Comments on: Why is New Labour stigmatising poor people?

By: emma

emma — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:56:36 +0000

i was on the programme in 2007, i had nothink but problems, “pelcombe” at the time now its called sencia, sencia sent me to a cash in hand job, i did complain about the manager cbrian knott at romford site because he sent me there or id lose my benifits ,so i went there, i declared my hours straight away ,but still to this day i have not recieved pay slips it was only 12hours and i was earning £60 a week £2 more than the law says i got to live on, so basically sencia signed me off at the end of my course after offering me a work placement, i did 3 days unpaid work, but briain signed me off as full time hours, after a month of working i was racial abused and assaulted at this job and threatened of my life saying that they was gona kill me, i was total humiliated and i had to leave the premises, also when i went to go back on job seekers the job centre didnt pay me for weeks cos the said i left my job voluntary but that iwas not true i was so scared after the incident i could not go back, but i hold brian responsible for his actions for putting me in that position, in the first place, since then i i am now back with sencia at romford but while i was there brian knott is still there offering cash in hand jobs, i also have a witness to whom he offered this work, as since then i made a complaint agan this is the 3time and still no body has dealt with this,and i also lost a weeks giro due to my complaint, i have a meeting on friday a 3pm with the managers of the job centre and also leslie myois from barking and romford site to show the evidence that i have and to see now what they going to do about this, i think this programme is a waist of time and the tax payers money ccould go to better use, and not lureing the likes of poor people to cash in hand jobs just so they hit there targets.

By: ACTION on CENCIA

ACTION on CENCIA — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:54:41 +0000

IF ANY ONE HAS COMPLAINT WITH SENCIA PLEASE CONTACT e-mail: mullinc@parliament.uk
and CENCIA ONWNER GROUP cpa@cpa.org.au AND INCLUDE THE POSTINGS http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/07/22/why-is-new-labour-stigmatising-poor-people/

By: Diablo

Diablo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:53:21 +0000

I have to agree with S A JEFFERSON-Wright`s posting. A number Sencia staff (214 High St West, Sunderland, SR1 1UA) treat, and speak to their clients (aka Jobseekers), in a derogatory manner. There have been a number of complaints about one of their team, in particular, whose main goal in life appears to be antagonising individuals who he takes a dislike to and this has not gone unnoticed by the other staff.

During group discussions, clients of Sencia, Sunderland, are encouraged to be frank and open, however, when they voice their concerns about the way they are/have been treated by Sencia staff, they are told to shut up or they would be given a warning! (three warnings = loss of benefits for six months).

To all those unfortunate enough to be sent to Sencia, Sunderland, I would advise you to use the technology available to you today in order to record and document any (not just incidences concerning yourself) whereby clients of Scencia are demeaned in any way, and remember, if you do make a complaint, of have your benefit stopped under the three strike rule, and wish to substantiate that complaint, or to appeal a decision, this will provide the means.

Who oversees/monitors these people and are they really value for money, or is it just a case of backsides on seats bringing home the bacon for Sencia?

By: S A JEFFERSON-Wright

S A JEFFERSON-Wright — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:46:55 +0000

JOB SEEKERS & NEW DEAL= After being unemployed for six months a person is given an option? to attend a training provider. Refusal to participate or being removed from a so called training provider where employers receive cheap labor in the guise of work experience, The victim has their benefits stopped or reduced but is also threatened that Housing benefit will be stopped.(homelessness a possibility) An employer who participates in the scheme is also paid by the Government to accept the unpaid worker. A person on the program is also no longer counted in the Unemployment figures. The Attitude that being unemployed and on benefit is a life choice is not helpful and is onlyTrue in a small minority yet the Government has forced this practice on the whole contry.

By: S A JEFFERSON-Wright

S A JEFFERSON-Wright — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:30:39 +0000

I Would like you to consider my responce to becoming one of the EXPLOITED UNEMPLOYED

Template & Recipient list
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express concern regarding the training provider Sencia in Sunderland where due to Army service injuries and the economic down turn I found myself.

The overall Concept of the company is sound but the actual practice is somewhat different. It would be obvious to anyone attending this setup that quite a few of those sent there have problems with more than just being unemployed as unemployment can affect a person’s self esteem, self confidence and general life enthusiasm with the added indignity of being forced to attend the program. This is addressed and mentioned in their induction but then disregarded as the concern turns to the running of the program where paper work and conformity takes precedence. The tutors are competent but the confrontational attitude of the management filters down the chain to the point of intolerance and inflexibility. This is definitely not the way to deal with adults and I believe they are causing unnecessary confrontations by instigating and responding with indignant language and attitude. Should you examine the job finding success rate to the numbers exited out of the program for trivial matters blown up out of proportion and all the costs that result, I’m sure the figures would speak for themselves? There is abundance of life coaching programs and management techniques available that should they be adopted and practiced would turn a person’s life around, and even in an economic down turn produce better results. I hope my concerns regarding Sencia will be taken seriously as I myself dismissed the reports and complaints of others until I experienced their practices at first hand.

I know I’m not the first to write to you on this subject as I have spoken to many others who feel that their intelligence is being insulted and their circumstances are being taken advantage of. The company may behave differently in other areas with better management, but I do know the regime in Sunderland needs investigating as I believe they are doing more harm than good.

1. Department for Work and Pensions DWP Minister Lord McKenzi
2. Sunderland North – Bill Etherington MP (Labour)
7 Bridge House, Bridge Street, Sunderland SR1 1TE
Tel: (0191) 564 2489
3. Sunderland South – Chris J Mullin MP (Labour)
6 Douro Terrace, Sunderland, SR2 7DX
Tel: (0191) 567 2848
e-mail: mullinc@parliament.uk
Website: http://www.chrismullinmp.co.uk
4. http://www.sunderlandconservatives.com/
5. http://www.libdems.org.uk/in_your_area/sunderland-central?part=involved
6. SUNDERLAND ECHO
7. eastwise@fsmail.net
8. SUNDERLAND MIND
14 Norfolk Street
Sunderland
SR1 1EA
T: 0191 565 7218
F: 0191 510 0705
E: dgardmal@yahoo.co.uk Best contact: Dorothy Gardiner

9 EUROPEAN UNION SOCIAL FUNDERS http://www.esf.gov.uk/
10 cpa@cpa.org.au

By: Noel

Noel — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:47:18 +0000

The increase in ‘responsibilities’ to look for work implies that people are not working because they lack individual motivation, when actually for single parents it’s more about lack of childcare and flexible working. And when they do find work, they are more likely to lose their jobs than others. In fact, over half of job seekers allowance claims are now from repeat claimants. How about using the model from the Portland Programme, where those who are skilled are referred to job search provision and those who aren’t are advised not to take the first job available and go for education and training? Isn’t also about time that we recognised contributions to the society outside the labour market, like caring for children?

By: gnuneo

gnuneo — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:17:51 +0000

they have a similar measure in Denmark, but with rather radical differences:

1. the person only works one or two days, so the benefit income matches the effective minimum wage level,

2. the work is organised by the local commune (their term for local council, village, town or city district level democracy), which is not only far more powerful than local Govt in the UK (they even decide most of the local education budgets!), but far more accountable to the local residents (there being more parties, and a fairer electoral system). The people who work, and the people who organise the work, jointly agree on what is the best practise (imagine being able to hold an opinion in new-labour’s proposal on workfare – its laughable, isn’t it?), and the work is NOT seen as a method of exploiting the unemployed, or forcing them into low-paid jobs, but as the article above says: helping them to maintain self-respect, by giving something back for the benefits they receive (which BTW, at roughly £800 a month, are significantly higher than the UKs rates).

is ANYONE not aware that these measures are pure Yankee workfare policy copying?

i would STRONGLY recommend viewing “bowling for columbine”, for the almost certain effects of this policy. This is authoritarian Fascism, pure and simple.

BTW – connect this to the proposal to make convicts “work to pay for their incarceration”, and the dots are resolving to show a picture…

as Orwell said “picture a boot stamping on a human face forever…”.

the disgusting thing is, the true rot at the core of the UK, the Tories will not change a blamed thing about this policy, unless they can tinker to make it even more abusive.

the ultra-wealthy double their holdings of UK wealth in the last 10 years, and the poorest have to slave for peanuts just to survive. Dear God Almighty, and for THIS we cheered when new-labour swept the Tories from office?

By: Flying Rodent

Flying Rodent — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:22:58 +0000

…the problem the Left has with a meritocracy… the fact that some people remain ‘at the bottom of the pile’ in a meritocracy seems to rankle.

Well, I consider myself on the left and my problem with “meritocracy” is that it’s utter nonsense. Britain isn’t a meritocracy, it’s never been one and if the type of people who bandy that word about have their way, it never will be one either. If you’d like some evidence to back that up, I’d suggest paying attention to the world around you.

God only knows what “levelling the playing field” means in this context, but I seriously doubt it means shutting down public schools and giving all kids the same education or some other Commie measure. It’s probably a Tory euphemism for “stripping those from the poorest backgrounds of the meagre protections our system allows them”, although no doubt there’s a way to clad it in enough titanium bullshit to make it sound less mendacious.

As for “skill and effort”, congratulations! You’ve just told millions of hard-working people that they have money woes because they’re talentless wastrels. Top marks – I look forward to reading this Survival of those with the wealthiest parents manifesto and witnessing the populace’s reaction to it.

By: Praguetory

Praguetory — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:05:56 +0000

I was out canvassing in a well off area yesterday and Purnell’s proposals came up a few times. They were very warmly received but the people who brought it up were dyed in the wool Tories. It’s good to see Purnell attempt something which will confer little political advantage. I’ll congratulate him if it delivers, but Frank Field’s criticisms seem valid.

What I think you are touching on is the problem the Left has with a meritocracy. Having ‘taken measures’ against sexism, racism and class discrimination, the fact that some people remain ‘at the bottom of the pile’ in a meritocracy seems to rankle. Rather than levelling the playing field and accepting that individual progress is then dependent on skill and effort, the Left has to continually find new ways to interfere to get the ‘results’ it wants.

By: douglas clark

douglas clark — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:31:13 +0000

If this policy is anything other than a placebo to the sensibilities of the floating voter, then it would seem to me that four things would make it more palatable:

(a) Pay the minimum wage for the work done,

(b) Ensure that no-one is left on the programme for more than, say, three months, and,

(c) Roll it out in places where there is an excess of vacancies to recruits so that (b) has a realistic chance of being achievable.

(d) Incentivise employers to select from this group rather than other groups, perhaps by reducing employers NI contribution levels if they retain the person for a year.

Otherwise we might as well go the whole hog and have their donkey jackets inscribed with ‘Welfare Scrounger’ or some such.

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:08:29 +0000

“The Green paper aims at giving people back control of their lives and ending the culture of dependancy”

It says that they will stop peoples benefits if they don’t so work. There’s no media involvement necessary in showing the stigma here, it’s purely a government lead stigma. I’m all for blaming the media when it is stepping out of line, but this time it is not them spinning anything, this is reality. Labour wish to make people on benefits do community service for less than minimum wage or lose their benefits. It’s abhorrent and *no-one* on the left or that is liberal should be trying to defend it in any way.

By: community links

community links — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:18:09 +0000

I agree, stigmatising the poor as lazy cheats is extremely damaging, but I think this is the medias rsponsibility. The Green paper aims at giving people back control of their lives and ending the culture of dependancy. The media have taken it out of context and it is now appearing like a criminal sentence. If this understanding is adopted by society, this can be very dangerous as then the government will have to live up to this perception. What should be the focus is the lack of government acknowledgement and appreciation for people working cash in hand, on the side as a survival mechanism. Many of which are capable of working their way out of poverty but with theis new proposal they will just have to give up all they have achieved and go back to basics. That or give up benefits altogether and work on the black market.Either way at some point down the line the government wil realise they need to harness the skills of informal workers and help them into the formal economy. If you want to know more on this please check out http://comlinks.beepweb.co.uk/linksuk/ and have your say

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:48:13 +0000

“I waited for the howl from the unions that these workfare people would be taking the jobs of their members, but, unlike the response to a similar proposal a good number of years ago, it didn’t come.”

because they won’t be teking therr jerbs, they’ll be taking criminals jobs.

By: Linkblogging for 23/07/08 « Thoughts on music, science, politics and comics. Mostly comics.

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:12:10 +0000

[...] New Labour’s attitude to poor people. Shockingly, I still actually know some people who are going to vote for Labour. But then I look at the Tories’ benefit plans and I can see why. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started saying “the poor want to live in houses? Have we no workhouses for them? “ [...]

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:09:00 +0000

“Nothing much has changed in the last 350 years.”

Welfare dependency isn’t new either: http://historyofideas.org/journals/EH/EH40/haggar40.html

Having said that, I agree with the gist of what you are saying. The unemployed have the most to gain from these new policies and stigmatising them while you go about it is likely to be counter-productive. Perhaps this harsh rhetoric wouldn’t have been so called for had Labour started looking at this problem properly at the beginning (before Frank Field was dumped). Now they are up against the wall and are no longer the darling of the media, they are trying to use this as a rallying cry towards the center rather than what it should be, a necessary but difficult policy shift that should be handled sensitively.

By: dreamingspire

dreamingspire — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:06:33 +0000

I waited for the howl from the unions that these workfare people would be taking the jobs of their members, but, unlike the response to a similar proposal a good number of years ago, it didn’t come. So one hurdle in the way of “meaningful work improving their local communities” isn’t there. Surely we already have programmes like this, for example a clean-up job near me has been a partnership between a local authority’s support for people with mental health problems who are getting back into regular meaningful activity in the community, a Lottery grant through the BBC Breathing Places programme, and volunteer organisers. Other than that type of activity, for the apparently able-bodied of fully sound mind who are not working, it seems to be a case of deciding to not change their life style (so work of the sort that migrant workers take, with its geographic dislocation, they will not do) – brutish central direction from the citadel is not going to change that.
But I’m more concerned about the inefficiency of the public sector – dealing with that will reduce taxes, and dealing with it requires a great improvement in managerial competence.

By: Synergy6

Synergy6 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:06:47 +0000

Making the long-term unemployed enter some sort of work doesn’t worry me quite as much as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7520371.stm . 500,000 requests in a year for phone and internet records. So yes, I’m more liberal than left.

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:48:04 +0000

Let’s not forget this wasn’t the first hint of this policy. Caroline Flint already long ago announced evicting people from council houses if they were unemployed for too long. Our country is one that wants to kick the poor out on the street and spit on them…which is ok since they’re as bad as baby rapists, right?

If there was one area that we should definitely be making a defining part of our desire for change, this kind of attitude is it.

By: thomas

thomas — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:46:36 +0000

So the poor are now the ‘Africans’ of the UK? Well I’m sure the travelling community will be relieved to have been lifted from the lowest rung of the ladder, even if it is only in Purnell’s eyes.

That’s political correctness for you!

Make it socially acceptable to stigmatise those who you have a hold over – you gotta stigmatise some group of people, if only to make yourself feel more secure, and what’s the point of holding a position unless you can show your audience you know how to use force successfully against whichever victim you can be sure you won’t lose against.

Bahhh! If this is how he launches a blairite leadership bid he’s already failed.

By: Jennie Rigg

Jennie Rigg — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:24:49 +0000

Indeed, Sally.

By: sally

sally — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:12:05 +0000

Why is New Labour stigmatising poor people?

Because New Labour is Conservative. Simple answer to a simple question really.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:03:55 +0000

Aha, I’d been wondering who Purnell reminded me of and that photo has done it.

http://www.bravo.co.uk/lifeonmars/images/characters/character_3.jpg

Sorry to lower the tone.