway sandwich.
Conflicting information given led one man to raise his voice at an advisor – resulting immediately in colleagues checking “all was okay”. While I can’t condemn the support of colleagues watching each other’s backs – I can entirely understand the man’s frustrations. I was told by one advisor that I can’t claim Housing Benefit at Job Centre Plus but have to go to the library to do so. This made no sense to me but I was repeatedly told it was the case. So, I checked my local council website and the information provided there was the complete opposite. I asked again – at my second interview – and was told an application is made automatically when applying for Jobseekers’ Allowance. An inability to differentiate arses from elbows crossed my mind.
But rather than be undermined by the bureaucracy I’ve made a promise to myself not to let it get me down. I don’t want to lose sleep the night before I sign on then collapse in a stressed heap the moment I’ve done it. I don’t want to be demoralised by the thinly veiled put downs, the suggestions I play down my qualifications and experience or the looks of contempt as soon as you look like your unemployment could be a long-term reality.
And I still refuse to shoulder the blame for mass unemployment experienced by millions of workers across the globe and the 20,546 people claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance in my city alone.
I also refuse to buy into the idea that it is somehow heroic, stoic, noble to take a job on National Minimum Wage rather than claim benefits. Of course Tories will cry “get a job, any job” and act as if supermarkets employ an infinite amount of shelf-stackers … ignoring the fact that someone with a degree taking that job means someone else is going without while further ignoring the fact that thanks to Workfare and money-grubbing supermarkets those “jobs” aren’t jobs but “work for benefits”.
I would ask that, if you are thinking of responding to me with the romantic notion that all workers will find a job just so long as they’re willing or that people choose to live on benefits, please read this article about people whose benefits are being withdrawn. You know you wouldn’t choose to live like that so why imagine anyone else would?
All in all not a great day but I was made to feel better knowing it could be worse – I could work for the Job Centre and, like any prison warden, spend my life in a place most people try to avoid.
The only thing to do now is to be more politically active … as brutal Tory cuts radicalise a lot of angry workers I’ll be campaigning with them.
Job to apply for: Part-time post60 miles away from where I live so unlikely I’ll be able to afford travel expenses
Top Tops for Journos claiming JSA: Make notes in shorthand during the interviews – it freaks them out
I’ve no qualms admitting that I spent the past half hour fighting with The Orwell Prize website to see if I’d been longlisted. I haven’t. I’m taking it well but Chaplin is pacing the floor shaking his head at his flatmate having been cast aside in favour of Toby Young.
I will take solace in the fact that I was once shortlisted. It was for features in some regional journalism awards. I’d written about posing naked for an artist and, by sharing my humiliation, was awarded a roast chicken dinner at a table covered in a white tablecloth and wine stains. There were also a few gravy spills up my end because I’ve never had great table manners: to this day I wonder if that’s why I was a runner-up.
My first editor – the one who spiked splashes for fun and reduced grown hacks to tears – once told me “those who do, do – others win awards” and I scratched my head wondering what on Earth he was on about. Turns out my colleague had won an NCTJ award and he predicted envy. I predicted being plus-one at a posh dinner celebration and my prediction was accurate. My table manners, unimproved.
Now I’ll have to treat myself to another posh dinner in celebration of my attempt because at least I can temporarily afford to. I have enough work, I think, to sustain me for about four months and then I will either find myself with more work – after chasing commissions and teaching jobs – or find myself back in the Job Centre having my confidence kicked out of me.
For now, I will dine – I will dine like a rich Tory with a policy idea for Cameron. It’s nice to be able to go into restaurants again. I’ve visited three in the past few weeks and I even ate in two of them.
I also popped into a Waitrose for the first time – that is how flush I have felt! – and was both thrilled at the range of dinners for one and angered that some people shop in these places all the time. They’ve no idea of those who schlep to cheap shops only to be told they don’t eat well because they’re stupid not because they’re poor.
Anyway, I’m now going to have a self-pity snack. I promise I’ll also sort Chaplin out with some posh cat food … because otherwise he’ll bear a grudge.
Chaplin literally just ran in with a mouse. I will interpret this as a kind gesture, an attempt to contribute to my self-pity snack …
The reality, though, is I walked past Albert Square watching the people holding their camera phones aloft, and I couldn’t be bothered waiting for her to appear. The reality is also that it seemed of little interest to most Mancunians.
I won’t be allowed to miss out on the hysteria though because the Manchester Evening News promises a souvenir supplement on Saturday. The city is told with excitement that Queeny tucked in to “steak and venison pudding [...] served with celeriac mash and buttered savoy cabbage” which was “as all being prepared, cooked and served by town hall staff.”
It sounds like a fine meal and in the glorious surroundings of Manchester Town Hall – built in the mid-1800s to brag about the city’s wealth rather than tackle the slums. I wonder, though, if any of the town hall staff serving up the grub are worrying about potential redundancy or whether they can afford their next meal.
I can see, of course, that Jubilee fever is intending to take our minds off mass unemployment, the destruction of the NHS and the fact that we fund her family’s existence as well as the bonuses for fat cat bosses in banks. It tried much the same in 1977: when firefighters went on strike over pay, there was an International Monetary Fund bail-out, an oil crisis, the Labour government faced a vote of no confidence by Liberals and the Queen wanted us flag-waving for her Silver Jubilee. I didn’t then and I won’t now.
The crowd outside Manchester Town Hall was small as I passed. I like to think that fellow Mancunians see no point in standing in the streets – sunny or not. One website run by journalism students states that HRH was welcomed by “thousands” adding, “hundreds of children, parents and celebrators waved flags”. It also reports on anti-monarchy protesters greeting the Queen.
I can honestly say when I passed it was more like dozens – even the cabbie said he was surprised by how few had turned out, especially considering the sun was shining on this rainy city for a change.
The city’s streets weren’t lined with flag-waving royalists when I walked them. In Albert Square I saw some tourists taking photos; workers having their lunch in the sun; students milling about before they go home to wherever and, of course, photographers up on a statue to ensure a clear view of Her Maj – not a cheering crowd wanting to catch a glimpse of a pastel-wearing parasite.
Because, whether she’s in pretty pastels or polka dots and purple, it’s hard not to resent the expensive tour of an unelected monarch visiting a city facing tough cuts, potentially shedding 50% more jobs than Tory councils and with an average wage of less than £2,000 as the cost of living soars.
It is also particularly upsetting when one considers that the Save the Children revealed in february that 27% of the city’s children live in severe poverty. Its campaign previously called on the Chancellor to Chancellor to announce an emergency plan in the next budget to channel new jobs into the poorest areas and increase financial support for low-income families.
It says that single parents and families are living on less than between £7,000 and £12,500 a year. Meanwhile the Royals are given hundreds if thousands, according to the British Monarchy website. Even Prince Andrew receives £249,000 per annum.
*I didn’t actually go to see the Queen. I went to the People’s History Museum.
What a laugh!
