Unemployed told to do 4 weeks of unpaid work or lose benefits

The unemployed will be ordered to do periods of compulsory full-time work in the community or be stripped of their benefits under controversial American-style plans to slash the number of people without jobs.

The proposals, in a white paper on welfare reform to be unveiled this week, are part of a radical government agenda aimed at cutting the £190bn-a-year welfare bill and breaking what the coalition now calls the "habit of worklessness".

The measures will be announced to parliament by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, as part of what he will describe as a new "contract" with the 1.4 million people on jobseekers' allowance. The government's side of the bargain will be the promise of a new "universal credit", to replace all existing benefits, that will ensure it always pays to work rather than stay on welfare.

In return, where advisers believe a jobseeker would benefit from experiencing the "habits and routines" of working life, an unemployed person will be told to take up "mandatory work activity" of at least 30 hours a week for a four-week period. If they refuse or fail to complete the programme their jobseeker's allowance payments, currently £50.95 a week for those under 25 and £64.30 for those over 25, could be stopped for at least three months.

The Department for Work and Pensions plans to contract private providers to organise the placements with charities, voluntary organisations and companies. An insider close to the discussions said: "We know there are still some jobseekers who need an extra push to get them into the mindset of being in the working environment and an opportunity to experience that environment.

"This is all about getting them back into a working routine which, in turn, makes them a much more appealing prospect for an employer looking to fill a vacancy, and more confident when they enter the workplace. The goal is to break into the habit of worklessness."

Sanctions – including removal of benefit – currently exist if people refuse to go on training courses or fail to turn up to job interviews, but they are rarely used.

The plans stop short of systems used in the US since the 1990s under which benefits can be "time limited", meaning all payments end after a defined period. But they draw heavily on American attempts to change public attitudes to welfare and to change the perception that welfare is an option for life.

Last night the shadow work and pensions secretary, Douglas Alexander, suggested government policy on job creation was reducing people's chances of finding work: "The Tories have just abolished the future jobs fund, which offered real work and real hope to young people. If you examine the spending review then changes such as cuts to working tax credit are actually removing incentives to get people into work. What they don't seem to get about their welfare agenda is that without work it won't work."

Anne Begg, Labour MP and chair of the Commons select committee for work and pensions, said that many unemployed people already had a work record and carrying out work experience would give them less time to search for a job. "The problem is finding a job," she added. "One of the reasons the last government moved away from work placements and towards things such as the Future Jobs Fund was that it actually acted as a hindrance to them looking for work."

The Observer has also learned that ministers have abolished the Social Exclusion Taskforce, which was based in the Cabinet Office and co-ordinated activity across departments to drive out marginalisation in society. Documents show that the unit has become a part of "Big Society, Policy and Analysis".

Jon Trickett, a shadow minister focusing on social exclusion, reacted angrily, saying that ministers should "hang their heads in shame". Whitehall sources insisted the work would carry on, but more of it would take place in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Naomi Eisenstadt, who was director of the taskforce until last year and is now an academic at Oxford University, said the shift was worrying. "I don't think it is significant in terms of the name – call it a banana – who cares? What does worry me is why they are not using the civil servants who were doing the work on deep disadvantage in the Cabinet Office and exploiting their expertise," she said.

Eisenstadt added that it would be a concern if the government believed the "big society" could take the place of government intervention. "If you speak to any minister I am sure they would agree that civil society is one part of the solution, but not the whole solution," she said.

The proposals come as the government prepares to unveil policy plans across a number of departments.

Tomorrow, the Ministry of Justice will reveal that thousands of criminals with serious mental illnesses or drug addictions will no longer be sent to prison but will instead be offered "voluntary" treatment in hospital. Documents will show that offenders will be free to walk away from NHS units because officials believe it would be pointless to create duplicate prisons in the community. "While treatment is voluntary, offenders in these programmes will be expected to engage, be motivated to change and to comply with the tough requirements of their community order," they will say.

Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, said: "Serious criminals who pose a threat to the public will always be kept locked up, but in every prison there are also people who ought to be receiving treatment for mental illness rather than housed with other criminals. The public would be better protected if they could receive that treatment in a more suitable setting."

Toby Helm and Anushka Asthana @'The Guardian'

Three Records from Sundown and Remembering Five Leaves Left

In two half-hour features exploring the short life and enduring music of Nick Drake, we hear from record producer Joe Boyd and from bassist Danny Thompson, whose playing is a key element of Nick Drake's classic first album.

Three Records from Sundown

Nick Drake was an English songwriter, singer and instrumentalist. At the time of his death, at the age of 26 in 1974, his three albums had sold poorly and he was little known. Nick Drake's darkly lyrical songs have since found their audience and he's now regarded as an influential musical figure. In Three Records from Sundown, Charles Maynes traces the Nick Drake tale through interviews with legendary producer Joe Boyd, who championed the young artist and produced his first two records.

Producer and narrator: Charles Maynes

AND

Remembering Five Leaves Left: Danny Thompson on Nick Drake

In 1968, Danny Thompson was an in-demand bassist on the London jazz scene when he got the call from producer Joe Boyd to play on the first album by the 20-year-old songwriter Nick Drake. In conversation with Robyn Johnston, Danny recalls the recording session for Five Leaves Left and tells of encounters with a fine and fragile young musician.

Producers: Robyn Johnston and David Le May

Sound engineer: David Le May

Originally broadcast on Radio National's Into The Music

23rd October 2010

HERE

♪♫ Soom T & Sakuray Kyo - What About Us?

Home beatboxing session, during the Jahtari Japan tour, Tokyo Feb 2010

HA!

Oklahoma voters may have accidentally outlawed the 10 Commandments

♪♫ Swans - I Crawled (Live @ Supersonic)

Saluti a...

Octopus Paul II

WTF???

Beck ‘fantasizes’ about Obama getting ‘beheaded’ in India

Gram Parsons interviewed by Michael Bates (Audio 1973)

HERE

Gram Parsons on Cosmic American Music, Keef, The Byrds, The Burritos and how Waylon Jennings had to walk around the block to smoke a joint when being produced by Chet Atkins amongst many other things...

'Doodleflute' and other pervy little stories made entirely from children's book titles

@'Once Upon A Title'

Ethical Reporters Against Faux News ‎

"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over." - Hunter S. Thompson
HERE
(Thanx Bodhi!) 

The only person connected with Manchester Utd. that I will listen to...

(Thanx A North Country Bhoy!)

♪♫ William Shatner - Fuck You

'Big society' must be rooted in altruism

There could be no better example of the coalition government's contradictory ambitions than news that councils, desperate to deliver David Cameron's "big society", are planning to offer supermarket-style reward points to goad people into being good citizens. But, why is that so bad?
Behaviour expressive of certain values tends to form a self-reinforcing loop. Hence, appealing to self-seeking, materialistic gain, makes people less likely to be communally and altruistically motivated. Conversely, being involved in a collective enterprise tends to make us less self-absorbed and more likely to be positively inclined to take part in a "big society". For example, it was the experience of "national unity" during war time, writes the historian Paul Addison, that laid the cultural and political foundations to build a more caring society fit for returning heroes after 1945.
In short, appeal to self-interested individualism and you will get self-interested individuals. Emphasise the intrinsic and mutual benefits of common endeavour and you will begin to grow a nation where people are more inclined to look out for each other.
Effectively paying people to be good citizens can also directly backfire. A classic study looked at the results of different approaches to blood donation in the UK, where people volunteer and in the United States where they got paid. In the US, research by the rightwing Institute of Economic Affairs theorised that paying donors was the way to increase supply. Subsequent analysis by Richard Titmuss found the opposite. Not only did more people give blood when it was unpaid, but that voluntarily donated blood was of a higher quality.
The financial incentive increased dishonesty among donors who lied more often about their health conditions. Titmuss concluded: "Commercialisation of blood and donor relationships represses the expression of altruism." It was a classic and common error. Think of how you feel when good friend invites you to dinner. Now imagine how you would feel if the same friend offered to pay you to go to dinner with them? Relationships nurtured by open gift giving and reciprocity differ from commercial ones. It's the difference between a loving relationship and prostitution.
Economics, too, often boils human relationships down to a caricature of self-interest and competition. In justification, it invokes misappropriated Darwinian notions of "survival of the fittest". But, this misses the equally successful evolutionary strategies of collaboration, symbiosis and co-evolution. Co-operative companies, tellingly, weathered the recession better than others.
The proposed hook-up with commercial, supermarket-based reward cards also appears self-defeating. The point of a big society is an active, engaged citizenry. But research on the impact of big stores on communities shows that their dominant presence can reduce voter turnout. They do so by unweaving the tighter social fabric that grows in more diverse economies. As more of every pound spent by shoppers stays locally if the shops are locally owned and operated, encouraging the opposite will drain not invigorate a big society. It gets more personal, too. Because of their socially alienating store formats, large chain stores even reduce the number of conversations people have while shopping, further dissolving the social glue.
Yet, a further worry might be the disturbing potential for data convergence that would occur once the enormous power of commercial store cards are combined with the personal and other information that government authorities hold on people.
I think it is far more likely that people don't vote with their feet to build the big society due to a lack of time, rather than financial or material incentive.
Recession and chronic public spending cuts are set to hugely stress social cohesion. And, there will be large numbers of people in structural unemployment (probably blamed for their fate) and many, many others working ever longer to stay afloat.
The big society needs more time banks where people swap time and skills, and a shorter working week, underpinned by sufficient safety nets, to create the conditions for a big society. Engaging vastly more people in helping communities to function will not only radically reduce costs (although that is not the reason to do it), it will enormously improve the quality of neighbourhood life, raising individual and communal wellbeing simultaneously. Getting involved ticks all the boxes that the literature tells us really improves life satisfaction: giving, being active, connecting, taking notice and learning. Papers are currently full of politicians and business people encouraging us to shop Britain back to its feet. But if we want the nation to stand up and be a truly big society, it's time that we need to spend with each other, not reward points in supermarkets.

Andrew Simms @'The Guardian"

Unprecedented: Outside Republican Groups Led by Rove Joined Forces to Torch Dems