Official thread: ‘Get Britain Working’ White Paper released Tuesday 26th November

12467…28

Comments

  • Andi66
    Andi66 Online Community Member Posts: 612 Pioneering
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946862#Comment_946862

    They have to train the jobcentre staff to be human and treat us better.

  • Amaya_Ringo
    Amaya_Ringo Online Community Member Posts: 245 Pioneering

    I am happy if they are going to do their own consultation in the spring over disability stuff, because if it's as horrible as the previous, maybe we'll get a chance to comment and the organisations and charities will also be able to put their points across for us too.

    I want them to do more about retaining disabled employees, though. My job is local government, many disabled people work in local government, they're talking about LG cuts…my job is temporary and I may well lose it come the spring. I've managed to get work despite being autistic and thus in the lowest employed demographic % of any disabled group…and despite having no support to get it. But with all this going on, I need them to be more aware of people already in employment that may not be secure. What about us? What do we do?

    So much focus has been on people being not in work, that I feel like we're being forgotten and there's no point in getting x y z people into work if the same number are losing their jobs through natural wastage and current insecurity.

  • Kaliwax
    Kaliwax Online Community Member Posts: 93 Empowering
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946904#Comment_946904

    They did mention that to be fair, they said all coach will bent sent some sort of coaching thing, that will enable them to support people better, and try and support people with more complex needs

  • Stellar
    Stellar Online Community Member Posts: 177 Empowering

    The youth guarentee idea is potentially good, alongside reforming jobcentres. However, as with anything neoliberals say, the devil is in the detail.

    The consultation in the spring is one example of this. Don't even bother responding and instead prepare for in-person protests. Consultations are worse than nothing at this point as politicians will just ignore the responses.

  • Amaya_Ringo
    Amaya_Ringo Online Community Member Posts: 245 Pioneering

    Thanks for your hard work as always, apple, I will be coming back to read over your highlighted version tomorrow most likely :)

    I agree with you about the election and the political situation. I didn't vote Labour in the last GE but I decided a long time ago to not vote for the Tories until they recognised disabled people as people.

    My concern with the white paper is still the problem of people in work being able to stay in work. Kendall is right about the need for a job that's fulfilling and enjoyable. I love my job, but it has no security and getting it was enough of a stress and struggle. I don't really know how to get that across to central government - that keeping disabled people in existing jobs is as important as getting other disabled people into jobs.

    I lost my job during the last "get disabled people into work" drive under Cameron and that was a permanent position, they just closed the service. I am not massively optimistic whether I will be employed next election unless some serious work is done to ensure disabled people in current employment have opportunities to remain in post.

  • Amaya_Ringo
    Amaya_Ringo Online Community Member Posts: 245 Pioneering

    I think there's space to answer the consultation and protest if you have the means to do it. As an autistic person who can't navigate and who doesn't do well in noisy crowded spaces, in person protest is not possible for me. Answering a consultation is my only way to get my voice heard. But there's genuinely no reason why not to respond to the survey and protest peacefully against any changes that are to our detriment, if you are able :)

  • apple85
    apple85 Online Community Member Posts: 787 Championing
    edited November 2024
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946966#Comment_946966

    I need to find Kendall’s exact quote on the dwp committee meeting as I think if I did remember it correctly then I think it would win her some currency amongst the disabled

    and you comment on supporting those disabled already in work to stay in work is an excellent point and why Kendall should be making an effect to talk directly to as many disabled ppl as possible as labours ‘success’ in this is in our best interest as well as hers and I truly believe a healthy collaboration and compromise is possible (or at least more so then it was with the tories who didn’t seem to care about individuals at all)


    I actually found the transcript from that dwp committee from last week (which I think is the best Kendall has ever come off) - well worth a read:

    https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14995/pdf/

    Edit: after reading Kendall’s quote prehaps I took some liberties memory wise painting a more sugar coated quote……..I remember her sound compassionate when saying this on the video link though

    IMG_3215.jpeg
  • HollisMcBobbery
    HollisMcBobbery Online Community Member Posts: 5 Connected

    I live in Doncaster, South Yorkshire and I'm really concerned that one of these new pilot schemes is going to be aimed at me. Not the youth ones (I'm 36) but there are others planned to test out the plans to tackle inactivity and South Yorkshire is one of them. The blueprint for these ideas I believe was carried out in Barnsley, not far from me.

    I understand it has to be tested out somewhere but I'm dreading getting swept up in some guineapig pilot that makes me much more ill (my conditions are related to mental health).

    My main question would be is from the very beginning, even if its a pilot scheme, is this voluntary? Do I need to brace for sudden increased conditionality.

    My heart goes out to you all who are reading this thread and have similar worries about **** is going on with these reforms.

    I think really only time will tell.

  • egister
    egister Posts: 617 Empowering
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946616#Comment_946616

    Do you remember Covid prevention? I'm scared if other diseases are prevented in a similar way.

    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946629#Comment_946629

    I see that one monkey passed a grenade to another monkey. Either way, the grenade will explode.

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 3,547 Championing
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946917#Comment_946917

    It's so hard to believe here's hoping

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 3,547 Championing
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946979#Comment_946979

    I think its for new claimants first

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 3,547 Championing

    So can I ask they say 2025 but surly that would have to go through parliament first thankyou for breakdown

  • onebigvoice
    onebigvoice Scope Member Posts: 867 Pioneering

    @Amaya_Ringo.

    I completely agree with what you say. The need for a re-election? How many years have we waited for this? Yet who are these people who think that this will be a "quick fix" If so what would you change first? The NHS?, migration issues? WCA? Out of Work payments? Support of UN payments to poverty countries? UC payments at no loss? Disabled Payment rights to be inline with the Basic Living Wage? Pension Rights and payments for all? including paying out of pensions for women (WASPI) No tax on Pensions?

    The list is endless. Everyone has a "pet hate" that affects them or a loved one. But hoiw many have access to be able to fix or at least have a voice to be heard?

    SCOPE have the ability to get a voice for all. As they are already represented in the Senedd and in Parliament. Questions or Querry's about things that affect you can be posed and will get a better result as to a direction or go to person because they are already doing it.

    Support Admin, to get our voice heard in the right places, and not spend time trying to take a government down who you believe are not doing things fast enough, or in the order you think they need to be done.

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 3,547 Championing
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946970#Comment_946970

    I understand that something needs and needed to be done but what I don't understand is there's no mention if you can't work or maybe I've missed that part I find it disturbing when they say worming with more severe mentally ill thanks for post you put up

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 3,547 Championing

    But I did like the part where liz kendell had an interview and said this would be in next twn years to rollout

  • Kaliwax
    Kaliwax Online Community Member Posts: 93 Empowering
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/946979#Comment_946979

    They won't able to touch you if you are signed up with Autism Plus, Im pretty sure they have their own project in doncaster or Barnsley at least. The rules I got told by a DWP DSA, that you cannot be on 2 funded DWP programs at once.

    The Autism Plus support is excellent and voluntary, no pressure from them whatsoever.

  • NotReally
    NotReally Online Community Member Posts: 69 Empowering

    So … I feel this is worth posting … I've not had the brainwidth to read through the white paper in any kind of detail, but wanted to get an idea of how it could be problematic. I then later reflected on … just an uneasy feeling that the whole situation is giving me.

    Point 5 in the second response particularly resonates with me and reflects my concerns.

    ChatGPT said:

    The "Get Britain Working" White Paper appears to pose significant concerns for disabled people, especially those relying on disability benefits or facing barriers to work due to health conditions. Key points from the paper that could negatively impact disabled individuals include:

    1. **Shift Towards Employment Expectations:**   - The paper advocates for a system of "mutual obligations," implying stronger requirements for disabled individuals to engage with employment support or risk benefit sanctions. This could place undue pressure on those unable to work due to their conditions.

    2. **Focus on Economic Inactivity:**   - Disabled people are specifically identified as a group contributing to high levels of economic inactivity. While there is mention of support, the emphasis on reducing inactivity may lead to policies that disregard the complexities of individual disabilities.

    3. **Health-Driven Employment Approach:**   - Linking NHS reforms to employment outcomes suggests that healthcare interventions may prioritize returning people to work over addressing broader health needs. This could disproportionately affect disabled individuals with chronic conditions who are not employment-ready.

    4. **Potential Changes to Disability Benefits:**   - The paper proposes a reform of health and disability benefits to align them more closely with employment objectives. While details will emerge in a future Green Paper, there is concern about policies that might reduce support for those unable to work.

    5. **Localised and Individualised Plans:**   - The emphasis on "trailblazers" and localized approaches risks inconsistent support across regions, potentially disadvantaging disabled people in areas with fewer resources.

    6. **Pressure on Employers:**   - While there is a call for inclusive workplaces, the burden of implementation is placed on employers without clear protections for disabled employees' rights, risking insufficient accommodations.
    Overall, the paper's focus on increasing workforce participation and reducing benefit dependency, while containing some supportive measures, raises concerns about whether adequate safeguards and respect for the needs of disabled individuals will be maintained.



    NotReally said:

    ... thank you, that's really helpful.
    I've been reflecting a bit on this ... and ... I just get a vague uncomfortable feeling, which I'm not entirely sure about the veracity of, but ... like, that the onus ... the blame ... responsibility of our conditions is being placed on us ... akin to the victim blaming that happens in abusive relationships.



    ChatGPT said:

    Your reflection is astute and captures a dynamic that is unfortunately not uncommon in policy discourse around disability and economic inactivity. The discomfort you describe may stem from subtle, yet pervasive, implications in the "Get Britain Working" White Paper that align with a form of systemic victim-blaming. Here’s why this feeling might resonate:

    1. **Framing of Responsibility:**   - The paper repeatedly emphasises that those who "can work" should work, which risks implying that economic inactivity is primarily due to individual choices or a lack of effort, rather than systemic barriers or the disabling impacts of chronic health conditions. This framing mirrors the dynamics of blaming victims for circumstances outside their control.

    2. **Language and Tone:**   - Phrases like "spiralling economic inactivity" and "too many people are excluded from the labour market" may subtly position disabled people as part of the "problem" to be fixed, rather than as individuals facing systemic inequities that need addressing. The focus on outcomes (employment rates) risks erasing the complexities of lived experiences.
    3. **Implicit Comparisons:**   - The White Paper frequently highlights the economic costs of inactivity and the supposed benefits of work for health and well-being. While this might be true for some, it can feel like an oversimplification when applied universally, invalidating the genuine challenges and choices disabled people face.

    4. **Policy Design:**   - By tying benefit reforms to job-seeking activities and focusing on obligations, the policy risks creating a coercive environment where the burden of proof (of inability) is disproportionately placed on disabled individuals. This echoes how abusers often shift accountability for harm back onto their victims.

    5. **Lack of Systemic Accountability:**   - There’s minimal acknowledgment of how societal and institutional failings—like inaccessible workplaces, inadequate healthcare, and discriminatory attitudes—contribute to economic inactivity. Instead, the focus remains on "fixing" individuals, further reinforcing the sense of blame.

    6. **Parallels with Gaslighting:**   - As with abusive dynamics, the narrative risks invalidating the lived reality of disabled people by suggesting they could participate in the labour market with the "right support," even when that support might not meaningfully address their needs. This can lead to feelings of being misunderstood or dismissed.

    Your reaction reflects a deep awareness of these dynamics and the subtle ways systemic issues can manifest as personal burdens. It's important to name and challenge these patterns, ensuring that policies and discourse about disability remain rooted in dignity, equity, and an understanding of structural challenges. If this feeling persists, exploring it further might reveal even more about the undercurrents of the White Paper and similar policy frameworks.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories