Can't Work, Won't Work

I'll be off to a smokey-drinky in a couple of hours so I shall be early in wishing all fellow jewel robbers, and vaguely interested passers-by to your humble host's cyber abode, a very happy and prosperous 2013 to come. Yes, I know that's being optimistic, but you never know, eh? If you really fancy a round-up of what has irked us most this year, do drop by Snowdon's pad for a comprehensive list.

In the meantime, seeing as our smokey-drinky is promised to last many hours into the new year thereby potentially wiping out much of tomorrow, here are - in order - something to make your jaw drop; some quarter century old anecdotes; and one of the little Ps' fave videos of 2012.

Via the Devil and Guido, this news clip is one which has - unusually - tipped Mrs P into a bout of apoplexy. If you haven't yet come across it, find five minutes to listen to a guy who called LBC's Julia Hartley-Brewer to say that he had turned down employment because it meant he had to be at work by 8am.

Since Mrs P works in an office where her rotational shift often sees her starting before that time, she listened to 'Paul' in angry disbelief. I was more interested as to how little things seem to have changed despite the efforts of MPs over the past few decades.

In the 1980s Mr P Snr owned a pub in which I helped out regularly behind the bar. One of our workshy customers - who seemed to be able to spend every lunchtime in the place despite being on the dole - was a remarkable man in his 50s called Pete. Remarkable because of his amazing talent for avoiding any kind of paid employment whatsoever.

A trained electrician, he would always complain that there were just no jobs for him and blame the economy, nasty business owners or "that bloody Thatcher". Being an old-fashioned 'local', most knew him well enough to know these were just excuses and nodded along in faux sympathy. 

Despite this, one day the wife of another regular - who held a high-ranking position at a state-run institution about three miles away - pulled strings and got him a job on £300 per week (a very good wage at the time) overseeing the electrical system for their buildings. In front of the rest of the pub he was unable to refuse without losing all credibility, so took up the offer. 

However, the next week on a Friday, he was back in his usual seat in the pub at lunchtime when the lady job provider came in.

"What happened to you, Pete? You worked for two days but no-one has seen you since Tuesday", she enquired.

"Well", he replied "the job just wasn't right for me."

"Why ever not? It's a brilliant wage and the role isn't very taxing for someone with your training"

"Because I have to get a bus there, and it takes half an hour and costs me a pound each way" was his staggering response.

She just stood there open-mouthed for a few seconds taking this in, then told him he caused her a lot of embarrassment, before storming out. Pete merely shrugged his shoulders and carried on drinking his pint.

He later landed a job - after being threatened with losing his dole by the job centre - five minutes walk from his house at a local warehouse. It was a position where he mostly watched TV but was called upon to fix equipment and wiring and the like when required. He again lasted two days before claiming he had a bad back, going on long term sick, and then being fired which got him back on the dole where he was happiest.

So there have always been people like LBC's Paul around, and always will be, but that he seemingly doesn't see anything wrong with his turning down a job for reasons the rest of us would find ridiculous is also nothing new. Our pub's Pete also seemed able to kid even himself into a state of mind where he wasn't doing anything unusual, and reacted badly to any criticism directed towards him.

The best example was when a 'stranger' came into our local and, after ordering a pint, spotted Pete and greeted him warmly. It turned out he was an ex-local lad who had moved about 100 miles away and was only returning for a brief visit of old haunts after 25 years out of the area. After a few reminisces, he had the entire pub in stitches with this exchange.

"So, Pete, are you still doing that job you did last when I was around?"

"What job was that?", enquired Pete with a contented smile.

"Programme seller at the Queen's coronation", he fired back, followed by a raucous belly laugh.

As tears of hilarity were rolling down the cheeks of regulars who knew what Pete was like - and now knew that he had been that way for at least 25 years - he was emptying his glass muttering "what a fucking cheek!" before leaving with steam coming out of his ears and a furious purple colour on his face.

Needless to say, even that public put-down did nothing to change him.

By way of contrast, the guy below - who presumably had no problem with starting work before 8am on his stall - reportedly fell foul of visa regulations and had to leave the country.

Go figure.

Have a lot of fun tonight if that is what you're planning on, we'll chat again next year.

UPDATE: The Ashtray blog have provided an excellent run-down of how e-cigs fared in the past year.

2012 will be remembered as the year where electronic cigarettes came into their own and gathered the attention of millions.

It's also well worth a read.

Scouting For Girls

I've never been in a job centre before, so was entirely unaware of the quite magical aura of such a place.

It had completely escaped my attention, for example, that one could enter determined to find employment in, say, the care industry, but exit - after a few incantations had been implanted into the brain - with an irresistible urge to don lingerie and expose oneself to strangers.

But, apparently, this process occurs on a daily basis. In the jobless go, only to emerge a matter of minutes later with a completely different fundamental outlook on life. And unlike hypnosis, which purportedly cannot force anyone to do something against their natural will, the power of the job centre is far more seductive.

Lap dancing clubs and sex phone line firms will be banned from using job centres to recruit new staff, ministers have announced.

Mr Grayling said: “It’s absolutely wrong that the Government advertises jobs that could support the exploitation of people.

“We’ve taken immediate action today to stop certain adult entertainment vacancies from being advertised through Jobcentre Plus.

“We shouldn't put vulnerable people in an environment where they’re exposed to these types of jobs and could feel under pressure to work in the sex industry.”

Wow! If this is true, the scope for such a compelling place is immense. We could eradicate unemployment at a stroke.

Got a feckless arse-scratching ex-brickie on the DWP books? Simple, just shove him through the door and he will instantly come out gagging to sweep roads.

Oh, hold on.

Its aim is to protect unemployed people who are desperate to find work from feeling that they must consider taking jobs that they are not comfortable with.

I knew there would be a catch. It's the 'desperate' bit, isn't it?

In which case, Grayling is somewhat over-estimating the lure of your average Jobcentre Plus (by the way, where did the 'plus' come from? Do they come with a gift shop nowadays?). Those who may be 'desperate' for work - and have the correct *cough* equipment for the job - would no doubt have considered lap dancing, or talking dirty to old men over a phone line while dressed in Kappa trackie bottoms, well before having a light bulb flicker above their head in a job centre.

If they hadn't, they could always just not apply, couldn't they?

Additionally, I reckon there are quite a few lap dancing establishments who would be rather miffed to be described as being inherently exploitative, whilst other employers whose uniform is an apron rather than stockings, are automatically considered safe.

So, if we are to believe that this measure is required, one of three conditions must surely be prevalent as things stand.

1) That Jobcentre Plus staff are threatening to withdraw benefits if women don't apply for such jobs - in which case, direct them not to do so.
2) That sex industry employers are routinely exploiting their workers - in which case, make sure that they don't (which I'm pretty sure is heavily regulated already).
3) That the government doesn't believe that Jobcentre Plus visitors are capable of possessing (or shouldn't be allowed to possess) self-determination.

So, this appears not so much to do with the lure of such adverts as it does the deficiency of public sector operations, or a traditional Conservative dislike of anything a bit risqué.

The most irresistible urge in this story would appear to be that of the state's addiction to restricting the public from making their own, right or wrong, choices in life.

Pay Now, Ask Questions Later

Ministers are preparing to move the system of paying Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA), currently claimed by 1.58 million people, largely online later this year in a major cost-cutting drive.

The aim is to make 80 per cent of JSA payments online within months, with a view to boosting the figure over time to 100 per cent.

Ministers are considering the best way of making sure someone is available for work if they no longer need to attend Jobcentres.

Err, shouldn't the latter have been fully considered, and decided, before even thinking of preparing for the former?

Portillo, The New Hannan?

Has Michael Portillo (or the Times) been regarding Hannan's recent headline notoriety with envious eyes? Hard-wired Labour advocates will have an aneurism over certain snippets in his well-argued assessment of the inherent failings in our benefits system.

Idle young should be entitled to nothing

Yep, you read that right. Nothing.

At best, the unrealisable hope of winning the lottery or appearing on Big Brother has supplanted the traditional appetite for qualifications and careers.

He forgot to include X Factor or Britain's Got Talent, but you get the idea.

But perhaps, at least, we ought to assume that fit young people are not entitled to anything. If a few young men from sink estates are now heroes in Afghanistan, why should we presume that all the others are capable of nothing useful at all?

Wow! If Hannan had said this, LabourList would be snapping in fury already.

The Times have given this quite a prominent place on their home page - they have no doubt jealously observed the attention gained by the Telegraph from Hannan's musings in the past month or so.

Unfortunately, Portillo doesn't believe such radical reform is possible. In fact, he argues that future administrations won't be gutsy enough to halt the current system of rewarding the feckless and indolent. Looking at Cameron's Tories, one has to agree.

To achieve any dent in the comfort zone of those who happily pitch up and take from the state without ever feeling the need to do anything for it, a seismic shift in the mould of 1979 would be required. It would be messy, it would be confrontational, it would cow the sensibilities of all but the thickest-skinned of politicians ... which is why Cameron's lot won't bother.

Portillo quite rightly highlights the main attitudes that need to be changed. The long lost stigma of having to go cap in hand to the DSS needs to be reinvented, for a start. Labour have shown that it is possible to stigmatise whole tranches of society based on what they eat, drink and smoke, yet still treat those who habitually dodge work, as victims. If the approach for the former works on the sheep, why not the same for a much more worthy cause?

Society today is very different. Stigma has been abolished. To live on benefits has become a lifestyle choice. In many families there is no memory of anyone working. Ours is a culture of entitlement, a word coined to minimise shame and maximise claiming.

We're all nodding, Michael. It's clear to everyone where the problem lies. It's just that there are so many fucking morons who, for some reason or another, have a vested interest in perpetuating a failed system which is ripping the guts out of our country.

Last week the Conservatives raised a hue and cry against the government for its welfare failures. But it is unclear how brave a Tory government could be. While I served in Margaret Thatcher’s governments, we made no progress in reducing dependency while lobby groups howled that we were destroying the benefits system.

And there you have it.

If the Tories are serious about ending this idle reliance on the state, the very first part of the current set-up they should be tackling is the web-like plethora of quangoes, government-funded charities, and salaried bleeding hearts who object like stink to every reform which is proposed by those who pay their wages.

After that, some serious money to bolster the police would be needed because, sure as buggery, we'd need a police force not bogged down with targets, surveys and PC to react, once the feckless realise their easy ride is over.

Still. This is all hypothetical anyway. Cameron et al can bluster as much as they like about reducing the benefits bill, but unless they are holding meetings now planning policy for years into the future, it's quite simply not possible. And I can't see it myself, can you? This isn't Thatcher and Joseph we are talking about here.

Interesting thoughts from Portillo, though. I wonder if Prescott will be having an apoplectic rant about this, too.

Wood for the Trees

I was initially in a right quandary about this.

A crackdown on 'Shameless' families could see state officials turning up at people's homes to get them out of bed for work and make sure their children go to school.

Yeehah! That'll teach the lazy, freeloading bastards.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears said the Government was prepared to take drastic steps to tackle a 'hardcore' of workless neighbourhoods where no one has a proper job.

Way to go, ginger dwarf, give 'em hell!

Sources say council staff would be given the power to enter homes to get people out of bed in the morning, or turn up with rubber gloves and detergent to oversee the cleaning of filthy homes.

Oh, actually. No. I think I've changed my mind.

Is it just me, or is this a straw man of huge proportion? Listen, Labour, you have no right whatsoever to enter anyone's home, for any reason, unless they have broken a law. And by that, I don't mean one of your thousands of new laws that have been created to punish those that disagree with you.

It is the choice of the 'Shameless' to do as they please. I would applaud you in trying to stop them doing so, but not by overriding their personal freedom, in their own home, in what we somewhat laughingly call a free country since 1997.

Miss Blears is working with Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell on measures that would see families who refuse to take part stripped of their benefits.

'We need to be bold and innovative, because it is clear that for "Shameless" families the current system does not do enough to get people into work.'

Bingo! There you have it. It is the system that shovels money in the direction of these people, simply for sitting on their arse in their Kappa trackie bottoms, that is the problem. You could stop that tomorrow. In fact, you have even touched on it in the 'stripped of their benefits' bit. You don't need some new scheme (probably expensive in itself) to do that, just cut the money supply.

What you certainly do not need to do, is claim that because people are habitually not working, funded quite adequately by yourselves, you now have the right to enter their homes. Take away the financial incentive for being lazy and see how quickly they run to the job centre.

Surely this is as plain as the nose on the little one's face? Or has the Labour predilection for control and authoritarianism taken so much hold that common sense is now irrelevant. Blears is not only a physical midget, she is an intellectual one as well.

Degrees of Unemployed

With all the gloom around at the moment, the BBC web magazine has started a series on Britain's jobless. Today they published an article entitled, Britain's jobless: who cares?

Within are some very interesting viewpoints ... and some pretty suspect ones, such as this remark in condemnation of welfare reforms designed to aim a big boot up the backsides of certain piss-takers.

"If you have four million or so people chasing a few hundred thousand jobs, it goes without saying that putting pressure on the unemployed to look harder is not going to work," says psychologist Dr David Fryer, of Stirling University.

"In general the media has not done unemployment a service. The unemployed are portrayed as social outcasts who don't share the moral and ethical values of the rest of us."

That is a worthy comment in the case of Harry Blackwood, who wrote in the Telegraph last month of not only his struggle to find a job after 35 years of perpetual employment, but also his despair at the incompetence and lack of care he encountered from those charged with matching workers with work. I recommmend reading all of that article as it fully proves the problem to which Dr David Fryer refers.

Unfortunately, there is a big difference between Harry Blackwood and those that really cannot be arsed. Instead of pointing the finger at the media for doing down the unemployed, Dr Fryer should instead direct his condemnation at those who give the media damn good reason to shoot at targets that don't move a muscle to disprove their theory, such as the excuse-filled woman the BBC reported on yesterday who hasn't worked a single day in her 28 days of eligibility in the job market.

Elizabeth Malcolm, 43, has never had a job. She lives in a two-bedroom council flat in Glasgow with her three children, one grandchild, two cats and a hamster.

Neither of her two working-age children has a job.

The family is what the statistics gatherers call a "workless household" - one of three million in the country. In reality it's not quite so easy to put every jobless person into a neat little box.

Well, actually, it's very easy to put this one in a box. One labelled "useless".

"... she concedes that she doesn't really know why she didn't get a job, and that there was an element of just "not getting round" to it.

She doesn't think school wanted her to stay on because she "wasn't too bright" and used to bunk off a lot.

Without any qualifications she assumed she wasn't able to follow her chosen path and join the Army. She never actually made it to the recruitment office to ask."

So, she doesn't know why she didn't get a job? Perhaps it's because she didn't bother lifting a finger, despite the exhortations of her hard-working parents.

The good thing is that she has made damn sure that her offspring don't fall into the same lethargic ways as she. Oh, hold on ...

The family survives on a combination of Income Support and Child Tax Credits, claimed by both Elizabeth and Danielle. Both also receive the universal Child Benefit for one child each. It all amounts to about £270 a week for the five of them.

As no-one in the house is actively seeking work, they don't count as "unemployed" and none claims Jobseeker's Allowance.

Yes, daughter Danielle, who became a state-funded Mum at 16, has also never worked. And it's not going to change either seeing as there are such incredibly tough obstacles in the way.

"All my pals are looking for work as well. But it's not that easy to get a job straight away, you've got to write out your CV and everything and then hand it in to places."

Good Lord! The inhumanity of writing a CV and handing it in 'to places'!

Elizabeth, who has been lazily sucking up other people's money for almost as long as Harry Blackwood has been paying for her keep, is apologetic about ripping us off for £14k a year though.

"I'm sorry they have to pay tax money to me. If I could get a job... give me a job then and I'll work, and then they won't have to pay me."

So which gold-leaf gilded plate would you like this job to be placed upon? There's a joke about someone praying for a lottery win and a voice from above hollering "Do me a favour, buy a ticket!". If this family find it too much effort to put themselves out and apply, how on earth can any employer in their right mind think they will last a day? That's if they even know they exist at all, it's not like their names keep cropping up on application forms, is it?

Those new welfare reforms are a bugger too.

"They said I'd be better off if I was out working because Jon's at an age now where the money I'm getting will stop soon. I'd need to sign on [for unemployment benefit] again and I don't want that because I think I'm too old to sign on."

Just bring the money to me, I can't be bovvered to go and get it.

It will be interesting to see where the BBC are going with their series on the jobless. If they continue in attempting to procure sympathy for households such as Elizabeth's (there are 3 million of them), then they are insulting to those like Harry Blackwood who truly deserve sympathy, and also insulting to everyone who got off their backsides this morning, amongst the frost, to do a day's work or seriously try to find such.