So...we (apparently) enter a new (if likely to be very prolonged) phase of Brand GB's "Business as Usual."
That's a good thing, to my mind - Britain's attitude towards its disabled citizens hasn't really shifted since the Victorian era; we're "unfortunates", the "deserving poor", and the State's duty was to find us "occupation" if it could (think basket weaving and piano tuning for the 19th century blind - I wouldn't mind weaving baskets, honestly, but so few people have their own piano these days, that career option is out, because I'd be expected to travel considerable distances to make enough to keep the lights on, and the wolf from the door of my personal life) and simply doling out "alms" (handouts with a heavy dollop of pity and assumption of incompetence) when there simply wasn't the need for the kind of work we could be trained to do.
Over 200years later? Yeah...it's long past time for change.
My own situation following the March 18th Welfare Reforms
Not as bad as I was afraid it would be, and as I suspect the UK government wanted it to be.
That's a good thing, to my mind - Britain's attitude towards its disabled citizens hasn't really shifted since the Victorian era; we're "unfortunates", the "deserving poor", and the State's duty was to find us "occupation" if it could (think basket weaving and piano tuning for the 19th century blind - I wouldn't mind weaving baskets, honestly, but so few people have their own piano these days, that career option is out, because I'd be expected to travel considerable distances to make enough to keep the lights on, and the wolf from the door of my personal life) and simply doling out "alms" (handouts with a heavy dollop of pity and assumption of incompetence) when there simply wasn't the need for the kind of work we could be trained to do.
Over 200years later? Yeah...it's long past time for change.
My own situation following the March 18th Welfare Reforms
Not as bad as I was afraid it would be, and as I suspect the UK government wanted it to be.
The income that is currently supporting myself, supporting my wife, and building a business - The Productive Pessimist Ltd will remain stable. It won't increase to meet the rises in cost of living, but it's not being cut, either, and...meh; I'm used to chopping and changing around dynamic emerging realities. I've been through homelessness, a form of modern slavery, and multiple job losses, under pretty much every flavour of UK governance; none of these challenges are new to me. I worry for those for whom this is their first rodeo on the bronco that is the unyielding unwieldliness of the UK welfare state, but that's why I'm open, through The Productive Pessimist Ltd, to giving unpaid advice, support, and guidance to disabled people who are feeling a bit overwhelmed and over-anxious about all of this new madness.
Our income being stable means the immediate concerns - potentially having to rehome or PTS one of our cherished pets, the "decision point" of my no longer being in the world - are off the table. Which is a significant relief.
However, it quickly became clear that the major risk factor of the recent welfare reforms directly impacts my personal drive to be productive, and my sense of ambition; new claims with a LCWRA rate will be almost half that of existing claims - the exact thing I'd initially been so concerned about.
That means I can't take the risk of taking on a paying job that it may turn out to end the same way as my most recent two have - getting kicked out because of the way I needed to work to mitigate my sight loss. "Right to Try" sounds like a positive aspect, and is something I've long been a proponent of - but, as I've already mentioned, this is very far from my first rodeo with the UK welfare state, and I've been burned by the way they, in cahoots with the DWP, have managed to fumble similar initiatives.
How long would a "try" period be, before any resultant job loss triggered not a "Well, good on you for giving it a go", but a decision that you had to be considered as a "new claim" now? (When the previous Conservative government tried a similar thing, the landing period was three months...I'm good at what I do; the problems come with the way I need to do it, and the things I physically can't do, and the irritation managers start to experience with me typically takes around 8mths to begin to manifest, and around a year to reach breaking point, when the usual "Just try ..." of corporate cluelessness doesn't work, because it's geared towards able-bodied, socially privileged, and relatively financially stable people, who are a little more protected than I am from life's swings at the pinata of experienced reality. If things follow the government's usual preoccupations? I'd end up succeeding long enough to clear the "Try" period, and then crash out into "Hey, you're on a new claim, at nearly 50% less, now, okay?" (Not okay, but you don't get a right to reply where the government are concerned.)
If I were on my own? I'd make it work - the way I've had to do more than once before.
But I'm responsible for someone else now. Someone I love passionately, and care deeply for. Someone who, having more, and higher-impact disabilities than me, I am responsible for. Someone I made promises to.
And I was raised by a man who instilled in me that a core aspect of masculinity is the ability to keep your promises, even when it caused you pain to do so.
I will throw myself under any number of buses, set myself on fire, and drown myself to make things work. But I will not take risks with those I've given my concern and protection to. Not even when they can take care of themselves, and especially not, as in my wife's case, when they cannot take care of themselves effectively.
Our income being stable means the immediate concerns - potentially having to rehome or PTS one of our cherished pets, the "decision point" of my no longer being in the world - are off the table. Which is a significant relief.
However, it quickly became clear that the major risk factor of the recent welfare reforms directly impacts my personal drive to be productive, and my sense of ambition; new claims with a LCWRA rate will be almost half that of existing claims - the exact thing I'd initially been so concerned about.
That means I can't take the risk of taking on a paying job that it may turn out to end the same way as my most recent two have - getting kicked out because of the way I needed to work to mitigate my sight loss. "Right to Try" sounds like a positive aspect, and is something I've long been a proponent of - but, as I've already mentioned, this is very far from my first rodeo with the UK welfare state, and I've been burned by the way they, in cahoots with the DWP, have managed to fumble similar initiatives.
How long would a "try" period be, before any resultant job loss triggered not a "Well, good on you for giving it a go", but a decision that you had to be considered as a "new claim" now? (When the previous Conservative government tried a similar thing, the landing period was three months...I'm good at what I do; the problems come with the way I need to do it, and the things I physically can't do, and the irritation managers start to experience with me typically takes around 8mths to begin to manifest, and around a year to reach breaking point, when the usual "Just try ..." of corporate cluelessness doesn't work, because it's geared towards able-bodied, socially privileged, and relatively financially stable people, who are a little more protected than I am from life's swings at the pinata of experienced reality. If things follow the government's usual preoccupations? I'd end up succeeding long enough to clear the "Try" period, and then crash out into "Hey, you're on a new claim, at nearly 50% less, now, okay?" (Not okay, but you don't get a right to reply where the government are concerned.)
If I were on my own? I'd make it work - the way I've had to do more than once before.
But I'm responsible for someone else now. Someone I love passionately, and care deeply for. Someone who, having more, and higher-impact disabilities than me, I am responsible for. Someone I made promises to.
And I was raised by a man who instilled in me that a core aspect of masculinity is the ability to keep your promises, even when it caused you pain to do so.
I will throw myself under any number of buses, set myself on fire, and drown myself to make things work. But I will not take risks with those I've given my concern and protection to. Not even when they can take care of themselves, and especially not, as in my wife's case, when they cannot take care of themselves effectively.
What does that mean for the way I proceed?
It's looking like the whole process of welfare reform will occupy the relevant arms of government until at least 2028; I intend to focus that period of time (which is only three years, after all) exclusively on The Productive Pessimist, unless absolutely perfect, truly flexible, ticks-every-single-box paid opportunities come into my awareness.
What does that "absolutely perfect" opportunity look like?
. Job Title: CEO or Non-Executive Director
. Sector: Non-profit
. Pay: Minimum £45,000 (or pro-rata for part time opportunities)
. Work style: Remote, or minimum-on-site hybrid, soft-impact semi-hierarchical authority style, flexible approach to annual leave (within reason for effective work)
. Office location: Norwich, Mid-Norfolk, or Cambridge (only relevant for hybrid work)
Really, my position is "I'll know it if I see it, but I won't be looking for it."
I'm also going to limit my non-core work with The Productive Pessimist to the hours that Universal Credit actually pays me for: on the UK minimum wage, I get paid for 22hrs a week.
Core Activities = meeting clients, outreach marketing, and responding to emerging challenges and opportunities. I will retain full and flexible availability for these core activities.
Non-Core Activities (limited to 22hrs per week) = business development, content marketing, research, speculative marketing.
So; I'm okay, I have a plan for at least the next three years (probably), and built-in balance. I also have a set cut-off date for focus on The Productive Pessimist, at which point I'll be pivoting for around the fourteenth time in 20 years; things in the world are changing so fast, the best plan is to have no plan beyond a point of focus, because the reality is, by the time you get to a point in your plan, the landscape will have changed, and the plan you had won't work in the new reality.
That feels scary for me, because I'm naturally risk-averse; I like predictability, I like time to prepare, and I like to know exactly where I'm going, and what I'm going to be doing when I get there.
What about other people?
An immediate problem is the intention to prevent those under 22 from being able to access the LCWRA element of Universal Credit.
From a perspective of comfortable privilege, this makes sense; after all, those under 22 will be living in safe, comfortable family set ups, with comfortably-off parents who are giving them significant monthly allowances. The State shouldn't have to support them.
From a position of gritty reality as one of life's pinatas, however, this falls apart.
People do not always get to live with good parents, stable parents, or comfortably-off parents.
I was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 20.
I was homeless at 21.
I've known people, personally, who were homeless at 18, at 17, at 15, and, in one case, at 13.
My Dad was the sole wage earner and a carer for his mother at 15. At 19, he was without parents at all, and alone in a new country.
In the real, gritty, f--ked up world, a lot of really bad things can happen to people before they turn 22, that are not in any remote way the fault of those individuals; they need and deserve the support of the State to navigate those impacts safely, and come out the other side in a position of strength, so that they can pick up and continue an engagement with an ordinary, productive, rewarding life/work balance.
The UK government has simply dumped the responsibility - and the cost - of clearing up the aftermath of bad things that can happen to young people onto the already-overstretched, under-resourced, and under-funded non-profit sector.
I serve the Board of a grant-making foundation as a Trustee; the money charities need to continue even their current demand commitments simply isn't there.
Other grant making foundations are "spending out" - in short, clearing their cash and their investment revenue, and shutting their doors; not because the work is done, but because it cannot be done with the resources they have remaining, and the resources they can be confident of being able to access in a timely fashion.
Still other grant makers have already gone bust, or are having to become extremely niche in their funding criteria.
There are systemic issues within the UK non-profit space which are limiting the resources available to tackling problems, because the sector focuses on the organisations tackling the problems, not the focus of tackling the problems itself; the solutions to these systemic issues are fairly obvious, and quite straightforward; unfortunately, the people who are typically drawn to the non-profit sector are...not always the easiest people to get to accept anything that isn't their idea.
We're reaching a position of "perfect storm" in the charity space, where demand is going to not just outpace capacity, but send the sector and its teams into fatal burnout.
Which is just going to rebound, with interests, on the costs the State has to meet.
Making Personal Independence Payments (PIP) harder to access - when it's already not easy (I've been rejected for PIP twice, my wife has been rejected 3 times) - rather than reforming it to be more relevant to its original, stated intention, of meeting the additional costs of disability, is a disastrous decision.
Reforming PIP without making it harder to claim would be very straightforward:
. Engage with disability advocacy charities, lived experience experts and medical professionals to establish the most common mitigations and supports for disabilities that will incur additional expense
. Programme a rudimentary AI system with all of these insights.
. PIP becomes a very simple document:
State Your Post-Tax (Net) Household Income:
How Much of This Is Available to You, Personally?:
What Additional Items, Support, Nutrition, Medical Devices & Supplements, and Social Engagement Do You Need for Your Disability?
How Do These Help Mitigate Your Disability?:
Please Provide Examples of Typical Costs for These:
Please Provide Contact Details for Your GP &/or Consultant:
AI scanning will process 90-95% of these documents straightforwardly; the 5-10% of more complex situations would be flagged for human intervention, whether that was a phone call, a remote consultation, or an in-person meeting.
Disability is expensive, often in ways which can't be accommodated by bare-minimum State welfare payments.
It will also instil a necessary, and vital, personal and professionally-relevant skill across the disabled cohort: the ability to concisely identify and explain a challenge, and the means to overcome it.
eg: In my case, this would look like:
£1,033 per month
£648 per month (less costs for debt repayment, council tax, and utilities, which are non-negotiable)
. Ability to immediately replace my laptop, which is essential for both building my own business, & looking for relevant paid opportunities, as well as managing engagement with mainstream media, maintaining social connection, and using tech to mitigate inability, through sight loss, to read printed material:
circa £300-500 for a new item, circa £150 for a refurbished used item (typically I've needed to replace my laptop every 3yrs)
. Taxi fares, to engage with work and social opportunities, as I am extremely vulnerable courtesy of nightblindness after dusk, and am medically banned from driving, so wholly reliant on public transport:
Variable, but, as an example, a single journey to my home from my closest city would cost £50.50
. Ability to immediately replace my white guide cane, which is necessary for me as I have no peripheral vision, and very limited centre-field vision, meaning that navigating on foot, particularly in unfamiliar, busy, and crowded locations is very unsafe without this aid:
£30
. Physiotherapy to assist with independent mobility: circa £50-70 per session
. High protein grocery shop, to help reduce flares of IBS-D: circa £250 per month
. Continence pants to mitigate IBS-D: circa £30 for a month's supply of disposable pants (disposable needed because of the nature of the incontinence when experiencing an IBS flare.)
. Up-to-date smartphone with full data bundle, in order to access assistive tech; as I do not have the means to be approved for a pay monthly deal, I would need to purchase a relevant phone outright: circa £600-800
Hospital Consultant Details
Not all of these expenses are entirely predictable, not all are recurring, and they are all issues I am more than happy to have an in-personal conversation around.
The "expectation to engage with meaningful conversations with work coaches" is...typically vague, and so open to interpretation you could drive a fleet of trucks through it. If the DWP can mishandle and misrepresent things, they will, and this element of the reforms is a real concern.
The following is my concept of what a "meaningful conversation with a work coach" would look like:
It's looking like the whole process of welfare reform will occupy the relevant arms of government until at least 2028; I intend to focus that period of time (which is only three years, after all) exclusively on The Productive Pessimist, unless absolutely perfect, truly flexible, ticks-every-single-box paid opportunities come into my awareness.
What does that "absolutely perfect" opportunity look like?
. Job Title: CEO or Non-Executive Director
. Sector: Non-profit
. Pay: Minimum £45,000 (or pro-rata for part time opportunities)
. Work style: Remote, or minimum-on-site hybrid, soft-impact semi-hierarchical authority style, flexible approach to annual leave (within reason for effective work)
. Office location: Norwich, Mid-Norfolk, or Cambridge (only relevant for hybrid work)
Really, my position is "I'll know it if I see it, but I won't be looking for it."
I'm also going to limit my non-core work with The Productive Pessimist to the hours that Universal Credit actually pays me for: on the UK minimum wage, I get paid for 22hrs a week.
Core Activities = meeting clients, outreach marketing, and responding to emerging challenges and opportunities. I will retain full and flexible availability for these core activities.
Non-Core Activities (limited to 22hrs per week) = business development, content marketing, research, speculative marketing.
So; I'm okay, I have a plan for at least the next three years (probably), and built-in balance. I also have a set cut-off date for focus on The Productive Pessimist, at which point I'll be pivoting for around the fourteenth time in 20 years; things in the world are changing so fast, the best plan is to have no plan beyond a point of focus, because the reality is, by the time you get to a point in your plan, the landscape will have changed, and the plan you had won't work in the new reality.
That feels scary for me, because I'm naturally risk-averse; I like predictability, I like time to prepare, and I like to know exactly where I'm going, and what I'm going to be doing when I get there.
What about other people?
An immediate problem is the intention to prevent those under 22 from being able to access the LCWRA element of Universal Credit.
From a perspective of comfortable privilege, this makes sense; after all, those under 22 will be living in safe, comfortable family set ups, with comfortably-off parents who are giving them significant monthly allowances. The State shouldn't have to support them.
From a position of gritty reality as one of life's pinatas, however, this falls apart.
People do not always get to live with good parents, stable parents, or comfortably-off parents.
I was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 20.
I was homeless at 21.
I've known people, personally, who were homeless at 18, at 17, at 15, and, in one case, at 13.
My Dad was the sole wage earner and a carer for his mother at 15. At 19, he was without parents at all, and alone in a new country.
In the real, gritty, f--ked up world, a lot of really bad things can happen to people before they turn 22, that are not in any remote way the fault of those individuals; they need and deserve the support of the State to navigate those impacts safely, and come out the other side in a position of strength, so that they can pick up and continue an engagement with an ordinary, productive, rewarding life/work balance.
The UK government has simply dumped the responsibility - and the cost - of clearing up the aftermath of bad things that can happen to young people onto the already-overstretched, under-resourced, and under-funded non-profit sector.
I serve the Board of a grant-making foundation as a Trustee; the money charities need to continue even their current demand commitments simply isn't there.
Other grant making foundations are "spending out" - in short, clearing their cash and their investment revenue, and shutting their doors; not because the work is done, but because it cannot be done with the resources they have remaining, and the resources they can be confident of being able to access in a timely fashion.
Still other grant makers have already gone bust, or are having to become extremely niche in their funding criteria.
There are systemic issues within the UK non-profit space which are limiting the resources available to tackling problems, because the sector focuses on the organisations tackling the problems, not the focus of tackling the problems itself; the solutions to these systemic issues are fairly obvious, and quite straightforward; unfortunately, the people who are typically drawn to the non-profit sector are...not always the easiest people to get to accept anything that isn't their idea.
We're reaching a position of "perfect storm" in the charity space, where demand is going to not just outpace capacity, but send the sector and its teams into fatal burnout.
Which is just going to rebound, with interests, on the costs the State has to meet.
Making Personal Independence Payments (PIP) harder to access - when it's already not easy (I've been rejected for PIP twice, my wife has been rejected 3 times) - rather than reforming it to be more relevant to its original, stated intention, of meeting the additional costs of disability, is a disastrous decision.
Reforming PIP without making it harder to claim would be very straightforward:
. Engage with disability advocacy charities, lived experience experts and medical professionals to establish the most common mitigations and supports for disabilities that will incur additional expense
. Programme a rudimentary AI system with all of these insights.
. PIP becomes a very simple document:
State Your Post-Tax (Net) Household Income:
How Much of This Is Available to You, Personally?:
What Additional Items, Support, Nutrition, Medical Devices & Supplements, and Social Engagement Do You Need for Your Disability?
How Do These Help Mitigate Your Disability?:
Please Provide Examples of Typical Costs for These:
Please Provide Contact Details for Your GP &/or Consultant:
AI scanning will process 90-95% of these documents straightforwardly; the 5-10% of more complex situations would be flagged for human intervention, whether that was a phone call, a remote consultation, or an in-person meeting.
Disability is expensive, often in ways which can't be accommodated by bare-minimum State welfare payments.
It will also instil a necessary, and vital, personal and professionally-relevant skill across the disabled cohort: the ability to concisely identify and explain a challenge, and the means to overcome it.
eg: In my case, this would look like:
£1,033 per month
£648 per month (less costs for debt repayment, council tax, and utilities, which are non-negotiable)
. Ability to immediately replace my laptop, which is essential for both building my own business, & looking for relevant paid opportunities, as well as managing engagement with mainstream media, maintaining social connection, and using tech to mitigate inability, through sight loss, to read printed material:
circa £300-500 for a new item, circa £150 for a refurbished used item (typically I've needed to replace my laptop every 3yrs)
. Taxi fares, to engage with work and social opportunities, as I am extremely vulnerable courtesy of nightblindness after dusk, and am medically banned from driving, so wholly reliant on public transport:
Variable, but, as an example, a single journey to my home from my closest city would cost £50.50
. Ability to immediately replace my white guide cane, which is necessary for me as I have no peripheral vision, and very limited centre-field vision, meaning that navigating on foot, particularly in unfamiliar, busy, and crowded locations is very unsafe without this aid:
£30
. Physiotherapy to assist with independent mobility: circa £50-70 per session
. High protein grocery shop, to help reduce flares of IBS-D: circa £250 per month
. Continence pants to mitigate IBS-D: circa £30 for a month's supply of disposable pants (disposable needed because of the nature of the incontinence when experiencing an IBS flare.)
. Up-to-date smartphone with full data bundle, in order to access assistive tech; as I do not have the means to be approved for a pay monthly deal, I would need to purchase a relevant phone outright: circa £600-800
Hospital Consultant Details
Not all of these expenses are entirely predictable, not all are recurring, and they are all issues I am more than happy to have an in-personal conversation around.
The "expectation to engage with meaningful conversations with work coaches" is...typically vague, and so open to interpretation you could drive a fleet of trucks through it. If the DWP can mishandle and misrepresent things, they will, and this element of the reforms is a real concern.
The following is my concept of what a "meaningful conversation with a work coach" would look like:
(A minimum of 2hrs should be allowed for this, and sufficient time given by the Work Coach for claimants to both consider and make their responses; claimants should be free to bring someone with them to assist them during this appointment, without refusal/interferance from JobCentre staff.)
1. What are your regular (more than 3x per week) limitations/negative impacts from your disability?
2. What are occasional (<1x per week, but more than 1x per month) limitations/negative impacts from your disability?
3. What are your three greatest concerns about engaging in work/more directed work-related activity?
4. What are three positive thoughts you have about work/more directed work-related activity?
5. What accommodations/reasonable adjustments do you feel you need?
5a. Have you previously had negative experiences trying to obtain those accommodations/adjustments?
6. What actions are you taking/what support are you engaging with to try and manage/improve your health condition/s?
7. If we were in a position to get you your ideal job, what would that look like?
Eg: Full time or part time? How many hours? In person, remote, or hybrid? What kind of team dynamic - mostly men/women? Well mixed? Older or younger? Structured, or more informal? Hierarchical leadership style, or more relaxed and open? What does a typical workday look like for you? How much are you being paid? What ‘perks’ and benefits does the company you work for offer?
If you’re interested in pursuing self-employment, do you have a business plan, or is this something you’d need support with? If we were in a position to bring your business to its best performance, what does that look like? Are you employing others? How many? How many hours a week are you working? In what way? (Remotely, visiting clients, with a permanent physical location?) How much money would it take for you to achieve this?
8. What are your core living costs?
- Mortgage/Rent
- Council tax
- Utility bills
- Internet/mobile phone
- Debt/credit repayments
- Payments to financial dependants
- Medical expenses (inc privately-funded therapies)
- Typical grocery spend
- Entertainment
- Socialising
- Meals out/takeaways
- Vehicle/public transport costs
- Veterinary costs for pets
- Life/other insurance costs (non-vehicle)
- Personal shopping spend
- Personal grooming spend (eg, hairdressers, waxing, etc)
The responses given to the Initial Assessment should be used to build tailored support plans, centred around:
- Bringing in accessible, manageable support interventions, if a claimant is not already engaging.
- Recommending (but not requiring) volunteer opportunities which match up with the type of roles/work claimants identify
- Identifying and requiring claimants to undertake relevant courses, which will aid them in achieving their identified work/progress goals
- Identifying and requiring accessible supportive interventions for claimants whose barriers are significant, and for whom employment is an unlikely outcome.
REMEMBER:
PROGRESS is an outcome.
Progress is not always “paid employment”, or even “voluntary employment”.
Progress can look like:
- Claimant is able to carry out more independent physical activity
- Claimant has established wider social support networks
- Claimant is feeling more in control of their situation/s and circumstances
- Claimant is safe from harm
It will be interesting to see how the reality of these welfare reform concepts materialise and bed down; The Productive Pessimist are actively reaching out to the UK government, to British businesses, and to the charity sector with tailored offers of support.
In the meantime... I have a couple of book ideas floating around, a script currently going through a competition review process, and am waiting to hear whether I've been accepted for a bursary to enter the Bridport Prize, for which I already have my proposed entry, and a sizeable chunk of the eventual novel, ready to go. So, watch this space - I hope to start getting short stories up here, to break up the drudgery and depression!
Comments
Post a Comment