Are Labour Siding with the Tories on Workfare?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Some nasty shit going on here. If you've got a Labour MP, it's time to contact them TODAY to remind them which side they're supposed to be on.

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling | Society | guardian.co.uk

 

The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of a court of appeal decision and "protect the national economy" from a £130m payout to jobseekers deemed to have been unlawfully punished.

 

The retroactive legislation, published on Thursday evening and expected to be rushed through parliament on Tuesday, will effectively strike down a decision by three senior judges and deny benefit claimants an average payout of between £530 and £570 each.

 

Last month the court of appeal ruled that science graduate Cait Reilly and fellow complainant and unemployed lorry driver Jamieson Wilson had been unlawfully made to work unpaid for organisations including Poundland because the DWP had not given jobseekers enough legal information about what they were being made to do.

 

The ruling meant that hundreds of thousands of jobseekers who had been financially penalised for falling foul of half a dozen employment schemes, including the government's flagship Work Programme, would have been entitled to a full rebate if a final government appeal was rejected by the supreme court.

 

However, the government has instead published a seven-page jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill to head off a potential multimillion-pound payout and "protect the national economy".

 

The Guardian understands that Labour will support the fast-tracked bill with some further safeguards and that negotiations with the coalition are ongoing.

 

The new bill would also put a stop to any potential claims for the national minimum wage, which could otherwise be due to those who spent weeks working for no pay at high street chains such as Tesco, Matalan and Argos.

 

Lawyers and campaigners branded the DWP's move as "repugnant" and "unbelievably disgusting", saying it undermined the rule of law.

 

Official notes to the bill admit the legislative mess was caused by the court of appeal's ruling. "The effect of the court's judgment is that the Department for Work and Pensions had no right to impose a sanction on claimants who had failed to meet their requirements," they say.

 

However, the explanatory notes add: "Once enacted, [the bill] will ensure that any such decisions cannot be challenged on the grounds that the [back to work employment scheme] regulations were invalid … notwithstanding the court of appeal's judgment. Therefore benefit sanctions already imposed or to be imposed, will stand."

 

A DWP spokesperson said: "This legislation will protect taxpayers and make sure we won't be paying back money to people who didn't do enough to find work."

 

Tessa Gregory from Public Interest Lawyers, who successfully represented Reilly and Wilson at the court of appeal, said the legislation smacked of desperation.

 

"The emergency bill is a repugnant attempt by the secretary of state for work and pensions to avoid his legal obligation to repay the thousands of jobseekers, who like my client Jamieson Wilson, have been unlawfully and unfairly stripped of their subsistence benefits.

 

"The use of retrospective legislation, which is being fast-tracked through parliament, smacks of desperation. It undermines the rule of law and means that Iain Duncan Smith is once again seeking to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny of his actions.

 

"It is time for his department to admit that maladministration and injustice costs. In light of the bill we are considering what further legal action we can take on behalf of our clients."

 

A spokesperson for Boycott Workfare, a grassroots organisation that has campaigned to stop forced unpaid work schemes, said the move was disgusting. They added that they were shocked that Labour was supporting the move.

 

"This is almost unbelievably disgusting. They [the DWP] broke the law, now they want to retroactively change the law so that they didn't break the law in order to keep £130m out of the pockets of some of the poorest people in the country.

 

"The high court found workfare unlawful precisely because people had no way of knowing the rules that applied. It shows an incredible level of arrogance and disregard for the poorest to now attempt to backdate laws to challenge this ruling."

 

*****************************

I've already e-mailed my MP (Stephen Twigg) to point out that any Labour support for this would be morally reprehensible and electorally suicidal. (I suspect he'd care more about the latter than the former.)

 

I'd recommend anyone to start getting shouty with their MPs today.

 

Spread the word.

[dickie mint]

Some nasty shit going on here. If you've got a Labour MP, it's time to contact them TODAY to remind them which side they're supposed to be on.

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling | Society | guardian.co.uk

 

The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of a court of appeal decision and "protect the national economy" from a £130m payout to jobseekers deemed to have been unlawfully punished.

 

The retroactive legislation, published on Thursday evening and expected to be rushed through parliament on Tuesday, will effectively strike down a decision by three senior judges and deny benefit claimants an average payout of between £530 and £570 each.

 

Last month the court of appeal ruled that science graduate Cait Reilly and fellow complainant and unemployed lorry driver Jamieson Wilson had been unlawfully made to work unpaid for organisations including Poundland because the DWP had not given jobseekers enough legal information about what they were being made to do.

 

The ruling meant that hundreds of thousands of jobseekers who had been financially penalised for falling foul of half a dozen employment schemes, including the government's flagship Work Programme, would have been entitled to a full rebate if a final government appeal was rejected by the supreme court.

 

However, the government has instead published a seven-page jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill to head off a potential multimillion-pound payout and "protect the national economy".

 

The Guardian understands that Labour will support the fast-tracked bill with some further safeguards and that negotiations with the coalition are ongoing.

 

The new bill would also put a stop to any potential claims for the national minimum wage, which could otherwise be due to those who spent weeks working for no pay at high street chains such as Tesco, Matalan and Argos.

 

Lawyers and campaigners branded the DWP's move as "repugnant" and "unbelievably disgusting", saying it undermined the rule of law.

 

Official notes to the bill admit the legislative mess was caused by the court of appeal's ruling. "The effect of the court's judgment is that the Department for Work and Pensions had no right to impose a sanction on claimants who had failed to meet their requirements," they say.

 

However, the explanatory notes add: "Once enacted, [the bill] will ensure that any such decisions cannot be challenged on the grounds that the [back to work employment scheme] regulations were invalid … notwithstanding the court of appeal's judgment. Therefore benefit sanctions already imposed or to be imposed, will stand."

 

A DWP spokesperson said: "This legislation will protect taxpayers and make sure we won't be paying back money to people who didn't do enough to find work."

 

Tessa Gregory from Public Interest Lawyers, who successfully represented Reilly and Wilson at the court of appeal, said the legislation smacked of desperation.

 

"The emergency bill is a repugnant attempt by the secretary of state for work and pensions to avoid his legal obligation to repay the thousands of jobseekers, who like my client Jamieson Wilson, have been unlawfully and unfairly stripped of their subsistence benefits.

 

"The use of retrospective legislation, which is being fast-tracked through parliament, smacks of desperation. It undermines the rule of law and means that Iain Duncan Smith is once again seeking to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny of his actions.

 

"It is time for his department to admit that maladministration and injustice costs. In light of the bill we are considering what further legal action we can take on behalf of our clients."

 

A spokesperson for Boycott Workfare, a grassroots organisation that has campaigned to stop forced unpaid work schemes, said the move was disgusting. They added that they were shocked that Labour was supporting the move.

 

"This is almost unbelievably disgusting. They [the DWP] broke the law, now they want to retroactively change the law so that they didn't break the law in order to keep £130m out of the pockets of some of the poorest people in the country.

 

"The high court found workfare unlawful precisely because people had no way of knowing the rules that applied. It shows an incredible level of arrogance and disregard for the poorest to now attempt to backdate laws to challenge this ruling."

 

*****************************

I've already e-mailed my MP (Stephen Twigg) to point out that any Labour support for this would be morally reprehensible and electorally suicidal. (I suspect he'd care more about the latter than the former.)

 

I'd recommend anyone to start getting shouty with their MPs today.

 

Spread the word.

 

 

 

Shower of pricks if they're backing this mate.

[Lee909]

They are all the same with different colour ties.

[Strontium]

Can the country afford to pay £130m to unemployed people who didn't do enough to find work? That's probably the question they asked themselves.

[lifetime fan]

Can the country afford to pay £130m to unemployed people who didn't do enough to find work? That's probably the question they asked themselves.

 

 

Not even you believe that shite mate.

[Lurtz]

They are all the same with different colour ties.

 

This. They're all utter cunts, every last man and woman of them.

 

Democracy in action.

[Pidge]

More legislation targeting the more vulnerable members of our society? From this government? Never...

 

Homeless? Unemployed? Disabled? Well fuck you, it's probably your fault anyway.

[Fugitive]

Can the country afford to pay £130m to unemployed people who didn't do enough to find work? That's probably the question they asked themselves.

 

*shakes head*

 

If you were alive during the war years, you would have been a paid up member of the Nazi party.

[bossy]

Can the country afford to pay £130m to unemployed people who didn't do enough to find work? That's probably the question they asked themselves.

 

Repulsive.

[Section_31]

Be interesting to see what happens.

 

Tell you though, I despise Miliband more than Cameron and Clegg, and that's saying something.

 

Labour in their current guise with him and Ed Balls at the top are despicable.

[Bobby Hundreds]

We just pick our dictators every 4 years. I say we twat em all.

[Stu Monty]

Can the country afford to pay £130m to unemployed people who didn't do enough to find work? That's probably the question they asked themselves.

 

As I've said before you're either mendacious or stupid, and I'm not going for stupid.

 

Forcing people to work for free at Tesco isn't a helpful policy you terrible neoliberal snide. You know that there's thousands of people going for basic positions now don't you?

 

If you don't want to pay out sums of money for putting together misguided and amateurly constructed policy then get it right the first time. The most shocking thing about both parties in this coalition isn't their intent (that was obvious) it's how utterly pathetically poor their implementation and levels of competence have been.

 

A liberal that believes in the state forcing you to work for Tesco (so they can cut costs by slashing staff and again pay no tax) would be funny if it wasn't to terribly, soul-crushingly, sad.

 

 

SD "....But Labour!"

[KMD7]

Can the country afford to pay £130m to unemployed people who didn't do enough to find work? That's probably the question they asked themselves.

 

Disgusting

[Strontium]

Not even you believe that shite mate.

 

 

What? We are talking about benefits that have been stopped because people refused to partake in any of the back to work activities they were asked to partake in.

 

*shakes head*

 

If you were alive during the war years, you would have been a paid up member of the Nazi party.

 

 

Fuck me, but this is stupid on numerous levels.

 

As I've said before you're either mendacious or stupid, and I'm not going for stupid.

 

Forcing people to work for free at Tesco isn't a helpful policy you terrible neoliberal snide. You know that there's thousands of people going for basic positions now don't you?

 

If you don't want to pay out sums of money for putting together misguided and amateurly constructed policy then get it right the first time. The most shocking thing about both parties in this coalition isn't their intent (that was obvious) it's how utterly pathetically poor their implementation and levels of competence have been.

 

A liberal that believes in the state forcing you to work for Tesco (so they can cut costs by slashing staff and again pay no tax) would be funny if it wasn't to terribly, soul-crushingly, sad.

 

 

SD "....But Labour!"

 

 

You are the stupid one if you believe this country's welfare-to-work policies amount to "forcing people to work for free at Tesco", and you are a know-nothing bellend if you think the companies involved are making money out of this.

 

If you're serious about wanting a job, you'll positively engage with programmes like these. I would have fucking loved a scheme like this when I was unemployed back in 2001. In the end, I had to arrange my own work experience; I worked 5 and a half months without pay before my "employer" offered me a contract. I have been in full-time employment ever since.

 

And "But Labour"? Fuck off.

[Fugitive]

Nazi dog fucker.

[Strontium]

Disgusting

 

 

What part of JOBSEEKER'S Allowance don't you understand?

 

Even a dribbling fucking moron with only a basic command of English can work out that "Jobseeker's Allowance" involves some kind of token effort from the recipient to seek work.

 

Now here we have schemes that take all of the effort out of finding work, and still some of them don't want to do it. And it's "disgusting" to penalise people for not holding up to their end of the bargain?

 

You lot live on a different planet.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

What part of JOBSEEKER'S Allowance don't you understand?

 

Even a dribbling fucking moron with only a basic command of English can work out that "Jobseeker's Allowance" involves some kind of token effort from the recipient to seek work.

 

Now here we have schemes that take all of the effort out of finding work, and still some of them don't want to do it. And it's "disgusting" to penalise people for not holding up to their end of the bargain?

 

You lot live on a different planet.

It's clearly not the one you live on, Dog.

 

Now do us a favour - this is a thread about the Labour party siding with the Tory government (and their enablers) against the bulk of the Labour movement. If you want to start a thread defending Workfare, just piss off and do that.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

What part of JOBSEEKER'S Allowance don't you understand?

 

Even a dribbling fucking moron with only a basic command of English can work out that "Jobseeker's Allowance" involves some kind of token effort from the recipient to seek work.

 

Now here we have schemes that take all of the effort out of finding work' date=' and still some of them don't want to do it. And it's "disgusting" to penalise people for not holding up to their end of the bargain?

 

You lot live on a different planet.[/quote']

 

What jobs are people supposed to do? And ask yourself,'would i do it?' Bet you wouldnt.

[Fugitive]

Who made the 'Fuges shithouse tag' tag?

 

I've made no tags. I've said everything in the thread.

[lifetime fan]

The girl that brought that case had a degree and was already voluteering at a museum Stronts. As you well know.

[Strontium]

It's clearly not the one you live on, Dog.

 

Now do us a favour - this is a thread about the Labour party siding with the Tory government (and their enablers) against the bulk of the Labour movement. If you want to start a thread defending Workfare, just piss off and do that.

 

 

You wondered why Labour would be supporting a measure like this. I attempted to honestly answer that.

 

The workfare programme Bill Clinton brought in did more to reduce poverty than anything else he did. This is why I support the principle of it and, I would venture a guess, why Labour do too.

 

The girl that brought that case had a degree and was already voluteering at a museum stronts. As you well know.

 

 

Yeah, and the programme she was enrolled on was a voluntary one that she could have refused. Except the idiots at the jobcentre didn't tell her that.

[clangers]

The girl that brought that case had a degree and was already voluteering at a museum Stronts. As you well know.

 

Yep, appalling isn't it? She's gone out and found work related to her qualification, work is still work even if it's voluntary. What happened to Cameron's 'Big Society'? Isn't this girls attitude exactly what he was calling on us to all do?

 

Ian Duncan Shit is one of the nastiest two faced politicians out there, he's been constantly trying to frame the two who took them to court as work shy even after the court ruling made it perfectly clear that wasn't the case.

[lifetime fan]

Yeah, and the programme she was enrolled on was a voluntary one that she could have refused. Except the idiots at the jobcentre didn't tell her that.

 

 

So not her fault at all then.

[lifetime fan]

Yep, appalling isn't it? She's gone out and found work related to her qualification, work is still work even if it's voluntary. What happened to Cameron's 'Big Society'? Isn't this girls attitude exactly what he was calling on us to all do?

 

Ian Duncan Shit is one of the nastiest two faced politicians out there, he's been constantly trying to frame the two who took them to court as work shy even after the court ruling made it perfectly clear that wasn't the case.

 

 

I want to see someone ask IDS if Betsy is a scrounger, I'd pay good money to see his reaction.

[Pidge]

Who made the 'Fuges shithouse tag' tag?

 

I've made no tags. I've said everything in the thread.

 

Haha, I added "tory cunt", but as part of my reaction to the article, not aimed at anyone on here. It was meant to be "tory cunts", but looks like I accidentally selected a pre-existing tag while typing.